“I never saw no miracle of science that didn’t go from a blessing to a curse”tautologies wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:57 pmWell, science got you your kites, phones and computers and the Internet.
Sting (?)
“I never saw no miracle of science that didn’t go from a blessing to a curse”tautologies wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 4:57 pmWell, science got you your kites, phones and computers and the Internet.
I do not consider myself a denier. There is too much evidence that "some" effect of human released CO2 is likely. Cumulatively, over a long enough time line (realistic to humanities concern) there would be virtually no chance that there is a mechanism in the climate that could recapture that additional CO2. But I admit that I am stating that completely without evidence - so take that how you will and DO NOT base your actions on my feelings. I would suggest supporting unbiased research into the issue.
In the current geopolitical situation, the ideologies that are already nearly able to beat out the West for world dominance, have little to no regard for the environment. Once the West is out of the way, those ideologies will likely continue doing as they have in the past. There would be little chance that those powers would adopt a more environmentally friendly approach, but it is not likely. This would be the Achilles Heel of any environmental initiate that immediately sanctions the West into decline, and allows the 2nd and 3rd world to dominate world environmental policy. Think "giving all the other countries on the face of this earth the chance to make the mistakes that the West has made in it's rise to power. And yes, I know that the 2nd and 3rd world already do contribute the majority of the pollution into the environment. But that is a result of the EPA in the US and other Western powers environmental initiatives in the latter half of the 20th century. Or rather, the 2nd and 3rd world would not be nearly as powerful on the world stage as they are, without the environmental initiatives put in place in the West.Pemba wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:13 pmThe Paris accord might be window dressing, I don't know but I'm ready to believe that. But sadly it's apparently the best the world is able to come up with. A Paris accord is better than no Paris accord. If a Washington accord would do more for the environment, I'm likely to be all for it. In the mean time..
Just finished reading it - Actually, I semi-agree with your first point. The conclusion was very straightforward and accurate to a particular subset of data. If people site it as such, unfortunately, this paper does not conclude that 97% of all climate scientists agree on AGW..Kamikuza wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:18 am
My focus was on the Cook paper as the origin of the 97% meme and because it's clear that the conclusion relied on bad presentation of the data. A few of those other papers on that list appear guilty of the same reductionist statistical hedging too.
But even if mankind were 100% not guilty for GW, surely we'd want to do something to combat the change? I mean, aside from dancing in the streets, glueing yourself to the floor and doing fishy statistics...
I would assume so. Unfortunately, it needs agreement across the world to do something meaningful. Most countries have leaders/governments where it's not in their best interests to make hard decisions or any large scale changes to accustomed ways of life.
Just curious, if you don't trust climate models, how will a warmer earth allow for more people?Matteo V wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:43 pm
But that is not where it ends. With the current geopolitical situation, warming IS NO THREAT. It will actually allow for more people on this earth, and self sufficiency of most countries/ideologies with a comparatively few exceptions. Cooling is instant death and destruction for pretty much all of humanity, and the Earth's ecosystems with the current human population.
Are you aware of the fact that there are many more species in equatorial regions than in temperate zone? Do you challenge the fact that it is much easier to grow food in tropics as compared to polar regions? Therefore, when doomsday prophets predict food supply shortages in warmer, wetter, and enriched CO2 environment, they insult our intelligence.
If you don't trust climate models, how will a warmer earth allow for more people?tegirinenashi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:51 amAre you aware of the fact that there are many more species in equatorial regions than in temperate zone? Do you challenge the fact that it is much easier to grow food in tropics as compared to polar regions? Therefore, when doomsday prophets predict food supply shortages in warmer, wetter, and enriched CO2 environment, they insult our intelligence.
I think the only countries where leaders are going to make the hard decisions are the ones where they're not in danger of being voted out by the "other side". They're usually not the sort of leaders who are that concerned about petty things like the environment...!Blackened wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:47 amI would assume so. Unfortunately, it needs agreement across the world to do something meaningful. Most countries have leaders/governments where it's not in their best interests to make hard decisions or any large scale changes to accustomed ways of life.
Most people won't change their behaviour when it inconveniences them or slightly modifies their lifestyles.
It's not how it's presented though, even by Cook et al themselves. Bad science reporting.Blackened wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:43 amJust finished reading it - Actually, I semi-agree with your first point. The conclusion was very straightforward and accurate to a particular subset of data. If people site it as such, unfortunately, this paper does not conclude that 97% of all climate scientists agree on AGW..
It states 97.2% of climate scientists expressing a view on AGW is in agreement. A couple of the other studies I quickly skimmed that sited this paper did correctly state this conclusion, rather than the overall consensus. From the numbers listed in this paper as self rating their studies as either supporting AGW or against, looks like 77% of studies agree on AGW, 2% disagree, and 21% said neither. My interpretation of this is that this isn't the opinion of the authors, just the conclusion of the papers.
Couple of other very interesting tidbits in here that I'm surprised I haven't heard about yet from the anti-AGW crowd. First, that the percentage of papers directly endorsing AGW has gone down in recent years (2009-2013) and only 96.4% of authors of AGW supporting papers say they endorsed a consensus on AGW. That seems a bit baffling. I don't have time to read 11000 papers to find out what's going on though. I do think I need to read some of the other papers on the consensus though. I'm mildly sad I didn't just get to do my usual, "Go read your reference. That's not what it says." It would've saved a lot of time from having to write this response.
Seriously what is wrong with you? Why repeat the question. Climate models do not predict outcomes for those climate changes. There is current, historical, archeological, paleontological, geological, and even extraterrestrial evidence for the effects of different climates. Tegirinenashi has just given you some of that evidence. If you want to bury your head in the sand, why not just not participate in any of this discussion.Blackened wrote:If you don't trust climate models, how will a warmer earth allow for more people?tegirinenashi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:51 amAre you aware of the fact that there are many more species in equatorial regions than in temperate zone? Do you challenge the fact that it is much easier to grow food in tropics as compared to polar regions? Therefore, when doomsday prophets predict food supply shortages in warmer, wetter, and enriched CO2 environment, they insult our intelligence.
No, no it does not. There are plenty of things single countries can do, plenty of things individuals can do. Plenty of things you can do if you believe the climate outcomes from increased CO2 will be horrific. Plenty of things you can do that do not involve reducing CO2 at all or even reducing the rate of CO2 increase.Blackened wrote: Unfortunately, it needs agreement across the world to do something meaningful.
And why should they? There is no evidence present or past that increasing either the temperature or CO2 within reasonable limits will do any harm. In fact the evidence of doing so is that there will a benefit.Blackened wrote: Most people won't change their behaviour when it inconveniences them or slightly modifies their lifestyles.
Users browsing this forum: ak200, andylc, Bing [Bot], cglazier, chet, gl, Google [Bot], Greenturtle, Peter_Frank, purdyd, suisd12, universalflush, vladi elthve, Xtream and 576 guests