In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I'm glad you brought that up!
97% of scientific publications IN THE RELEVANT AREAS disagree with you. So with regards to educated people on your side... yes, 1.2% of scientists agree with you, while 98.4% agree with me (0.4% have published both pro and contra articles).
While majority vote is not a valid scientific method, it sure as hell does say something about where educated people stand on the issue.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
On a different note, you're wrong. Critiquing the viability of your model is a basic tenet of scientific peer review. Next?
On May 20 2014 02:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote: On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
On a different note, you're wrong. Critiquing the viability of your model is a basic tenet of scientific peer review. Next?
On the same note, you're wrong. Passing the peer-review test doesn't mean that your model will correctly predict the future.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Seems like you're more interested in finding some Southern, bible-thumping, country bumpkin to argue with than me.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
On a different note, you're wrong. Critiquing the viability of your model is a basic tenet of scientific peer review. Next?
On the same note, you're wrong. Passing the peer-review test doesn't mean that your model will correctly predict the future.
"You can't see the future!1!!22" Good rhetorical argument bro. But we can see the past and create extrapolations based on that with sufficient margins of error to account for future variability.
Now it's your turn: Why is your model of the future the correct one in spite of the fact that the majority of people who are more qualified and have less of an inherent bias than you disagree and provide mountains of evidence versus your speculation?
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
On a different note, you're wrong. Critiquing the viability of your model is a basic tenet of scientific peer review. Next?
On the same note, you're wrong. Passing the peer-review test doesn't mean that your model will correctly predict the future.
"You can't see the future!1!!22" Good rhetorical argument bro. But we can see the past and create extrapolations based on that with sufficient margins of error to account for future variability.
Now it's your turn: Why is your model of the future the correct one in spite of the fact that the majority of people who are more qualified and have less of an inherent bias than you disagree and provide mountains of evidence versus your speculation?
Nyxisto was able to provide an intelligent response (looking into it), why can't you?
There are many cases where extrapolating from the past, even with wide margins of error, does not give you an accurate prediction of the future. I'm not claiming to have a superior model.
As far as I'm concerned it, it fairly thoroughly covers all of the principle conceits of the alarmist crowd. The facts remain that 1) humans contribute to the factors influencing global climate change at the extreme margin; and 2) the global climate is well-within historical variance. To incur the costs of making the economic and societal changes that the alarmists demand, we better have a really good reason to do so. Toss in the hysterics of many of the movement's figureheads (such as Al Gore), a rather bad history of prognostication by the alarmists, and the obvious corruption within the green industry, and there's a quite a bit to give one pause before accepting this stuff without a critical eye.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
Here is another inaccuracy:
That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
No, I'm arguing they are (ironically) the majority of the political support for climate skeptics.
I'm still trying to extract how many scientists you and Xdaunt think agree with the position that humans haven't significantly influenced climate, and then we can look at how many of them are also YEC's or used by them in justifying their positions...
His common talking point, that "Indeed, the increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 as the industrial revolution has flourished worldwide has increased agricultural output and production over the last 20 years by well over $1 trillion. As a result, the only documented effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere so far have been positive", is one such falsehood. As the C02 concentration in the atmosphere increases, 30-40% of this increased amount of C02 is absorbed by the oceans. This absorbtion has dropped the average surface PH of the earth's water from 8.25 in 1751 to 8.14 in 1994. This decreased PH harms the calcifying organisms that many fishing industries and tourism industries rely on to operate. Examples would include arctic fisheries and coral reefs.
Looking at graphs of the historic concentration of C02 in the atmosphere should dismiss his claims that there is no link between man-made emissions and this increased concentration.
After that point the article takes on a partisan attack on democrats and Obama and gets away from climate science.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here.
Frankly, I don't really like his arguments about increased CO2 emissions being the cause of increased agricultural output. There are more important factors contributing to that.
As for your graph, pick one that shows a truly geologic timescale (hundreds of millions of years). Hundreds of thousands of years is meaningless.
And lastly, his arguments concerning the change of the price of gas are kinda silly, but that's not really germane to his points about the "conceits" of the global warming alarmist crowd that we're discussing.
Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here.
You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist. (Basically for everyone who doesn't agree with your weird opinion which does not have any factual basis)
On May 20 2014 01:21 aksfjh wrote: [quote] Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here.
You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist.
What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities?
On May 20 2014 01:21 aksfjh wrote: [quote] Anything larger than even a couple of thousands of years is actually quite meaningless. The larger timescale is meant to give us a point of reference in regards to a similar ecological and geological world. In the "millions of years" range, humans don't even exist. The whole point of acting on climate change isn't that we're somehow going to destroy the Earth and all life on it, but rather make it incredibly hard for us to continue advancing civilization. It doesn't really matter if worms and bacteria were able to "thrive" 550 million years ago, because humans don't fit that category.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
On a different note, you're wrong. Critiquing the viability of your model is a basic tenet of scientific peer review. Next?
