Through August, 2015 is - BY FAR - the warmest year on record

[Cozarkian]

But since you - based solely on faith - are convinced that climate scientists are just making stuff up, no amount of research can ever change your mind. After all, any research cited is produced by climate scientists, who cannot be trusted..

Given the above, shouldn't you stop wasting electricity and time researching, posting and arguing this topic and go out and do something beneficial for the environment?

 

[shira]

Given the above, shouldn't you stop wasting electricity and time researching, posting and arguing this topic and go out and do something beneficial for the environment?

Sitting here in a darkened room and writing posts on my low-power computer is much more environment-friendly than cruising around in even my highly-energy-efficient car.

Besides, I obtain a huge ego boost when I see the moronic responses by righties to my climate-change threads.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sitting here in a darkened room and writing posts on my low-power computer is much more environment-friendly than cruising around in even my highly-energy-efficient car.

Besides, I obtain a huge ego boost when I see the moronic responses by righties to my climate-change threads.

Still waiting for that proposed solution.

 

[shira]

Still waiting for that proposed solution.

You already know the solution: Lower CO2 emissions in the U.S. Negotiate trade agreements that require our trading partners to do the same as a condition of access to U.S. markets.

Pretty simple.

Any other questions?

 

[PokerGuy]

You already know the solution: Lower CO2 emissions in the U.S.

lol, yeah, pretty simple. I'm sure lowering CO2 emissions without negatively impacting the economy and individual rights is just as easy as saying "lower the co2 emissions in the us!". In reality (where the rest of us live), more than likely the best you can hope for is to reduce the rate of increase in co2 emissions. Even if you were to lower the rate of emissions, we have no solid information on what exactly that would accomplish.

Negotiate trade agreements that require our trading partners to do the same as a condition of access to U.S. markets.

Pretty simple.

Any other questions?

I'm sure we can get that done in 5 minutes or so, and there will be no implications for our economy, and all the trading partners will certainly be right on board with that. It will be a snap, after all, we are the only large economy in the world

So basically, no real solutions, just more alarmist drivel about global warming.

 

[shira]

lol, yeah, pretty simple. I'm sure lowering CO2 emissions without negatively impacting the economy and individual rights is just as easy as saying "lower the co2 emissions in the us!". In reality (where the rest of us live), more than likely the best you can hope for is to reduce the rate of increase in co2 emissions. Even if you were to lower the rate of emissions, we have no solid information on what exactly that would accomplish.

I'm sure we can get that done in 5 minutes or so, and there will be no implications for our economy, and all the trading partners will certainly be right on board with that. It will be a snap, after all, we are the only large economy in the world

So basically, no real solutions, just more alarmist drivel about global warming.

Those are real solutions. What are you expecting, a fairy godmother to come down and sprinkle magic dust to make the greenhouse gases go away?

You act like the only valid solution is to totally reverse climate change. That's like saying there's no reason for a person with smoking-damaged lungs to quit, because they can't ever have perfect lungs again. Slowing or stopping the increase in temperature is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

There will be costs. But there will be much higher costs if we do nothing. Everyone knows this.

 

[Joepublic2]

Who cares.

 

[PokerGuy]

Those are real solutions. What are you expecting, a fairy godmother to come down and sprinkle magic dust to make the greenhouse gases go away?

Nope, that won't happen, but neither will giving my money to those pushing political agendas to "fight climate change" fix anything.

You act like the only valid solution is to totally reverse climate change. That's like saying there's no reason for a person with smoking-damaged lungs to quit, because they can't ever have perfect lungs again. Slowing or stopping the increase in temperature is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

Ah yes, back to the old "do something!! anything is better than nothing!" argument. That's patently stupid. Every proposal should be viewed from a cost benefit analysis perspective. If it is worth it, then you do it. If not, not. None of this "anything is better than nothing!" garbage.

There will be costs. But there will be much higher costs if we do nothing. Everyone knows this.

No, not "everyone knows this", more like "many believe this", we don't "know" this for a fact.

