Statistical models demonstrate that recent severe weather is caused by climate change

[monovillage]

Actually, Pielke doesn't address Hansen's paper at all. Her responds to a column written by Paul Krugman, not to the statistical evidence provided by Hansen. Furthermore, Pielke takes pains to add:



Finally, all you've done is adopt one of the classic five talking points I cited at the outset. You've found one of the handful of climate scientists who don't agree wholeheartedly with the climate science consensus. And for some reason, you've decided to believe the small minority rather than the huge consensus. Why?

Any point anyone makes against your post can and will be twisted by you into one of the "classic five talking points" In this particular case even the IPCC and NOAA disagree with Hansen in some aspects of his paper. You know it, you've even commented on it in previous posts.

 

[cybrsage]

The planet has been warming for the last 14,000 years. Mankind is not to blame for the warming of the planet.

 

[DrPizza]

That would be #3.

Is anyone really denying climate change? I mean why would you do that, when it's even happening on other planets as well? Don't be a denier!

Since you joined in June, let's bring you up to speed. The first time anyone heard about the other planets warming up as well, it was in a paper looking for reasons for Earth's warming. In that paper, it had a few blurbs about the other planets warming up. Then, it went on to explain that the increase in solar output, while causing the warming on the other planets, wasn't significant enough to explain all or most of the warming on Earth.

The anti-global warming people repeatedly quoted those blurbs about the other planets warming up, until people like you started repeating them as if they were the exclusive reason for Earth's warming.

Sorry, the climatologists aren't stupid. They haven't ignored increases in solar output while coming to the conclusion that the majority of Earth's warming is due to mankind. If you are foolish enough to think that they ignored solar output as a factor... "Look at me! Look at me! I don't have a degree in climatology. In fact, I've never taken a course in climatology. But, I've solved global warming! The 99% of the climatologists who are looking at me like I'm an idiot are wrong."

 

[cybrsage]

The basics of global warming are this:

We do not know enough about how the Earth's climate works in order to accurately say what the causes of global warming are...but that does not stop politics from corrupting the science and using it to force more control over the population.

We all know the planet is warming...the lack of glaciers covering half the northern hemisphere is proof enough of it. However, we really do not know what is causing the temp increase as it is insanely complex.

What we need to do is fund the study of our climate WITHOUT the politics which currently sully and damage the science. We also need to completely redo the monitoring stations and remove those which are in heat islands, placed horribly, etc.

More study is needed...not pretending we already know when it is obvious we do not know.

 

[shira]

The planet has been warming for the last 14,000 years. Mankind is not to blame for the warming of the planet.

This argument is a patently illogical, as it implicitly assumes that if there are natural causes of significant warming, then it's impossible that there are unnatural causes (for example, human behavior) for significant warming. Apply this same reasoning to other effects, and the absurdity of your conclusion is obvious:

Humans have died for at least 100,000 years. Therefore, the atomic bomb cannot kill people.

Women have gotten pregnant naturally for millennia. Therefore, in vitro fertilization cannot possibly be effective.

or even

Cool days have been occurring on earth for at least a few billion years. Therefore, air conditioning cannot lower the temperature.

 

[cybrsage]

This argument is a patently illogical, as it implicitly assumes that if there are natural causes of significant warming, then it's impossible that there are unnatural causes (for example, human behavior) for significant warming. Apply this same reasoning to other effects, and the absurdity of your conclusion is obvious:

Humans have died for at least 100,000 years. Therefore, the atomic bomb cannot kill people.

Women have gotten pregnant naturally for millennia. Therefore, in vitro fertilization cannot possibly be effective.

or even

Cool days have been occurring on earth for at least a few billion years. Therefore, air conditioning cannot lower the temperature.

So you are saying mankind caused the ice age to end?

 

[shira]

So you are saying mankind caused the ice age to end?

Do you intentionally ask stupid questions, or are you just naturally stupid?

 

[cybrsage]

Do you intentionally ask stupid questions, or are you just naturally stupid?

Just answer the question. I will repost to make it easy for you:

So you are saying mankind caused the ice age to end?

 

[shira]

Just answer the question. I will repost to make it easy for you:

So you are saying mankind caused the ice age to end?

I don't answer stupid questions.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't answer stupid questions.

Fair enough, but then why do you make stupid statements?

 

[shira]

Fair enough, but then why do you make stupid statements?

