We find no convincing evidence ....

[Fletch]

Um decreasing fossil fuel use is how to curb it,which can be done.Nothing despotic about not being careless with our environment.

Is that so? Ok, decrease fossil fuel use to what level--1990? That wont be good enough. According to climate scientists, the globe has been warming since the 1880's. You want to 'curb' climate change wouldnt you have to go back to pre-1880's levels? How do you propose to do that?

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Is that so? Ok, decrease fossil fuel use to what level--1990? That wont be good enough. According to climate scientists, the globe has been warming since the 1880's. You want to 'curb' climate change wouldnt you have to go back to pre-1880's levels? How do you propose to do that?

To levels below 15 gigatons per year. That's what oceans can absorb.

 

[Fletch]

To levels below 15 gigatons per year. That's what oceans can absorb.

Put that into a number that actually makes some sense then explain how we get there

 

[jnug]

Is that so? Ok, decrease fossil fuel use to what level--1990? That wont be good enough. According to climate scientists, the globe has been warming since the 1880's. You want to 'curb' climate change wouldnt you have to go back to pre-1880's levels? How do you propose to do that?

Nope...we just have to cut back to levels that would turn us away from irreversible damage. But you and your buddies just keep churning out your denial BS. I am done with your ilk. You are just going to keep it up till you are drowned on one coast or burned out on the other coast or find yourselves somewhere in the middle of the country dealing with devastating drought. If you are really lucky we will save you along with the rest of us, not that you will care. I won't either.

 

[Luckyone]

So, when you said "cannot be any more unequivocal than that" there IS the possibility of equivocation? Meaning that there ARE possible explanations outside of what they stated.

Let me answer your question this way: When it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, the probabilities are extremely high that it is a duck. Then again, there is always a 1% probability that it isn't. Are you willing to put your life and the lives of your loved ones on a 1% or less probability?

 

[Fletch]

Nope...we just have to cut back to levels that would turn us away from irreversible damage.

And what level is that?

But you and your buddies just keep churning out your denial BS. I am done with your ilk. You are just going to keep it up till you are drowned on one coast or burned out on the other coast or find yourselves somewhere in the middle of the country dealing with devastating drought. If you are really lucky we will save you along with the rest of us, not that you will care. I won't either.

Unable to make intelligent conversation on the issue you turn to fear mongering

 

[marke]

What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?

• 
  [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.
  
  [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
  
  [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)

Secular hotheads see global warming as necessary to keep money flowing from hardworking taxpayers into the hands of democrats invested in green energy enterprises and skilled in forming foundations with high sounding global warming ideas for the purpose of sucking up billions in government grants supposedly for the good of the poor taxpayers paying for all that lush and plush living.

 

[jnug]

And what level is that?
Unable to make intelligent conversation on the issue you turn to fear mongering

Your side of this discussion has not made an intelligent comment on the topic in ten years. Same BS, different day.

If you want to know what it will take. LOOK! There is enough scientific research on the topic to choke a mule. If you don't know about it its because you haven't looked and likely won't look. Not going to spoon feed you at this point. But you won't look. You will wonder why you suddenly have adult asthma never having contracted it as a child or why you have been flooded out of your house not even living in a prescribed flood zone or why mid-western farming is just not working out like it has historically.

Like I said, now for somebody like you, its down to luck. If you are LUCKY, we will save your butt for you while saving our own. If not....Oh Well...no skin off my nose.

Your ilk will STILL be in denial while your very house is burning down or being flooded out you you suddenly find you can't breath anymore.

 

[jnug]

Secular hotheads see global warming as necessary to keep money flowing from hardworking taxpayers into the hands of democrats invested in green energy enterprises and skilled in forming foundations with high sounding global warming ideas for the purpose of sucking up billions in government grants supposedly for the good of the poor taxpayers paying for all that lush and plush living.

Brilliant bumpkin. So lets value coal business over green business. Go read. Do some research before you post something that idiotic.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Fossil fuel companies have spend huge amount of money on disinformation and lobbying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W_paluhKjIV

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

Sadly the fossil fuel companies still have a huge negative effect on our society. For example that the Trump administration wants to spend billions on dollars on propping up dirty coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also plan to nominate a former coal lobbyist as administrator of EPA:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ing-epa-chief-wheeler-for-senate-confirmation

 

[Fletch]

Your side of this discussion has not made an intelligent comment on the topic in ten years. Same BS, different day.

If you want to know what it will take. LOOK! There is enough scientific research on the topic to choke a mule. If you don't know about it its because you haven't looked and likely won't look. Not going to spoon feed you at this point. But you won't look. You will wonder why you suddenly have adult asthma never having contracted it as a child or why you have been flooded out of your house not even living in a prescribed flood zone or why mid-western farming is just not working out like it has historically.

Like I said, now for somebody like you, its down to luck. If you are LUCKY, we will save your butt for you while saving our own. If not....Oh Well...no skin off my nose.

Your ilk will STILL be in denial while your very house is burning down or being flooded out you you suddenly find you can't breath anymore.

That is fear mongering, nothing more. Just so you know, no one, and I mean no one, has put forth a solution to climate change. Why? Because there isnt one. If the activities of 7 billion people are impacting the climate, then we have to do what any creature must do when the climate around them is changing--adapt. So stop spreading your fear and start using your head.

