Now, you're arguing from position #3, and I have to agree: The alarmists haven't made the case tht AGW is a disaster necessarily.
Position #1: Agreed.
No doubt the Earth would have warmed anyway. Just how much is a matter of speculation.
So, yes... out of 150 years that say 0.5 degrees of warming overall (according to CO2now.org 's monthly graph)... we're talking about an equation that would lead to a fraction of that 0.5 degree change due to an increase of about 100ppm of Co2...
BUT, had we been on a cooling trend that Co2 would have kept it from cooling by roughly the same amount. This is important because it demonstrates that the connection between Co2 and climate really IS simple a CORRELATION, and that the temperature COULD increase with CO2 remaining stable...
When have scientists ever been afraid to "shake the boat"?
When it makes the difference between multi-million dollar research grants or not... ya, there's lets' say an influence. I'll have to find that physicist's resignation letter because of his organizations take on AGW.
Did you follow the debate about whether dinos were the forerunners of birds? There was a lot of boat shaking while that hypothesis was being debated.
Right, because regardless of where the debate goes, that funding is not at any sort of risk... Whether dinos became birds, super-intelligent and went off-world, or whatever... it doesn't really matter to anyone today, in that regardless of the truth there's not going to be anything drastic of a change.... just a few notes in an archaeological book or something.
None of them is stating anything other than what I've repeated. This is not my position, but that of the world's scientific organizations.
Those qualifiers are important in the analysis... also, details like where they get the funding all should be factored into the equation...
OK, then, let's argue position #3.
or position #4
Ok, I'm accepting the totality of the facts. It is the opinions I'm having a problem with.
Ok, So, you've got the global leaders in all realms; industry, technology, military, intelligence, media, academia, etc... that are ALL involved in, well, at least a few of the documents that I'm aware of (namely, club of romes 1976 'limits to growth' and then 1991 'first global revolution', and also UN's biological diversity assessment, 1996)... and they say that they are going to USE environmental issues in order to accomplish their goals... and to put it in the simplest terms, China is as close to a model example of what they desire as a solution...
Flowers always aim to the sun in the same way the power begets the drive for more power... and the 'flower' of an abusive power is : spying, control over resources, men in black uniforms, and eventually killing of opposition... and everything that goes contrary to the constitution (as a non-exhaustive list)
I don't think anyone is talking about scorched earth hot, just an average increase of a degree or two.
Best bet would be to look at the neighbouring planets, Venus has runaway GHG's, is much closer to the sun, and the heat is so extreme, that I don't believe they've yet to land on the surface... or it was destroyed soon after... then look at Mars, ALSO with runaway GHG's further from the sun and it's cold as **** there.
Fixing other environmental damage is another story, and yes, much has already been done and continues to be done. No rivers have caught fire lately.
And I agree that short of the giant reflectors or space debris we talked about many pages back, which would not be advisable to say the least, there isn't much we can do about AGW anyway.
We're on the same page on position #4.
Could also add that we don't know enough about climate to say whether things in the future will cool down, and if we DID put those reflectors and it started to cool, then any problems would be exacerbated by our attempts to fix previous non-'problems'
I'm not sure just what "corruption" there has been among the proponents of position #3. Perhaps you could enlighten us on that score. Are you speaking of Gore and his movie? That was, after all, just a movie. I didn't see it, but understand it was quite "alarmist".
A whistleblower would not have released the meticulously edited emails in such a way as to prevent discovering of identities, if EVERYTHING WAS on the up and up... bottom line, really...
Then there was also the 'himalayans ice caps will be melted by 2035" "mistake"...
Then there was how, in the US at least (which was rated as top of the line), and I'm not able to confirm how much of the problem was remedied, BUT 96% of the ground based weather stations were unacceptably close to artificial heat sources, and even the switch from whitewash to white paint amounted to an artificial increase in temperature of up to 0.8 degrees...
Al Gore was just a guy trying to cash in on the alarmism... in effect Al Gore IS a terrorist because of that, if we're going to use patriot act definitions of terrorism.
Agreed, again.
The way I phrased it:
I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.
"accelerating it". That's the words I have a problem with, not sure how the recession has affected Co2 production overall, but beyond that, all we have been 'accelerating' is the rate at which fuel is consumed... You can't make the conclusion that this is going to accelerate the warming because, earlier, we made the distinction that while CO2 does represent a warming influence the OVERALL climate is separate from CO2 levels.
The semantics is important, because to describe the reality accurately precludes the alarmism from ALSO being realistic Edit : , at least in the terms of CO2.