You've just asked another question that contains an implied lie. You're a proven liar. Shall I post the link yet again?

Why do you lie?

 

[cybrsage]

You've just asked another question that contains an implied lie. You're a proven liar. Shall I post the link yet again?

Why do you lie?

About you making stupid statements? This is the truth. The problem is that you cannot handle the truth. The post I quoted is proof you make stupid statements.

 

[shira]

About you making stupid statements? This is the truth. The problem is that you cannot handle the truth.

So, you lied before. But now - three days later - you're back from being banned and now you tell the truth? Is this what you want us to believe? Is this how they taught you to argue in troll school?

 

[cybrsage]

Logical fallacy for the lose.

Back on topic, are you against the removal of politics from climate science and the continued study of climate science in order to actually understand it? Or are you wanting to keep the large amounts of politics mixed into the science currently and the conclusion already determined before the science is understood, as we current now stand?

 

[EXman]

You can test this in a lab. CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition. Increase it by 50% and the atmosphere warms.

If I tell you that adding insulation to your house will increase heat retention, do you deny it?

Stop giving us these dumbass statements about homes. At no time did I say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And no we are not up by 50%. Know-it-all smartasses that theorize globalwarming w/o trying to disprove it (opposite of the scientific method) instead ram their agenda down our throats as fact even though they have been caught doctoring, inflating, and making up data is really all I need to know about the science these guys are peddleing.

 

[Throckmorton]

The planet has been warming for the last 14,000 years. Mankind is not to blame for the warming of the planet.

Warming has been much faster over the last 100 years since we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The faster rate of warming matches the increased heat retention from all that CO2 and other greenhouse gases we've released.

For your logic to work, man's CO2 emissions have to magically be non-greenhouse-gases. Can you explain how that could be the case?

 

[Throckmorton]

Stop giving us these dumbass statements about homes. At no time did I say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. And no we are not up by 50%. Know-it-all smartasses that theorize globalwarming w/o trying to disprove it (opposite of the scientific method) instead ram their agenda down our throats as fact even though they have been caught doctoring, inflating, and making up data is really all I need to know about the science these guys are peddleing.

We're up to 395ppm. Preindustrial was 278ppm. That's a 42% increase. We're getting close to 50%.

Forget the models. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing CO2 increases heat retention. Other factors like cloud cover and ice can act as feedbacks to that change. The BEST the deniers can reasonably argue is that warming caused by man will decelerate in the future due to feedbacks... The deniers are the ones depending on speculation about the future. We have history to prove what our activity does to the atmosphere.

 

[shira]

Logical fallacy for the lose.

Back on topic, are you against the removal of politics from climate science and the continued study of climate science in order to actually understand it? Or are you wanting to keep the large amounts of politics mixed into the science currently and the conclusion already determined before the science is understood, as we current now stand?

The result of climate science with respect to ACC is a slam-dunk consensus. There's no longer any doubt, except in the alleged minds of right-wing know-nothings. The only politics inserted into climate science is that perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry and their enablers in Congress. "Let's wait another 10 or 20 years and gather more information" is just a stalling tactic. The science is clear and the solutions are clear. The time for action is now.

 

[cybrsage]

The result of climate science with respect to ACC is a slam-dunk consensus. There's no longer any doubt, except in the alleged minds of right-wing know-nothings. The only politics inserted into climate science is that perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry and their enablers in Congress. "Let's wait another 10 or 20 years and gather more information" is just a stalling tactic. The science is clear and the solutions are clear. The time for action is now.

Wow, you are certainly in denial. Do you also think the IPCC report is anything but an example of horrifying bad science?

 

[rchiu]

The result of climate science with respect to ACC is a slam-dunk consensus. There's no longer any doubt, except in the alleged minds of right-wing know-nothings. The only politics inserted into climate science is that perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry and their enablers in Congress. "Let's wait another 10 or 20 years and gather more information" is just a stalling tactic. The science is clear and the solutions are clear. The time for action is now.

I don't know why people are so stuck on linking climate change to pollution. There can be thousand reasons why climate change happens, it maybe pollution, it maybe natural causes, it is even tough to establish the climate is changing significantly.

But even the most idiotic people know over pollution is bad for people. Try suck in co2 or other gas we human produce and see what happens.