 

[Sonikku]

For the record, I don't disbelieve in climate change, mostly because I'm not a moron.

Yet we still have morons like Neil deGrasse Tyson arguing to the contrary. :hmm:

 

[kage69]

Yet we still have morons like Neil deGrasse Tyson arguing to the contrary. :hmm:

Tyson thinks smackababy is a moron?

Link?

:biggrin:

 

[werepossum]

No. I'm referring to the other 10,000 climate scientists, and their research and papers. You know, the ones whose research you choose to ignore in order to make your entire universe of climate-science the cherry-picked, high-profile cases that (you erroneously believe) confirm your foregone conclusions.

Edit: No, let's take a different tack here, so you can't sidetrack this discussion: Let's assume everything you believe about Michael Mann is true. Score 1 for you. Now, what about the other 10,000 climate scientists and their research?

I very, very much doubt there are anything like 10,000 scientists who are climate scientists. On the other hand, I have no problem believing that there are 10,000 scientists willing to throw in a statement as to how their own paper proves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, knowing they are helping save the world and only coincidentally insuring their own paper sails through without better no contested. Also, remember that Mann led a team and that many other like-minded scientists peer reviewed their work - without access to his "special formula" or his raw data - which Team Mann was eventually reduced to claiming as lost to avoid producing it.

You already know the solution: Lower CO2 emissions in the U.S. Negotiate trade agreements that require our trading partners to do the same as a condition of access to U.S. markets.

Pretty simple.

Any other questions?

I have zero problems with the first, provided it can be done at a reasonable cost, or with the second - although I doubt we can do that without withdrawing from our global trade agreements. In general, less CO2 output is desirable.

 

[Jaskalas]

Furthermore, you've posted two charts, that you claim undermine the claims made in the OP, without a scintilla of context. Show us where those charts came from, who assembled them, who interpreted them, and what they mean (NOT what some climate-denier CLAIMS they mean removed from the original article in which they appeared). Without that information, you're just flinging BS.

You claim ignorance of both Satellite and NCEP data and then pretend you know anything.
All while staunchly supporting the... rigorous value of... ship buckets.

You go on ahead and blindly follow what your masters tell you.
I'll stick with the facts that "warmest year ever" is a pretentious claim based on contested data that is challenged by more than one set of other valuable temperature data.

Why should your chosen set of data be followed at the exclusion of others?

 

[ivwshane]

Those are real solutions. What are you expecting, a fairy godmother to come down and sprinkle magic dust to make the greenhouse gases go away?

You act like the only valid solution is to totally reverse climate change. That's like saying there's no reason for a person with smoking-damaged lungs to quit, because they can't ever have perfect lungs again. Slowing or stopping the increase in temperature is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

There will be costs. But there will be much higher costs if we do nothing. Everyone knows this.

You are arguing with a righty. Your solutions either solve the issue completely and from day one or they don't and it's not worth it because capitalism or something.
Instead you should change your tactic and use the same tricks that the righty puppet masters use: claim to have a solution that works completely but you just need more time to prove your solution is correct.
Hell, it works on them when pushing trickle down economics and you can already see a similar case being made for military intervention in the Middle East (did you see the debate response on solutions to the Middle East?)!

What you don't want to do though is give them examples of liberal strong holds like California whose liberal policies are putting a smack down on righty talking points on why we shouldn't be using liberal policies. That state is doing horribly, too much solar and alternative energy focus is killing them!
God forbid you tell him china has spent more on clean power than the US since the 70's or more than Europe and the US put together!
/s

 

[fskimospy]

I very, very much doubt there are anything like 10,000 scientists who are climate scientists. On the other hand, I have no problem believing that there are 10,000 scientists willing to throw in a statement as to how their own paper proves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, knowing they are helping save the world and only coincidentally insuring their own paper sails through without better no contested. Also, remember that Mann led a team and that many other like-minded scientists peer reviewed their work - without access to his "special formula" or his raw data - which Team Mann was eventually reduced to claiming as lost to avoid producing it.


