G&M: The Great Global Warming Collapse

[Smoot Point Really]

This is turning into a classic know-nothing subject.

"I don't understand the science, I don't care what the science actually is, I thought it was a hoax all along by those damn elites who think they are smarter than the rest of us, and dammit, I'm going to call YOU the one motivated by politics because it sure can't be me and my side (even though I have no idea what I'm talking about). I will rely on editorials and blogs for all my information and mock anyone who doesn't."

Ignorance is bliss.

We could easily turn this "say nothing" post on its head in reference to those in support of AGW. For instance, PeterMP continuously asking people to refute 100 year old science as if it has anything to do with the politics and economics of the AGW movement.

It would be great if these scientists hadn't hitched their wagon to a bunch of "ends justify the means" leftists.

I look forward to science not tainted by politics or money, but nobody is innocent on either side here.

[Larry]

For instance, PeterMP continuously asking people to refute 100 year old science as if it has anything to do with the politics and economics of the AGW movement.

:secret:That's because he's discussing the science. It's only "you folks" who think this is politics.

[Larry]

I’m not and never have disputed the greenhouse effect. What I do dispute is that man-made CO2 is the main cause of the current miniscule change in temperature and the catastrophic change predicted in most of these bogus models.

1) I haven't noticed. Has everybody been claiming than man-made CO2 is the main cause? Or that it is a cause?

2) "Miniscule" compared to what?

3) I wasn't aware that everybody was predicting "catastrophic change", either.

95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor.

When hydrocarbons are burned, the reaction produces CO2 and __________?

[alexey]

Those videos have been posted and discussed before. Check any of the hundreds of other global warming threads on here.

Do you think the more you post them in this thread the more accurate they become?

They have been posted, alright, but not discussed. Your attempt to discuss them ended with you saying "there are systems in place to prevent it.", and then magically disappearing after Peter asked you "What systems?"

The more I post them, the more obvious it will become that these videos are not actually being discussed.

Do you dispute anything in them? Do you think they left something out? What?

[NavyDave]

My carbon footprint didn't prevent me from buying another shovel yesterday.

[nonniey]

1) I haven't noticed. Has everybody been claiming than man-made CO2 is the main cause? Or that it is a cause?

2) "Miniscule" compared to what?

3) I wasn't aware that everybody was predicting "catastrophic change", either.

When hydrocarbons are burned, the reaction produces CO2 and __________?

Come on Larry you're usually better than that.

1) Most, no make that virtually all those calling for major policy initiatives to reduce CO2 emmissions, claim that man-made CO2 is the main cause.

2) Miniscule - You'd have to compare current GW to all previous warmings and coolings which I believe are comparable historically, so miniscule is not the correct term for that. However the effects man could have on that change by reducing CO2 emmissions is likely miniscule, and probably a heck of lot less than miniscule.

3) Many have predicted catatrophic change including the leader of the gang, Al Gore.

[alexey]

3) Many have predicted catatrophic change including the leader of the gang, Al Gore.

There are multiple gangs, and Gore is a leader of one of them. Here is, for example, a reporter on the other gang, the science gang, talking about Gore (start of video 1) and his movie (video 4):

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer.../0/52KLGqDSAjo

4 - Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer.../3/N2B34sO7HPM

Please at least watch the first 10 seconds of the first one heh.

[PeterMP]

Come on Larry you're usually better than that.

2) Miniscule - You'd have to compare current GW to all previous warmings and coolings which I believe are comparable historically, so miniscule is not the correct term for that. However the effects man could have on that change by reducing CO2 emmissions is likely miniscule, and probably a heck of lot less than miniscule.

3) Many have predicted catatrophic change including the leader of the gang, Al Gore.

Most other climate changes have clear causes that can be tied to things like the nature of the Earth's orbit, massive volcanic activity, meteor collisions/mass extinctions, etc. All of those things can be ruled out pretty easily so any comparision to them in terms of a mechanism is pointless.

Define catastrophic. Earlier in this thread somebody claimed that people were talking about turning Earth into Venus. Then to support his claim he ended up posting three links, one where somebody that essentially nobody ever heard of and a quick search showed he was tied to some cult did just that and two others where they didn't do what he claimed, but were just talking about studying Venus to learn more about Earth (no claim was made that Earth was on its way to becoming Venus).

Nobody that is seriously part of the discussion from a science or political perspective is talking about catastrophic on that level.

