Climategate 2.0

[Paul98]

For some reason people like shira seem to feel that since most, if not all people agree that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so, that steps must be taken to stop it. Others like myself feel that the warming is mostly natural and taking huge and very expensive, if not economically destructive and certainly lifestyle destructive steps is foolish in the extreme. Especially without evidence that global warming AKA climate change is anthropogenic and if any of the steps we make can/will do anything to slow, prevent or stop it. The science is not settled, never was. If you can show me some kind of proof or evidence that humans are the major cause of global warming, i'd like to see it and so would every climate scientist in the world because they haven't seen it yet. BTW proven inaccurate climate models don't count and never did.

Since you agree that temperatures have been warming and you are assuming that it's natural what are some of the reasons for that warming?

There is no point to talk about changes that could be done if you don't believe they would make any changes to the climate. Now there are other reasons for changes to be made fossil fuels but that's a total different discussion.

Science is never totally settled, there are always things that can be investigated. But similar to evolution, SR, GR, QM the theories themselves are solid, but not everything is settled. But the theories themselves won't majorly change and even if there is something that causes them to be wrong in certain areas the new theory will have to work the same 99% of the time. Adjustments are made as data comes in. That's how it works if the science was settled it sure would be boring as there would be nothing more to research. but now I am getting off subject.

 

[monovillage]

Sun's heat and magnetic drivers,ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation) , Earths orbit/wobble/tilt, water vapor, CO2,methane, ocean currents, albedo. etc.

 

[sm625]

As long as the agenda is carbon taxation for eugenics purposes, this will keep going. They will get their carbon tax, though. There is just too much money and too much stupidity and too many people willing to slit their own mothers' throats for a nickel for it to be stopped. But woe to anyone who believes that any of this has anything at all to do with helping people or the planet. It is all about financializing every aspect of human existence, so that banksters can steal more than just assets. They want our food and they want our air. Carbon taxes are the holy grail of 21st century eugenics, just like GMO was the holy grail of late 20th century eugenics.

 

[chucky2]

You know, each time we have one of these threads I can't help but think what an incredible waste of time MMCC is. Rather than spend so much effort on something that will likely always be disputed, if We instead spent that time, energy, effort, and money on reducing pollution, reducing landfill use via recycling/efficiency, reducing petro usage via electrification driven by moden nukes/renewables (where feasible), etc., we could get much further much faster.

Who doesn't want less pollution?
Who doesn't want less particulate?
Who doesn't want less landfills?

I think pretty much Everyone could get behind these goals, instead one side demands we spend Trillions on something they can't prove, the other side doesn't want to spend Trillions on something that will in all likelyhood never to be able to be proved - sufficiently - to convince this other side.

In the meantime, We're wasting and polluting out the @ss...

 

[Ninjahedge]

Carbon tax = Killing your mother?

What PLANET are you living on??!?

All I know id that we had snow in October and it was 70 degrees in NYC yesterday.

Something is getting screwey and it would be for the best if we found out, regardless of the cause, ways to stop it.

If that means trying to get back to a system that worked for, at least, thousands of years on this planet (reduction in combustion sources for energy, etc) so be it. Lets not squander money on a stealth bomber we never utilize, nukes enough to make the Earth be seen from Saturn at night, Medicare that goes directly to big Pharm and pet projects that get lawn sculptures for Alaskan "representatives".

Lets try to put some of that money into better energy storage methods. You get a better battery, you can utilize solar and tidal generators much more efficiently. And on that point, we need better solar cells. We need "liberal" politicians to be OK with wind farms that MIGHT just be visible, on a clear day, from a high point at their summer home in NH....

Or we can just keep fighting about semantics (Its warmer, no it isn't, well OK, CLIMATE CHANGE, is that better than Global Warming, NO, etc etc etc).

 

[IGBT]

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

 

[Ninjahedge]

That's because people do not like to study things.

They would rather push a hydrogen fuel cell than to research better (not toxic) battery technology. And they want it all NOW.

Anyone who has done ANYTHING in science knows that 10 years and $10B in funding may only make it more likely that something will be discovered. For some reason everyone thinks that discoveries have a price tag and if we give that money, that we have "bought" it and can use it right away.

Life does not play like a game. You want a definite timeline for scientific discovery, play Civilization.

 

[Attic]

If that means trying to get back to a system that worked for, at least, thousands of years on this planet (reduction in combustion sources for energy, etc) so be it. Lets not squander money on a stealth bomber we never utilize, nukes enough to make the Earth be seen from Saturn at night, Medicare that goes directly to big Pharm and pet projects that get lawn sculptures for Alaskan "representatives".

I think you'll find you have a lot of support on both sides of the aisle for your end goal. I don't think you've correctly identified the source of opposition in the argument against "believers" or what that opposition is opposed to.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html#articleTabs=article

 

[shira]

Did I make a mistake on your timeline? How long do you say we've been warming? Aren't you recommending actions about climate change? Perhaps i should ask what steps you've suggested in the past to combat ACC ?

My "timeline?" You're assuming I've made statements about a warming timeline? You're also assuming that the length of this timeline is part of the justification you think I've made about whether ACC is valid? And you're assuming I've recommended specific actions about mitigating climate change? Yet you can't produce a single post of mine that supports any of this?

If I were you, I'd be pretty embarrassed.

 

[monovillage]

You look pretty when you tap dance shira.

 

[JSt0rm]

You look pretty when you tap dance shira.

Whats with all this sexist crap out of everyone toward shira?

 

[monovillage]

Whats with all this sexist crap out of everyone toward shira?

I was just making fun of him/her/it because the questions i asked were pretty innocuous. Instead he/she/it wants to tap dance around simple questions.