I have zero problems with the first, provided it can be done at a reasonable cost, or with the second - although I doubt we can do that without withdrawing from our global trade agreements. In general, less CO2 output is desirable.

Looks like we've got another patented werepossum worldwide conspiracy on our hands, folks!

 

[boomerang]

Here's twenty "climate scientists" that want Obama to use RICO laws to go after people who disagree with them. Yeah, there's nothing political about this, it's just science. No smatterings of psychosis at all.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/

Here's the letter they sent.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...nfluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)

This is yet another 'shira has a scared' thread. I've got to believe that therapy works better than this forum but that's just a guess.

 

[flexy]

What pisses me off most about this entire subject is that climate change has become a political issue, BUT IT SHOULDN'T.

It doesn't make any sense that people are split into "deniers" and "believers" and that "belonging to one of those sides" is mandatory depending on whether you are left or right.

Even if one HYPOTHETICALLY assumes that scientists are wrong and climate "change" is indeed some natural result, nothing would be lost if we'd "erroneously" assume it's man-made because R&D spent on reducing emissions etc. sure is not something where money is wasted.

* REAL: In many major urban centers, since the mid 70s already, in certain seasons, pollution is so high that people wear mouth guards to not breathe in all the shit (China comes to mind), elderly etc. can get health problems due to smog

* REAL: Skin cancer rates in some nations like Australia have gone through the roof due to higher UV radiation

* REAL: Toxic emissions in air, water etc. make people sick

Whether there is an actual "climate change" observed over time is not even relevant any more, I mean who cares?

Would someone deny that CO2, pollutants, toxins in the air and/or water cause problems and that there needs to be something done, in particular in countries like China?

Would a "denier" propose that we should stop "wasting" money on trying to reduce emissions, alternative (non fossil etc.) energies...because he can't see a too-clear pattern of warming/change in some statistics that would prove (to him) that it's man-made - like it matters, whatsoever? It won't matter if you drink water polluted with chemicals like lead and pesticides and when you breathe air that's polluted.

* Am I some liberal progressive hippie because I point out that harmful emissions, chemicals in water etc. EXIST (and need to be reduced)...and why..and how...would that be a POLITICAL "statement" as opposed to a simple fact or borne out of common sense?

You don't realize you're played by the clowns, once again, because you leave behind your common sense and sacrifice your own well-being/health because some idiot/clown in politics forcing you to echo what they say.

 

[boomerang]

flexy, why do people like yourself feel that people that rationally look at the mountains of junk science behind the cult of climate change and discount it are interested in rolling back all that has been done to this point? Your assertion is a common one and frankly, I don't understand it. Do you see people or organizations clamoring for higher vehicle emissions? For increased dumping of toxic waste and chemicals into streams, rivers and lakes? Things of that nature?

What those that recognize the political drive behind junk science are against is blanket programs and processes that take wealth from one nation to give to other nations around the world in the name of fighting 'climate change'. Which BTW as we all know used to be called 'global warming' until the data became irrefutable that there was in fact no warming beyond normal variations.

It's a hoax, it's a sham, it's designed to prey upon the base fears of the human psyche. Those that are more susceptible to those fears are of course fully on board with unspecified processes that move wealth around the globe. Many others see it for what it is and fight against it.

Nobody that I have heard is against continuing improvements in the way we deal with our water and our air. What we are against is rich and powerful people becoming more rich and powerful while telling us that they need to move wealth around to 'fix' a 'problem' that is based in psychological manipulation orchestrated for their own gain.

Perhaps you see these people as heroes. I see them for what they are which is the modern day equivalent of snake-oil salesmen on steroids.

Lastly, everything is political. Everything. To think otherwise is pretty much the height of naivete.

 

[fskimospy]

The science on climate change is so strong that by this point you only see the crazies or the truly brainwashed still trying to argue its a hoax.

It is pretty funny to watch boomerang call other people naive when he's been so easily duped by climate change deniers. To claim there has been no warning outside of natural variations at this point requires someone to be either deeply stupid or extremely gullible. There's no other answer.