Just forget about climate change crap, just focus on reducing pollution. All these study to prove climate change is waste of money. And all the debate on climate change is missing the point. We will be killed by all these cancer, lung diseases and all other by product of pollution long before iceberg melts and drown all of us.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't know why people are so stuck on linking climate change to pollution. There can be thousand reasons why climate change happens, it maybe pollution, it maybe natural causes, it is even tough to establish the climate is changing significantly.

But even the most idiotic people know over pollution is bad for people. Try suck in co2 or other gas we human produce and see what happens.

Just forget about climate change crap, just focus on reducing pollution. All these study to prove climate change is waste of money. And all the debate on climate change is missing the point. We will be killed by all these cancer, lung diseases and all other by product of pollution long before iceberg melts and drown all of us.

Exactly. IMO, this is the problem with the current AGW crowd - they are mixing two things together. Pollution is bad, yes. Reducing pollution is needed. Politicizing science in order to use it to force people to reduce pollution under the guise of "the Earth is going to burst into flames and we all die" is stupid.

Of course, the Kyoto Protocol effectively said China's pollution is not bad for the Earth, and neither is India's pollution...and the warming caused by these two nations is not bad enough to need to stop...but the pollution caused by the US (which is less than that of China) is terrible, is killing the planet, and must be stopped now.

 

[Throckmorton]

Exactly. IMO, this is the problem with the current AGW crowd - they are mixing two things together. Pollution is bad, yes. Reducing pollution is needed. Politicizing science in order to use it to force people to reduce pollution under the guise of "the Earth is going to burst into flames and we all die" is stupid.

Of course, the Kyoto Protocol effectively said China's pollution is not bad for the Earth, and neither is India's pollution...and the warming caused by these two nations is not bad enough to need to stop...but the pollution caused by the US (which is less than that of China) is terrible, is killing the planet, and must be stopped now.

India and China produce several times less CO2 per capita than we do... Following your logic, California and Wyoming should emit the same amount simply because they happen to both be "states".

 

[cybrsage]

Per capita wrt pollution is the most idiotic position to take. The stupid is piled deep on that position. Here is an easy to understand explaination as to why:

You and your wife live alone in your house. You live like average Americans. A family of 100 move in across the street in the three bedroom home. Obviously, they are crammed in there tightly and their house shows it. Their house stinks. It is filthy. You report them.

When the inspectors come out, they determine the house pollutes 20 times as high as your house does - it is 20 times as bad for the environment as yours is. They fine you for your terrible effect on the environment since your per capita pollution is worse than theirs. You stand there in shock - isn't it obvious to the inspector that 20 times the pollution is actually worse?

It is worse for the planet if 100 people all pour a gallon of oil in the ocean than it is if 10 people pour 3 gallons each into the ocean. It is the total pollution which matters. It is stupid to claim otherwise.

California is more damaging to the environment than Wyoming since far more pollution comes from Calif than WY. If you claim otherwise you are not using any rational thinking skills.

 

[Throckmorton]

Per capita wrt pollution is the most idiotic position to take. The stupid is piled deep on that position. Here is an easy to understand explaination as to why:

You and your wife live alone in your house. You live like average Americans. A family of 100 move in across the street in the three bedroom home. Obviously, they are crammed in there tightly and their house shows it. Their house stinks. It is filthy. You report them.

When the inspectors come out, they determine the house pollutes 20 times as high as your house does - it is 20 times as bad for the environment as yours is. They fine you for your terrible effect on the environment since your per capita pollution is worse than theirs. You stand there in shock - isn't it obvious to the inspector that 20 times the pollution is actually worse?

It is worse for the planet if 100 people all pour a gallon of oil in the ocean than it is if 10 people pour 3 gallons each into the ocean. It is the total pollution which matters. It is stupid to claim otherwise.

California is more damaging to the environment than Wyoming since far more pollution comes from Calif than WY. If you claim otherwise you are not using any rational thinking skills.

LOL. To you, a person living in a massive mansion is actually having less of an environmental impact than 100 people living in an apartment building, because you're basing everything on per-building pollution.

 

[Jaskalas]

The climate has been changing since day 1 of Earth's existence. It'll change for billions of years after mankind has moved on our died off.

Fuck all that carbon nonsense. We need to go back to focusing on cleaning up pollution and toxins vs. the mythical and scary carbon caused global warming monster.

100% agreed.