Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

unexceptionably stupid measures

Um, what?

[Winehole23]

Source: WordNet (r) 1.7

unexceptionable adj : completely acceptable; not open to exception or reproach; "two unexceptionable witnesses"; "a judge's ethics should be unexceptionable" [syn: unimpeachable]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Unexceptionable \Un`ex*cep"tion*a*ble\, a.
Not liable to any exception or objection; unobjectionable;
faultless; good; excellent; as, a man of most unexceptionable
character. -- Un`ex*cep"tion*a*ble*ness, n. --
Un`ex*cep"tion*a*bly, adv.

http://dictionary.die.net/unexceptionable

[Winehole23]

"Unimpeachable" is clearly the better choice for the ironic emphasis WC probably intended. The semantic confusion around the crypto-technical and somewhat prissified word "unexceptionable," appears to have undermined his jocular thrust.

[RandomGuy]

"Unimpeachable" is clearly the better choice for the ironic emphasis WC probably intended. The semantic confusion around the crypto-technical and somewhat prissified word "unexceptionable," appears to have undermined his jocular thrust.

Un`ex*cep"tion*a*bly, adv.

I googled the word, as it looked su iously like a nonsensical neologism ala certain recent Pailinisms.

There is also the fact that it is an adverb used to modify a noun... but hey that is being unnecessarily picky.

Anyhooo, I am still waiting on him to answer my question for our little kibuki theater bit, so I can chalk it up on the scoreboard.

Anyone else care to take up the "will cutting CO2 emissions harm our economy"?

[DarrinS]

Un`ex*cep"tion*a*bly, adv.

I googled the word, as it looked su iously like a nonsensical neologism ala certain recent Pailinisms.

irony

[Wild Cobra]

One in a trillion?

Really, you are THAT certain about it?

99.9999999% sure is more sure than *anybody* studying it is.

That CO2 is the major cause. Yet, I am absolutely certain.

And you have come to this degree of certainty about one of the most complex natural systems that mankind has tried to understand so far all without ever having gathered any first-hand data, or submitted your theories/conclusions to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I'm not trying to specifically quantify it, which would make applying a certainty impossible.

To top off this highly-unscientific statement, you berate me for being risk adverse and essentially use a strawman logical fallacy to distort my previously-stated beliefs about the scale of action needed.

If you only understood the aspects I am applying, you wouldn't say that.

So let's do a well-worn riff on this, and set about chalking up a few more unsupported assertions and logical fallacies.

Would limiting CO2 emissions be harmful to our economy?

It depends on the degree in which you limit it. There will be some effect from minor, and may boost jobs for an overall gain, to disastrous. It just depends on how far you take it by regulation and taxes. I will say that the current proposals of Tax and Trade will definitely harm the economy.

I am not against reasonable measures to limit CO2. In fact, i wish we could do like in games. Save and load. If we could eliminate all anthropogenic CO2, what would the levels be in a year. I will contend that they will rise, because the CO2 cycle is not yet in equilibrium from the warming of the oceans that have occurred for the last 250+ years. The oceans should be able to sink more than the 45% to 55% of our emissions than they do today.

[Wild Cobra]

http://dictionary.die.net/unexceptionable

OK, you found another mistake of mine. One point to you.

You do know what I meant though, right?

[Wild Cobra]

irony

It's been a while since I said this, but English was always my worse subject in school.

[RandomGuy]

irony

[RandomGuy]

OK, you found another mistake of mine. One point to you.

You do know what I meant though, right?

Honestly, I wasn't quite sure. I did figure it out tho' after a re-read. Minor thing I regret even bringing up. 'nuff said.

[Wild Cobra]

Unacceptable would have been a better choice. I don't recall why I typed what I did.

[RandomGuy]

That CO2 is the major cause. Yet, I am absolutely certain.

I'm not trying to specifically quantify it, which would make applying a certainty impossible.

If you only understood the aspects I am applying, you wouldn't say that.

I understand enough. I don't think you are really considering the full interaction of the climate system as a whole.

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty if there are any tipping points or where they are.

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty exactly how all the factors interact with each other and to what degree some cycles feed/subtract other cycles.

As I have said before, if the level of certainty was that great, you would be able to EASILY get a paper through any peer-review process.

The fact that you haven't, says that I can probably assign your "certainty" the same weight as I assign the guy who is 99.99999% sure he has debunked the theory of relativity.

If/when you write that 99.999999% proof-positive paper and submit it to a climate research peer-review journal, I will change that assessment of how much to weigh your theory, not before.

[Wild Cobra]

RG, there is such a simplistic way to look at some things. As complex as the climate systems are, conservation of mass and energy prevail. The simple fact that the energy of the sun has changed by known quan ies allow us to know what the energy is without ofter factors changing. That said, the remaining energy available to the greenhouse effect cannot exceed about 3/8th the total warming since 1750. We know that other factors, which are far easier to quantify, like soot on ice, contribute to about 3/16th the greenhouse effect or more. That leaves no more than 3/16th of the greenhouse effect to be of greenhouse gasses and other factors.

True science rules. Conservation of mass and energy has yet to be shown wrong.

Now you show me any evidence that the greenhouse gasses can have the stated effect at only 3/16th what the claims are based on, and I'll listen.