Is increasing the sea level a couple of feet so that a few miles of the US Eastern shore line is under water catastrophic?

[PeterMP]

Is this thread really ending with there is nothing wrong with the underlying science of global warming, but it isn't really concern because one person that says the IPCC might over estimate the effect of CO2, but that person also says warming can be a huge problem and miles of coast line will disppear (assuming our current behavior continues) OR that warming won't happen because of some unknown/unexplained mechanisms?

[Larry]

Is this thread really ending with there is nothing wrong with the underlying science of global warming, but it isn't really concern because one person that says the IPCC might over estimate the effect of CO2, but that person also says warming can be a huge problem and miles of coast line will disppear (assuming our current behavior continues) OR that warming won't happen because of some unknown/unexplained mechanisms?

Probably.

That's the way things go.

Wait three days, then make the same claims, again.

After keeping this up for months, claim that the fact that the same claims have been made every three days for six months proves that they must be true.

[nonniey]

There are multiple gangs, and Gore is a leader of one of them. Here is, for example, a reporter on the other gang, the science gang, talking about Gore (start of video 1) and his movie (video 4):

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

4 - Climate Change -- Gore vs. Durkin

Please at least watch the first 10 seconds of the first one heh.

Now that is the sort of information I like to see. Very informative. Many of us don't dispute gobal warming is occuring,and I am now more inclined to believe man may have had a bigger role. That said cost benefit has always been the most important equation to me. The benefits associated with implementing policies espoused by most of the AGW crowd don't even come close to costs of those policies.

[PeterMP]

Now that is the sort of information I like to see. Very informative. Many of us don't dispute gobal warming is occuring,and I am now more inclined to believe man may have had a bigger role. That said cost benefit has always been the most important equation to me. The benefits associated with implementing policies espoused by most of the AGW crowd don't even come close to costs of those policies.

What are the costs of having a couple of miles of Long Island disappear?

Who's costs analysis?

Some people have a BAD history with such things:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ozone_skeptics.asp

"The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999)."

The acid rain situation in terms of "predicted" costs wasn't any better.

[Skins24]

What are the costs of having a couple of miles of Long Island disappear?

Why always gloomy predictions when it comes to climate change?

Concerning this one:

1. Humans have the ability to prevent that. Easily.

2. Even if we didn't, the Earth would have to blow torch for that to happen any time soon. The rate the sea level is rising is no where near the point where that is even a remote worry. The sea level rise is also not equal everywhere. The sea level along Long Island could decrease for all we know. That prediction was based on Greenland's ice sheet melting. The interior of that ice sheet is thickening. Who says that won't spread?

Anyway, why not happy predictions instead of always the scare tactics?

If global warming were to increase, then that would mean less snow for everyone and after this year, everyone hates the snow right?

If the ice does melt at the rate which they are saying, or if it does increase El Nino events, then that would mean less hurricanes for the Atlantic. Good news! An increase in warming would lead to an increase in rainfall for many places. More farming areas = more food. More vegetation = more CO2 absorbed. Again, good stuff.

[yank]

This is not and has never been about the actual science. It is part and parcel of the world socialist religion where certain individuals (eg Al Gore) reap the benefits from the mass movement of wealth from the developed nations to the non-developed nations in the guise of "justice." Reparations from the developed nations (read U.S.) for increasing the temperatures in third world lands are bought and sold as "carbon credits" via money changers led by the socialist leadership personified by Al Gore just as indugences were bought in the middle ages.

The science only had to be good enough to pass the sniff test to do the trick. The catastrophic panic took hold and in no time the science part of the scam was defined as "settled" (which is an oxymoronic term in itself) and was to be in the rear view mirror as fast as possible so as not to be examined closely by too many. Funding was plentiful for those who chanted the politically correct mantras; ostracism from the "scientific process" was plentiful for those who didnt. Stalinism was never practiced so well on such a grand scale.

The history of the global wealth transfer scheme based on the global warming ruse is well documented here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm

[PeterMP]

Why always gloomy predictions when it comes to climate change?

Concerning this one:

1. Humans have the ability to prevent that. Easily.

2. Even if we didn't, the Earth would have to blow torch for that to happen any time soon. The rate the sea level is rising is no where near the point where that is even a remote worry. The sea level rise is also not equal everywhere. The sea level along Long Island could decrease for all we know. That prediction was based on Greenland's ice sheet melting. The interior of that ice sheet is thickening. Who says that won't spread?

