An expert explains why we are where we are with AGW alarmism today

[watsup]

What you are missing, is that is science, the simple concepts, the first approximations, have to work, before the more detailed work.
Later detail only improves the accuracy of the first approximation.
The climate will most likely respond the warming, the same way it has always responded to warming!
The climate feedbacks have no way of knowing what cause the warming, Human or natural,
and will respond as they always have to input warming.

Denier blather.

 

[flogger]

Despite his calm "scientific" tone, he's arguing politics for most of the piece. That's where he went wrong.

Still, I don't have the academic reputation he has, so it would be false commiseration to speak of his academic career and what a sad end it is coming to!

Even such great scientists as Einstein have been tempted to give opinions outside their field (he exaggerated the harm of fallout btw) but in the end, other scientists don't judge them for it. They may learn from it.

AGW is the gift that keeps on giving for the politicians that invented it. At last they have found a way to tax the air we breath and make us feel good about it so if they just keep paying for those scare stories there's simply no way to lose for them.

Its why the IPCC was created (the hint is in the title 'intergovernmental') a faux scientific body set up to put humanity on trial where only the case for the prosecution is ever allowed to be heard !

The cash this is generating for the proponents is truly mind blowing with any accountability for this expenditure totally absent

joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/

And since this 2015 link it has gone up from $1.5 to $2.3 trillion per annum next year and rising, all of which has achieved to date viz climate precisely ......... NOTHING !

 

[flogger]

Denier blather.

Prove it ? #7

 

[Lord of Planar]

Put in a little more effort, or just give up posting. You'll thank me for the advice!

You don't understand. He is probably up to 1,000 posts with that meme along. He has a half dozen others.

You should be telling him that. I was just pointing it out to him.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Denier blather.

Recycled meme.

 

[Deuce]

Ironically, the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies to capable people too. So you're complaining that longview isn't dumbing it down enough for you, with the napkin math.

Or more bluntly: don't complain about napkin math unless you're up for the real thing.

You can't calculate climate change on a napkin, it's more complicated than that. Longview thinks he's coming up with insights that all those dumb climate scientists are just missing. Recently one of his calculations came up with this amazing realization that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than what you'd expect based on our total emissions.

It didn't occur to him that not all of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere, and that this was already well-explored.

He promptly dropped the thread when I pointed this out.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You can't calculate climate change on a napkin, it's more complicated than that. Longview thinks he's coming up with insights that all those dumb climate scientists are just missing. Recently one of his calculations came up with this amazing realization that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than what you'd expect based on our total emissions.

It didn't occur to him that not all of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere, and that this was already well-explored.

He promptly dropped the thread when I pointed this out.

You are one to talk. That's all you do is talk. At least he shows a variable or two how they respond outside of the influence of others. You just talk.

 

[flogger]

You can't calculate climate change on a napkin, it's more complicated than that. Longview thinks he's coming up with insights that all those dumb climate scientists are just missing. Recently one of his calculations came up with this amazing realization that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than what you'd expect based on our total emissions.

It didn't occur to him that not all of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere, and that this was already well-explored.

He promptly dropped the thread when I pointed this out.

Given we have no empirical value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 and given that this entire AGW scare is therefore based on climate modelledsubjectively applied guesswork. What evidence do you have that modulating 100PPM (0.01% of our atmospheric envelope) of CO2 will influence temperature in any way ? Here is a list of the major variables contained within climate models whose effects we cannot as yet quantify or model



Once you add money and politics into the mix climate models can be made to say anything you want them to, and the lavish funding of them will continue.

They are essentially junk science of the worst kind that is costing us a fortune in unnecessary taxation as a consequence

 

[Threegoofs]

You are one to talk. That's all you do is talk. At least he shows a variable or two how they respond outside of the influence of others. You just talk.

Yet he doesnt say stupid stuff, like the deniers around here.

yanno- proving most scientists wrong by simple math in a DP post, telling us that NASA’s position isn’t really their position on their website because they have communication professionals writing it, picking borderline ‘experts’ that have positions contrary to the scientific consensus and pretending that the consensus doesnt exist, that kinda stuff.

 

[Deuce]

Yet he doesnt say stupid stuff, like the deniers around here.

yanno- proving most scientists wrong by simple math in a DP post, telling us that NASA’s position isn’t really their position on their website because they have communication professionals writing it, picking borderline ‘experts’ that have positions contrary to the scientific consensus and pretending that the consensus doesnt exist, that kinda stuff.

"Lord" Christopher Monckton straight fabricated a chart, claimed it was an IPCC projection, and attacked it. These people defended that.

 

[Threegoofs]

"Lord" Christopher Monckton straight fabricated a chart, claimed it was an IPCC projection, and attacked it. These people defended that.