 

[Paratus]

Satellite record and NCEP real time temps don't agree with a Surface Station record that prides itself on using ship buckets, among other trend increasing adjustments.

I'll just go ahead and quote myself from a previous thread since you are regurgitating the same wrong conclusions.

You can see since the last 70's incident solar radiation has been basically steady or maybe slightly negative. (This also lines up with the 15 years I spent pointing large solar arrays at the sun.)

Per our energy balance:

That suggests we should see neither an increase or decrease in energy retention on the planet. The way to check that is to look at the temperatures and/or energy stored at the earths surface, the various layers of the atmosphere and the various layers of the oceans over the same time period.

Satellite measurements of the the stratosphere, troposphere and surface temperature.

Surface Temperature:

0-2000m Ocean temperatures.

As you can see while the stratosphere and upper troposphere have cooled a bit. The lower atmosphere and surface temperature have continued to rise, if a bit more slowly in the last 20 years.

However the ocean thermal content has continued to increase sharply.

Our energy balance based on the first law of thermodynamics says the system must be retaining heat from somewhere as the excess is not coming from the sun.

Measuring the outgoing long wave radiation shows an ~.6W/m^2 imbalance in total.

Direct measurements in addition to models of the atmosphere supports CO2 being the primary cause.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/02/newsflash-the-greenhouse-effect-really-exists/

The so called "pause" supposedly supported by satellite readings from a portion of the atmosphere doesn't exist. Heat may move around in the system and the portion of the system measured by the RSS and UAH data in no way offsets the overall heat gain in the system. Their measurements do help explain how heat moves in the system.

The sun has not been driving warming for this time period either.

The energy balance is based on thermodynamics which is settled science.

Natural forcings and man-made forcings are inherently knowable and subject to science. Certain posters ignorance of those subjects changes nothing.

How many times has Paratus corrected you on saying nonsense like this?

I remember when he said he thought you guys might learn something even if you weren't open to rational argument fully. I imagine he might think differently now.

One correction. I didn't mean they would openly agree with the consensus when directly confronted. I meant it would indirectly change some of the arguments.

The last couple of climate change threads have been mostly about solutions as opposed to direct denial. Which is an improvement in my book.

Even Werepossum agrees CO2 is bad and has some inputs in what a solution should look like.

I very, very much doubt there are anything like 10,000 scientists who are climate scientists. On the other hand, I have no problem believing that there are 10,000 scientists willing to throw in a statement as to how their own paper proves catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, knowing they are helping save the world and only coincidentally insuring their own paper sails through without better no contested. Also, remember that Mann led a team and that many other like-minded scientists peer reviewed their work - without access to his "special formula" or his raw data - which Team Mann was eventually reduced to claiming as lost to avoid producing it.


I have zero problems with the first, provided it can be done at a reasonable cost, or with the second - although I doubt we can do that without withdrawing from our global trade agreements. In general, less CO2 output is desirable.

 

[mxnerd]

The best way to fight climate change / global warming is move everyone into cities and leave as much land as possible to forest.

Stop oil/coal burning power plants and use nuclear power.

 

[werepossum]

Looks like we've got another patented werepossum worldwide conspiracy on our hands, folks!

Maybe not so much a conspiracy as a herd mentality.

I'll just go ahead and quote myself from a previous thread since you are regurgitating the same wrong conclusions.

One correction. I didn't mean they would openly agree with the consensus when directly confronted. I meant it would indirectly change some of the arguments.

The last couple of climate change threads have been mostly about solutions as opposed to direct denial. Which is an improvement in my book.

Even Werepossum agrees CO2 is bad and has some inputs in what a solution should look like.