 

[chucky2]

So only women tap dance now? Sexist.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Something is getting screwey and it would be for the best if we found out, regardless of the cause, ways to stop it.

So, if the cause is 100% natural, you want to find a way to manipulate the climate to stop the natural changes?

 

[shira]

I was just making fun of him/her/it because the questions i asked were pretty innocuous. Instead he/she/it wants to tap dance around simple questions.

I don't know about your concept of intellectual honesty, but it's not "innocuous" when someone makes baseless representations about what one believes. For the record:

(1) I've never based my arguments on the length of the warming trend or on whether the general public believes there's been long-term warming. Just listen to yourself:

people like shira seem to feel that since most, if not all people agree that we have been warming for the last 300 years or so, that steps must be taken to stop it.

In fact, I DISAGREE that "most if not all people agree" that there's been 300 years of warming. If I had to guess, I'd say the actual percentage is less than 10%, with maybe half of the rest thinking that warming is a relatively recent phenomenon - starting in the past 50 or 60 years, and the other half not believing there's been warming at all.

(2) Since I don't accept (and in fact vehemently disagree with) the bolded premise of the quoted text, I cannot possibly - and don't - use it as a justification for action to mitigate warming.

(3) I've never advocated any particular steps to mitigate warming. What I have done is argued that those who claim that the reduction of CO2 emissions is "too expensive" seem to be making the assumption that "doing nothing" has no cost. And I've posted links to studies that have concluded that the cost of doing nothing will be significantly greater than the cost of mitigation by 2050, and will dwarf the cost of mitigation by 2100.

I'll also add that the argument that "climate change is natural, so we should do nothing" is fallacious. Growing old and feeble is natural, too; would you argue that mental and physical exercises to slow down the inevitable declines associated with aging are therefore not worth the effort? So in the unlikely event that you are actually correct that ACC has no significant effect on climate, you still haven't made a convincing argument that mankind shouldn't take action to mitigate climate change.

 

[monovillage]

Whatever.

 

[shira]

Whatever.

You lie about my positions. You erroneously claim I'm giving you evasive answers. And now when you get the specific answers you CLAIM to want, it's "whatever?"

Go fvck yourself.

 

[JSt0rm]

lmao. Owned.

 

[bfdd]

uh, there's a lot of people who believe the climate has and is still changing and has always been changing. Warming, cooling, in cycles. Our impact on it imo is being greatly overestimated and many of the proposed fixes are retarded money grabbing feats. If we really wanted to curb our carbon output we would be attacking it with gradualism because we will never require LESS energy. We need to use methods that will sustain us now and future growth while we develop other methods as well. I don't believe anyone pushing "green" energy if they're not at least considering the option of putting up a ton of nuclear facilities across the nation to lower our use of coal plants and create a new "class" of skilled laborers who can then source out their skills to other nations for a price.

I mean ideally, who wouldn't love orbital solar stations with power lines ran down a space elevator? Just isn't fucking realistic.

 

[monovillage]

I'll also add that the argument that "climate change is natural, so we should do nothing" is fallacious. Growing old and feeble is natural, too; would you argue that mental and physical exercises to slow down the inevitable declines associated with aging are therefore not worth the effort? So in the unlikely event that you are actually correct that ACC has no significant effect on climate, you still haven't made a convincing argument that mankind shouldn't take action to mitigate climate change.

shira seems to think that even if climate change is natural that I should give reasons why mankind shouldn't spend billions or trillions of dollars to mitigate what may not even be happening. Kinda sounds like a teenager asking his Dad to give reasons why his Dad shouldn't buy him a new Mustang.
How about this: we have better things to spend our money on, like a mortgage, food, health care, dentists, home maintenance and repairs, education, clothes, electricity, gas, insurance and a slew of other things. In the case of the world economy not spending money on practical solutions to simple problems like food, water and power and instead wasting huge sums of money on useless and impractical "cures" for a problem that may not exist costs the lives of human beings.

 

[JSt0rm]

Our impact on it imo

and is your opinion a scientific one? or is your opinion what you feel in your gut?

 

[JSt0rm]

shira seems to think that even if climate change is natural that I should give reasons why mankind shouldn't spend billions or trillions of dollars to mitigate what may not even be happening. Kinda sounds like a teenager asking his Dad to give reasons why his Dad shouldn't buy him a new Mustang.
How about this: we have better things to spend our money on, like a mortgage, food, health care, dentists, home maintenance and repairs, education, clothes, electricity, gas, insurance and a slew of other things. In the case of the world economy not spending money on practical solutions to simple problems like food, water and power and instead wasting huge sums of money on useless and impractical "cures" for a problem that may not exist costs the lives of human beings.

I like how you always set up the strawman and then proceed to argue against it. lol.

 

[monovillage]

You lie about my positions. You erroneously claim I'm giving you evasive answers. And now when you get the specific answers you CLAIM to want, it's "whatever?"

Go fvck yourself.

I've never lied about your position on anything, if I was incorrect I asked a couple of simple questions for you to clarify your position. Some people may not know that i've discussed on these forums global warming/ climate change with you many times over the past 2 years or so. It's not as if this were the first time i've seen your opinions. Go spew your hatred on someone else.

 

[monovillage]

I like how you always set up the strawman and then proceed to argue against it. lol.

You didn't understand this quote from shira?

"So in the unlikely event that you are actually correct that ACC has no significant effect on climate, you still haven't made a convincing argument that mankind shouldn't take action to mitigate climate change."

 

[JSt0rm]

You didn't understand this quote from shira?

"So in the unlikely event that you are actually correct that ACC has no significant effect on climate, you still haven't made a convincing argument that mankind shouldn't take action to mitigate climate change."

You clearly have way more free time then me, dont expect me to argue with you about something like global warming. You dont believe basic sciences well then thats fine, dont.