 

[Fletch]

Fossil fuel companies have spend huge amount of money on disinformation and lobbying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W_paluhKjIV

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

Sadly the fossil fuel companies still have a huge negative effect on our society. For example that the Trump administration wants to spend billions on dollars on propping up dirty coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also plan to nominate a former coal lobbyist as administrator of EPA:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ing-epa-chief-wheeler-for-senate-confirmation

So what?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fossil fuel companies have spend huge amount of money on disinformation and lobbying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W_paluhKjIV

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

Sadly the fossil fuel companies still have a huge negative effect on our society. For example that the Trump administration wants to spend billions on dollars on propping up dirty coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also plan to nominate a former coal lobbyist as administrator of EPA:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ing-epa-chief-wheeler-for-senate-confirmation

Warmers have at least 100 times the money for their propaganda.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?

• 
  [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.
  
  [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
  
  [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)

Whats next a WH report on evolution that concludes "no convincing evidence"? Oh the fun of state ran science....

 

[Deuce]

Reducing emission is possible, but that merely slows the rate of climate change on the margins. It does not stop it or reverse the trend

Can you explain why a warming globe is a bad thing? And why our current global temperature is the optimum? The globe has been hotter than it is now and the globe has been colder than it is now. Why should I believe that our current temp is the 'perfect' temp that we dare not change by a degree or two?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand. The goal is not "permanently stall the earth's climate."

 

[jnug]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand. The goal is not "permanently stall the earth's climate."

In case you have not noticed there is no talking to the deniers. They don't even care to even cobble together reasonable questions or reasoned arguments. They will have to be steamrolled as they will not be brought along, even kicking and screaming. Either we will allow them to kill the economy of the country and eventually us and our children with it or they will benefit from the sane saving everybody. There is simply no chance that they will be brought along even at the point of being in flames or under water or famished.

 

[Fletch]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand. The goal is not "permanently stall the earth's climate."

Ok then, whats the goal?

 

[Xelor]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand. The goal is not "permanently stall the earth's climate."

Off-topic:
It sucks when one must use a verb when what's most apropos is an adjective.

 

[Xelor]

Fossil fuel companies have spend huge amount of money on disinformation and lobbying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W_paluhKjIV

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

Sadly the fossil fuel companies still have a huge negative effect on our society. For example that the Trump administration wants to spend billions on dollars on propping up dirty coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also plan to nominate a former coal lobbyist as administrator of EPA:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ing-epa-chief-wheeler-for-senate-confirmation

Red:
Screw "dirty." It's now, depending on geography and technology, cheaper to build a wind farm than to maintain a coal plant. Per Lazard, which annually evaluates the costs of traditional and so-called alternative energy sources/production, the LCOE for coal this year is between $27 and $45 per megawatt, whereas it cost from $29 to $56 for a wind farm and $31 to $44 for a solar farm, depending on the technology used. (To see the 2017 issue of the LCOE report -- 2018's is at the link in the prior sentence -- click here.) Lazard also noted that wind and solar farms typically require fewer people to run than a coal or nuclear plant, further decreasing their cost.

Wind power costs have dropped as utilities have turned to bigger and bigger turbines -- the bigger the turbine the more energy returned -- with the largest turbines installed today yielding double the power they could've a decade ago, according to the Energy Information Administration. The efficiency boost dramatically increases the amount of power per parcel of land. Furthermore, the increasingly competitive environment in wind and solar implementation and energy production has lowered development costs and wrought more efficient processes and technology.

 

[Deuce]

Ok then, whats the goal?

Minimize human impact on climate.

See, if you minimize human influence (you can't 100% eliminate it, obviously), that doesn't magically cause natural factors to stop doing their thing. I'm really not sure where you ever got the idea that anyone suggested we could stop solar variation or milankovich cycles or volcanic activity.

 

[distraff]

What sophistry will Donald Trump and Trumpkins conjure to refute the findings of the Trump administration's own researchers and political leaders at the NOAA have concluded, with "very high confidence," as follows?

• 
  [*=1]We find no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of global warming observed over the industrial era.
  
  [*=1]For the period extending over the last century, there are no convincing alternative explanations supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
  
  [*=1]Solar output changes and internal variability can only contribute marginally to the observed changes in climate over the last century, and we find no convincing evidence for natural cycles in the observational record that could explain the observed changes in climate.

Statements of findings about current and future behavior and their multifarious etiologies, both endogenous and exogenous, cannot be any more unequivocal than that. (Would that Trump or any other public figure make such resoundingly unambiguous remarks.)

And when the impact of greenhouse gasses are factored in, that is when the rise in temperatures starts to make sense.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Put that into a number that actually makes some sense then explain how we get there

I gave you the specific number. How we get there is not something I consider as important as getting there.

 

[Fletch]

Minimize human impact on climate.

See, if you minimize human influence (you can't 100% eliminate it, obviously), that doesn't magically cause natural factors to stop doing their thing. I'm really not sure where you ever got the idea that anyone suggested we could stop solar variation or milankovich cycles or volcanic activity.

I dont know where you got the idea that I made such a claim. Are any of you liberals capable of an honest discussion? It seems not.
How come?

 

[Fletch]

I gave you the specific number. How we get there is not something I consider as important as getting there.

??? If you dont know and dont care how we 'get there' then what point is there in caring about anything you say on the matter?

 

[Deuce]

I dont know where you got the idea that I made such a claim. Are any of you liberals capable of an honest discussion? It seems not.
How come?

The two posts I quoted indicated you thought we were talking about stopping changes in climate. That the current temperature is some sort of "optimum" we should stay at forever.