I DON'T agree that CO2 is bad - without CO2, it's a dead planet quite quickly. I DO agree that CO2 is bad at elevated levels, with differing adverse effects generally being stronger than the good effects- although that largely depends on one's priorities. I am interested in fish and aquatic systems, especially riparian environments, and having seen extreme effects from too much CO2 (i.e. dead streams, except perhaps for rat-tailed maggots and some hardier tubificids such as Tubifex and Limnodrilus) from acidic mine tailings runoff and even from natural shale deposits, in addition to the damage done by acid rain before late twentieth century pollution control mandates, I certainly don't want to see already stressed environs even more stressed by increasingly acidic rainfall. To a smaller extent that is also true of littoral marine systems; while the ocean itself has massive buffering capacity, littoral waters are much more susceptible to run-off (including increased toxicity and dissolved compounds as acidity increases) to acidification. However, if my primary interest was in, say, rain forests, then I might well welcome high CO2 concentrations which on balance would increase rain forest productivity, especially among trees.

I also recognize that while increased temperatures are generally beneficial to mankind, we're already on a general warming trend, being in an interglacial period, and as an advanced civilization (compared to historic civilizations) we're perhaps more able to benefit from stable conditions and certainly more resistant to changing conditions, which means I have less fear of cold periods OR hot periods, plus I have little faith that any devastatingly cold period such as the Little Ice Age would be appreciably buffered by high CO2.

So yes, generally I am in favor of lower CO2 emissions, especially for such technologies as help stretch out scarce fossil fuel deposits; even if one buys the abiotic creation theory, they are still scarce given the rate we draw them down. I am a big fan of solar, especially point-of-use solar which lessens transmission losses, and (to a degree, limited by the effect of huge localized waste heat emissions) nuclear, and to technologies such as tidal and wind where they are practical, and to increased mandates for efficiency and insulation. Mainly the things that keep me firmly in the skeptic camp are:

1. The extreme (by scientific standards) dishonesty of "climate scientists". Conspiring to control who reviews your paper is NOT okay. Hiding the fact that your theory diverges from measurable reality is NOT okay. Making corrections to past measurements to bring them into alignment with the needs of the model is NOT okay. Submitting a paper without raw data (ALL raw data, not cherry-picked raw data) and methods and formulas is NOT okay. Claiming to have peer-reviewed such a paper is NOT okay. Punishing scientists who come to different conclusions is NOT okay. Adding a conclusion of man-made causes to your otherwise unrelated paper when one has no scientific basis to so conclude is NOT okay.

2. The politicization of climate science. From the inception of CAGW, it has been a vehicle to seize power for the left, with the "solutions" demanded exactly the same as when the issue was catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling. It has been treated far more like a religion, whose adherents demand doctrinal purity and complete commitment, than as any scientific theory. The proposed massive transfer of wealth to third world countries (or more accurately, from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries) is exactly the same as the left had previously demanded for reasons of "fairness" and "collective white guilt". The proposed carbon credit trading scheme has the potential to dwarf even tax code as a vehicle for politicians to reward their friends and punish their friends' enemies, leading to the de facto top-down command economy the left always wants. (And which I oppose, believing that all of us will always make smarter decisions than some small subset of us.)

tl/dr: If you are going to say "Even Werepossum agrees CO2 is bad and has some inputs in what a solution should look like", then at least understand my opinion. For folks that claim to represent science and nuanced world views, you guys very seldom evolve beyond "CO2 is bad, m'kay?"

 

[sandorski]

Maybe not so much a conspiracy as a herd mentality.


I DON'T agree that CO2 is bad - without CO2, it's a dead planet quite quickly. I DO agree that CO2 is bad at elevated levels, with differing adverse effects generally being stronger than the good effects- although that largely depends on one's priorities. I am interested in fish and aquatic systems, especially riparian environments, and having seen extreme effects from too much CO2 (i.e. dead streams, except perhaps for rat-tailed maggots and some hardier tubificids such as Tubifex and Limnodrilus) from acidic mine tailings runoff and even from natural shale deposits, in addition to the damage done by acid rain before late twentieth century pollution control mandates, I certainly don't want to see already stressed environs even more stressed by increasingly acidic rainfall. To a smaller extent that is also true of littoral marine systems; while the ocean itself has massive buffering capacity, littoral waters are much more susceptible to run-off (including increased toxicity and dissolved compounds as acidity increases) to acidification. However, if my primary interest was in, say, rain forests, then I might well welcome high CO2 concentrations which on balance would increase rain forest productivity, especially among trees.