I miss Jack Hays. Those posts made me laugh like there was no tomorrow.

 

[watsup]

Given we have no empirical value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 and given that this entire AGW scare is therefore based on climate modelledsubjectively applied guesswork. What evidence do you have that modulating 100PPM (0.01% of our atmospheric envelope) of CO2 will influence temperature in any way ? Here is a list of the major variables contained within climate models whose effects we cannot as yet quantify or model

View attachment 67357093

Once you add money and politics into the mix climate models can be made to say anything you want them to, and the lavish funding of them will continue.

They are essentially junk science of the worst kind that is costing us a fortune in unnecessary taxation as a consequence

Denier post repetition. *YAWN*

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yet he doesnt say stupid stuff, like the deniers around here.

yanno- proving most scientists wrong by simple math in a DP post, telling us that NASA’s position isn’t really their position on their website because they have communication professionals writing it, picking borderline ‘experts’ that have positions contrary to the scientific consensus and pretending that the consensus doesnt exist, that kinda stuff.

The stupid stuff people say are the ones that don't know what a real denier is, so they call everyone that disagrees with them a denier.

Words have meaning. Incorrectly using them is either being ignorant, or trolling for a response by using it as name-calling.

Either way, such things diminish a persons credibility.

 

[Threegoofs]

The stupid people are the ones that are too stupid to know what a real denier is, so they call everyone that disagrees with them a denier.

Words have meaning. Incorrectly using them is either being ignorant, or trolling for a response.

So your primary defense is that there are people out there who are REALLY idiotic deniers?

I have to agree. They’ve posted here from time to time.

 

[watsup]

The stupid stuff people say are the ones that don't know what a real denier is, so they call everyone that disagrees with them a denier.

Words have meaning. Incorrectly using them is either being ignorant, or trolling for a response by using it as name-calling.

Either way, such things diminish a persons credibility.

And yet more psychological projection !!!!!!!!

 

[Lord of Planar]

So your primary defense is that there are people out there who are REALLY idiotic deniers?

That's not my defense, but yes. There are people who flat out deny that we have any influence.

I have to agree. They’ve posted here from time to time.

Yes, and if you notice, I am among the first to call out real deniers.

 

[Threegoofs]

That's not my defense, but yes. There are people who flat out deny that we have any influence.

Yes, and if you notice, I am among the first to call out real deniers.

For good reason.

It’s embarassing to have guys like that on your team.

 

[Lord of Planar]

For good reason.

It’s embarassing to have guys like that on your team.

Hey.

I agree with you for once, somewhat. It's not embarrassment as much as it detracts from the truth. Cannot let misinformation be in the conversation like your side does.

 

[watsup]

Hey.

I agree with you for once, somewhat. It's not embarrassment as much as it detracts from the truth. Cannot let misinformation be in the conversation like your side does.

And more and more psychological projection!!!!!

 

[Threegoofs]

Hey.

I agree with you for once, somewhat. It's not embarrassment as much as it detracts from the truth. Cannot let misinformation be in the conversation like your side does.

Yeah, like the NASA website.

 

[watsup]

Yeah, like the NASA website.

Gee, who would complain about the integrity of an organization full of competent scientists? *L*

 

[flogger]

Denier post repetition. *YAWN*

Prove its wrong ? # 8

 

[flogger]

Gee, who would complain about the integrity of an organization full of competent scientists? *L*

So what ball park figure in terms of billions of deaths via economic empoverishment would you deem acceptable in order to meet your earth saving requirements ?

 

[Ug make hammer]

You can't calculate climate change on a napkin, it's more complicated than that. Longview thinks he's coming up with insights that all those dumb climate scientists are just missing. Recently one of his calculations came up with this amazing realization that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than what you'd expect based on our total emissions.

It didn't occur to him that not all of the CO2 we emit stays in the atmosphere, and that this was already well-explored.

He promptly dropped the thread when I pointed this out.

Well I've heard that most of the extra carbon has been absorbed by the ocean, where it's killing reefs as we speak.

I try not to get too emotional over it, because tho reefs are obviously part of the natural world, I think everything but algae is going to die in the oceans before we're done. We can't just suck fish out of half the oceans without it affecting the tiny percentage that is completely protected. The things we don't eat are going to breed up and move in, and the economy of wild fish taking will get worse and worse as we have to fight off jellyfish and plastics. The problem we have with the atmosphere (unaccounted externality, or tragedy of the commons) is even worse with the oceans. There can still be farming, but wild fish likely won't be worth saving.

 

[watsup]

So what ball park figure in terms of billions of deaths via economic empoverishment would you deem acceptable in order to meet your earth saving requirements ?

Denier silliness.