On the same note, you're wrong. Passing the peer-review test doesn't mean that your model will correctly predict the future.
"You can't see the future!1!!22" Good rhetorical argument bro. But we can see the past and create extrapolations based on that with sufficient margins of error to account for future variability.
Now it's your turn: Why is your model of the future the correct one in spite of the fact that the majority of people who are more qualified and have less of an inherent bias than you disagree and provide mountains of evidence versus your speculation?
Nyxisto was able to provide an intelligent response (looking into it), why can't you?
There are many cases where extrapolating from the past, even with wide margins of error, does not give you an accurate prediction of the future. I'm not claiming to have a superior model.
I did provide an intelligent response. I refuted your rhetorical argument with a rhetorical argument. This marks two posts in a row where you've raised strawman arguments that amount to nothing more than saying that "the consensus can be wrong". Unfortunately for you, the burden is on you to prove that the consensus is incorrect because you are the one who says that this is the case.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here.
You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist.
What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities?
Some things from 'An inconvenient truth' aren't super accurate, but basically he got the main points right. After all the idea of the movie was to bring a topic to light that was completely underrepresented in the american public discourse. The majority of what Al Gore has said is accurate.
His point is that the earth go's through cycles naturally on its own. Cycles that are longer then the time humans have spend on earth. The argument is that this increase in CO2 would have happened regardless of human interference as its in the earth's natural cycle and limiting ourselves to stop it does not actually accomplish anything.
The point I have been making is that the argument he is making only represents a minority of climate skeptics. The majority of people who don't believe humans energy consumption does have any significant impact on the environment (blows my mind that they could think that, climate or not) don't have a nuanced view as is being portrayed here, they are just saying the equivalent of 'Nu uhh, that's not what my Bible says' to the overwhelming scientific evidence.
So consider me one of the more educated skeptics. Let's not pretend that everyone on your side of the argument knows what they're talking about.
I can do that. I don't, I know the majority of people regardless of political leanings don't have a clue what they are talking about (one of the weaknesses of a poorly educated electorate).
But the crazies don't make up a majority on the other side of this issue, whereas they do from the opposition. The vast majority of skeptics are generally scientifically illiterate and largely just flat out ignorant.
The opposition party in Washington DC cant even begin an incorrect, yet nuanced argument like yours because their constituents are so ignorant.
Until we can politically at least agree that the earth is much more than ~9,000 years old climate change acknowledgers are arguing with mostly lunatics sprinkled with some, at least rhetorically, reasonable people like yourself.
Until skeptics in political power have the courage to make an argument like yours the debate is largely just like arguing with stubborn children and will bear little, if any fruit.
Stop with the religious red herring. No one here is making the argument that climate change is not man made because the bible told them so. People who believe in a young Earth are roughly split between Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't seem to have a big impact on believing in anthropomorphic climate change either.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Source
On a different note, I don't think anyone has refuted the idea that climate models aren't good predictors of future temperature.
Except it's not a 'red herring'. What you are suggesting is so ridiculous I don't really want to dissect it...
Since you've twice referenced 15%+ of Americans as a 'rough split' and 'quite small' remind us again how many scientists support the type of cynicism skepticism you and/or xdaunt are suggesting?
Yeah it is a red herring. You are arguing that you don't need to make intelligent posts because the people disagreeing with you are crazy. Yet, the reason you say they are crazy does not apply to the posters disagreeing with you, it applies to other people.
I guess his point is that the alarmists need a better class of lemmings than the religious fundamentalists. Someone who is a little bit better informed may better accept what the alarmists feed them. Still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference around here.
You're using the word alarmist in the same fashion the nutjobs in the Ukraine thread are using the word fascist.
What would you call Al Gore or anyone else who blames every natural disaster on manmade global warming and warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities?
A figment of your imagination? I think most people and definitely everyone here does not fit that description... as for "warns of imminent catastrophe due to our activities?" I think we call them the overwhelming majority of people who study the relevant fields (AKA Scientists)?
Who is it besides the YEC's and an ever shrinking minority of scientists in your corner again?
For the record, the "educated skeptic" that is xDaunt declared in 2011 that we were facing a "global cooling" (instead of global warming) trend, that "no one knows what the fuck is going on" with regards to the Earth's climate, that there are "gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years", and that his work as a lawyer was "a form of peer review" which allowed him to evaluate the claims of scientists (see here, pp. 59-61).
EPT
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png)