I also recognize that while increased temperatures are generally beneficial to mankind, we're already on a general warming trend, being in an interglacial period, and as an advanced civilization (compared to historic civilizations) we're perhaps more able to benefit from stable conditions and certainly more resistant to changing conditions, which means I have less fear of cold periods OR hot periods, plus I have little faith that any devastatingly cold period such as the Little Ice Age would be appreciably buffered by high CO2.

So yes, generally I am in favor of lower CO2 emissions, especially for such technologies as help stretch out scarce fossil fuel deposits; even if one buys the abiotic creation theory, they are still scarce given the rate we draw them down. I am a big fan of solar, especially point-of-use solar which lessens transmission losses, and (to a degree, limited by the effect of huge localized waste heat emissions) nuclear, and to technologies such as tidal and wind where they are practical, and to increased mandates for efficiency and insulation. Mainly the things that keep me firmly in the skeptic camp are:

1. The extreme (by scientific standards) dishonesty of "climate scientists". Conspiring to control who reviews your paper is NOT okay. Hiding the fact that your theory diverges from measurable reality is NOT okay. Making corrections to past measurements to bring them into alignment with the needs of the model is NOT okay. Submitting a paper without raw data (ALL raw data, not cherry-picked raw data) and methods and formulas is NOT okay. Claiming to have peer-reviewed such a paper is NOT okay. Punishing scientists who come to different conclusions is NOT okay. Adding a conclusion of man-made causes to your otherwise unrelated paper when one has no scientific basis to so conclude is NOT okay.

2. The politicization of climate science. From the inception of CAGW, it has been a vehicle to seize power for the left, with the "solutions" demanded exactly the same as when the issue was catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling. It has been treated far more like a religion, whose adherents demand doctrinal purity and complete commitment, than as any scientific theory. The proposed massive transfer of wealth to third world countries (or more accurately, from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries) is exactly the same as the left had previously demanded for reasons of "fairness" and "collective white guilt". The proposed carbon credit trading scheme has the potential to dwarf even tax code as a vehicle for politicians to reward their friends and punish their friends' enemies, leading to the de facto top-down command economy the left always wants. (And which I oppose, believing that all of us will always make smarter decisions than some small subset of us.)

tl/dr: If you are going to say "Even Werepossum agrees CO2 is bad and has some inputs in what a solution should look like", then at least understand my opinion. For folks that claim to represent science and nuanced world views, you guys very seldom evolve beyond "CO2 is bad, m'kay?"

Too much CO2 is bad.

 

[Paratus]

Maybe not so much a conspiracy as a herd mentality.


I DON'T agree that CO2 is bad - without CO2, it's a dead planet quite quickly. I DO agree that CO2 is bad at elevated levels, with differing adverse effects generally being stronger than the good effects- although that largely depends on one's priorities. I am interested in fish and aquatic systems, especially riparian environments, and having seen extreme effects from too much CO2 (i.e. dead streams, except perhaps for rat-tailed maggots and some hardier tubificids such as Tubifex and Limnodrilus) from acidic mine tailings runoff and even from natural shale deposits, in addition to the damage done by acid rain before late twentieth century pollution control mandates, I certainly don't want to see already stressed environs even more stressed by increasingly acidic rainfall. To a smaller extent that is also true of littoral marine systems; while the ocean itself has massive buffering capacity, littoral waters are much more susceptible to run-off (including increased toxicity and dissolved compounds as acidity increases) to acidification. However, if my primary interest was in, say, rain forests, then I might well welcome high CO2 concentrations which on balance would increase rain forest productivity, especially among trees.

I also recognize that while increased temperatures are generally beneficial to mankind, we're already on a general warming trend, being in an interglacial period, and as an advanced civilization (compared to historic civilizations) we're perhaps more able to benefit from stable conditions and certainly more resistant to changing conditions, which means I have less fear of cold periods OR hot periods, plus I have little faith that any devastatingly cold period such as the Little Ice Age would be appreciably buffered by high CO2.