Anyway, why not happy predictions instead of always the scare tactics?

If global warming were to increase, then that would mean less snow for everyone and after this year, everyone hates the snow right?

If the ice does melt at which they are saying, or if it does increase El Nino events, then that would mean less hurricanes for the Atlantic. Good news! An increase in warming would lead to an increase in rainfall for many places. More farming areas = more food. More vegetation = more CO2 absorbed. Again, good stuff.

Well, it was a prediction made by somebody that a "skeptic" posted the work of as being proof that the human role in climate change wasn't a big deal. It seemed like a reasonable example as it based on a quote from the work of a person supported by a "skeptic" in this thread.

How do you stop sea levels from rising several feet? What is the cost?

Yes, sea level rise isn't uniform, and it is possible that it could go down in any particular place, but that just means you've shifted that water to somewhere else so in a net situation, it doesn't help.

Greenland ice sheets have decreased substantially over the last 20+ years. During that time there have been local time increases, including the last ~2 years or so, but unless you reject the vast majority of the science in the field there is no reason to believe that will form any sort of a long term trend.

El Nino is tied to more hurricanes not fewer.

Farming requires more than water. You could substantially increase the rain in the Sarah desert, you'd still not be able to grow much there any time soon. In addition, most crop plants aren't limited by CO2, which is why irrigate and fertilize, but don't put out CO2 generators.

Again, generally, our society can be thought of as an evolutionary system. Changes in the enviroment are rarely favorable for evolutionary systems in the short term.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Global warming makes me think of this all the time

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103844

WE DIDNT LISTEN!!!!

[Skins24]

How do you stop sea levels from rising several feet? What is the cost?

Just create/expand the beaches or other forms of erosion control. The rate of sea level rise is not fast enough so that the cost would be any more than what's already budgeted.

Yes, sea level rise isn't uniform, and it is possible that it could go down in any particular place, but that just means you've shifted that water to somewhere else so in a net situation, it doesn't help.

What? Not necessarily.

And even if it did, the ocean is huge. The chances of humans being affected by it is slim.

El Nino is tied to more hurricanes not fewer.

Talking to a meteorologist

I can guarantee you that in the Atlantic, an El Nino would mean less hurricanes.

In case you don't believe me....from NOAA:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/#_Hlk419685041

You have to keep your oceans straight. In the Pacific, El Niño has little discernible effect on hurricanes close to the continent. Atlantic hurricanes are an entirely different matter. There, you see, El Niño almost always reduces the frequency of storm maturation from what it would otherwise be, just as the TV weathercasters say. This is because El Niño produces increased wind shear ("scissors effect") over the tropical North Atlantic in the region where storms born off northwest Africa try to mature into hurricanes. This shear, or wind difference between the high and low levels of the atmosphere, tears many of the developing storms apart before they can become serious threats.

Again, generally, our society can be thought of as an evolutionary system. Changes in the enviroment are rarely favorable for evolutionary systems in the short term.

Meh, humans adapt to changes easily and the rate at which things would change would make it all the easier.

[PeterMP]

Just create/expand the beaches or other forms of erosion control. The rate of sea level rise is not fast enough so that the cost would be any more than what's already budgeted.

The rate of sea level rise will increase. Current sea level rise is tied mostly only to the thermal expansion of water, which is minimal.

In addition, current measure aren't actually getting you ahead in terms of mantaining coase line.

What? Not necessarily.

And even if it did, the ocean is huge. The chances of humans being affected by it is slim.

Water isn't going to JUST increase in the middle of the ocean. It is going to be distributed over the ocean and connected bodies of water evenly.

Sea level changes aren't uniform because of factors related to land rising and lowering of land and local erosion issues.

There's NO WAY sea levels are going to raise and NOT affect land that humans live on. History shows that sea levels increases do affect humans.

Talking to a meteorologist

I can guarantee you that in the Atlantic, an El Nino would mean less hurricanes.

In case you don't believe me....from NOAA:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/enso_faq/#_Hlk419685041

Yes and I didn't say you were wrong. I said the El Nino isn't tied to fewer hurricanes.

Meh, humans adapt to changes easily and the rate at which things would change would make it all the easier.

We've discussed the rate at which things can happen before.

How do you define easily?

At what costs?

Simple costs analysis programs show it is almost always cheaper in the long term to tackle a problem at its root?