So yes, generally I am in favor of lower CO2 emissions, especially for such technologies as help stretch out scarce fossil fuel deposits; even if one buys the abiotic creation theory, they are still scarce given the rate we draw them down. I am a big fan of solar, especially point-of-use solar which lessens transmission losses, and (to a degree, limited by the effect of huge localized waste heat emissions) nuclear, and to technologies such as tidal and wind where they are practical, and to increased mandates for efficiency and insulation. Mainly the things that keep me firmly in the skeptic camp are:

1. The extreme (by scientific standards) dishonesty of "climate scientists". Conspiring to control who reviews your paper is NOT okay. Hiding the fact that your theory diverges from measurable reality is NOT okay. Making corrections to past measurements to bring them into alignment with the needs of the model is NOT okay. Submitting a paper without raw data (ALL raw data, not cherry-picked raw data) and methods and formulas is NOT okay. Claiming to have peer-reviewed such a paper is NOT okay. Punishing scientists who come to different conclusions is NOT okay. Adding a conclusion of man-made causes to your otherwise unrelated paper when one has no scientific basis to so conclude is NOT okay.

2. The politicization of climate science. From the inception of CAGW, it has been a vehicle to seize power for the left, with the "solutions" demanded exactly the same as when the issue was catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling. It has been treated far more like a religion, whose adherents demand doctrinal purity and complete commitment, than as any scientific theory. The proposed massive transfer of wealth to third world countries (or more accurately, from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries) is exactly the same as the left had previously demanded for reasons of "fairness" and "collective white guilt". The proposed carbon credit trading scheme has the potential to dwarf even tax code as a vehicle for politicians to reward their friends and punish their friends' enemies, leading to the de facto top-down command economy the left always wants. (And which I oppose, believing that all of us will always make smarter decisions than some small subset of us.)

tl/dr: If you are going to say "Even Werepossum agrees CO2 is bad and has some inputs in what a solution should look like", then at least understand my opinion. For folks that claim to represent science and nuanced world views, you guys very seldom evolve beyond "CO2 is bad, m'kay?"

Sorry I thought the "too much" was self-evident. So I didn't take the time to spell it out. C'est la vie.

 

[Greenman]

Sitting here in a darkened room and writing posts on my low-power computer is much more environment-friendly than cruising around in even my highly-energy-efficient car.

Besides, I obtain a huge ego boost when I see the moronic responses by righties to my climate-change threads.

That's kind of sad. Feelings of inferiority can be dealt with, often without medication. Have you spoken to a mental health professional?

 

[Jaskalas]

Re: The whole "you need to personal sacrifice" crowd. You could wipe an entire continent or two off the face of the earth and you wouldn't solve Climate Change. It's either a global effort, a revolution in energy production, or its nothing. You cannot fault someone for living like the rest of us when the sacrifice needed requires ALL humans to sacrifice.

Re: "Wamrest year", the pause is important. Whether it exists or not determines whether Climate Change is being accurately described by its proponents. The claim of warmest year is only held by one set of data, and is largely driven by the inclusion of record ocean temps, for which our historical record is even more sparse and unreliable.

My opposition is not in a vacuum. It's based on the theory that we don't know enough about our past to determine attribution for present warming. Proponents like to pretend they have those numbers dialed and they can tell what how warm it'll be.

I'm with Bastardi and others who believe the PDO and AMO cycles turning "positive" during the 80s-90s warm up is not a coincidence and that simple redistribution of heat already in the system is responsible for some of the changes measured. That without reliable ocean measurements spanning the past century we are unable to make a determination without first waiting and seeing.

If the pause does exist, it lines up nicely with the ocean cycles returning to a "negative" phase. For this ocean theory to be accurate, there must be another reduction of global temps on NCEP following this El Ninio. The pause must at least continue on Satellite. If either of those fail to happen then we know the alternative theory is bunk and CO2 has overridden the system as we knew it.

By 2018-2020 we should have enough data to determine what is accurate, and what is not.