[DarrinS]

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty exactly how all the factors interact with each other and to what degree some cycles feed/subtract other cycles.

As I have said before, if the level of certainty was that great, you would be able to EASILY get a paper through any peer-review process.

The fact that you haven't, says that I can probably assign your "certainty" the same weight as I assign the guy who is 99.99999% sure he has debunked the theory of relativity.

If/when you write that 99.999999% proof-positive paper and submit it to a climate research peer-review journal, I will change that assessment of how much to weigh your theory, not before.

Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

It's ironic that you bring up negative feedbacks when the IPCC models tend to minimize their affects and/or ignore them altogether.

You mention "all the factors that interact with each other", which I agree that their are hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that play a role --- yet IPCC is laser focused on CO2.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

It's ironic that you bring up negative feedbacks when the IPCC models tend to minimize their affects and/or ignore them altogether.

You mention "all the factors that interact with each other", which I agree that their are hundreds, if not thousands, of factors that play a role --- yet IPCC is laser focused on CO2.

[RandomGuy]

unexceptionably stupid measures

I learned a new word at least.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

You might want to read back a few threads... WC said "one out of a trillion" upthread.

[RandomGuy]

Since you take that chance, which I would say in 1 in a trillion or more, that this is a true risk...

I don't think you know with a 99.999999% certainty if there are any tipping points or where they are.

Why do you ask this of WC when the IPCC doesn't even hold itself accountable to this standard? 99.999999% sure? -- lmao.

Real scientists don't. That was exactly my point.

(note: one in a trillion = .0000000001 or .00000001% )

Dude, seriously, don't ever stop posting. Every forum needs comic relief.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you saying the theory of conservation of mass and energy is wrong?

[RandomGuy]

Are you saying the theory of conservation of mass and energy is wrong?

???

No.

Not sure what led you to believe that, but I will take a stab:

You are attempting to set up a dichotomy, wherein you tie your belief/theory directly to that of a law of physics so that I am either forced to accept your conclusion, or reject it, and thereby reject a law of physics.

This is a false dichotomy, simply because it does not allow for your potential to have misunderstood the system you are attempting to apply it to, or misapply the law itself.

If there exists, beyond a 1 in a trillion chance, an instance in which the complex system of our climate behaves in a way that runs counter to your understanding, then your attempt to establish that dichotomy is misguided.

Further,

The IPCC itself says that many aspects of the climate system and interactions between factors are not very well understood or tested. For you to reach such a level of certainty means that you, more than any other human being on the planet, have reached a more full understanding of our climate than any other human being has claimed to achieve.

I think you have made a fallacy of composition, wherein the behavior of the whole is not fully predicted by the individual parts. This is a bit like looking at a lump of water, carbon, and trace metals and thinking that those materials would never amount to a sentient being if put together, or that cutting an elephant in half would result in two smaller elephants.

This lump of water, carbon, and trace metals would beg to differ.

[RandomGuy]

1) Added CO2 increases crop output.

2) Added warmth increases usable land.

3) Added warmth adds precipitation, and should reduce drought. Not increase it.

4) The atmosphere has an dynamic relationship of cloud cover with warmth. It becomes self regulating, increasing the albedo and reducing the driving force of the greenhouse effect. This is one place AGW theories fail. they refuse to predict based on a dynamic albedo, but use a static relationship.

Survival in the Sahel
It's getting harder all the time

But now the rains have started bringing problems too. Farmers and aid workers say rainfall has been more erratic and stormy for at least the past five years, though it is unclear whether any areas are getting more water overall. Kagara is just one pocket of woe; an hour’s drive north, this year’s floods left over 50,000 people homeless in the desert country of Niger. Ruined harvests caused crippling food shortages that put more than half of the population at risk of going hungry in the spring. Countries across the Sahelian belt have suffered similar deluges. The number of those who routinely lose crops, cattle or houses in such floods has been rising steadily since 2005.

So the Sahel’s inhabitants are increasingly facing a cycle of extreme dry and wet spells, raising doubts as to whether the region is really habitable at all. Each season seems to exacerbate the problems of the next. When torrential rains destroy crops, Sahelians are even likelier to suffer from food shortages in the following dry months. “This next season will be very worrying,” says Carlos Muñoz, an adviser in west Africa for Oxfam, one of several aid agencies in the area.

[Wild Cobra]

???

No.

Not sure what led you to believe that, but I will take a stab:

You are attempting to set up a dichotomy, wherein you tie your belief/theory directly to that of a law of physics so that I am either forced to accept your conclusion, or reject it, and thereby reject a law of physics.

This is a false dichotomy, simply because it does not allow for your potential to have misunderstood the system you are attempting to apply it to, or misapply the law itself.

If there exists, beyond a 1 in a trillion chance, an instance in which the complex system of our climate behaves in a way that runs counter to your understanding, then your attempt to establish that dichotomy is misguided.

Further,

The IPCC itself says that many aspects of the climate system and interactions between factors are not very well understood or tested. For you to reach such a level of certainty means that you, more than any other human being on the planet, have reached a more full understanding of our climate than any other human being has claimed to achieve.

I think you have made a fallacy of composition, wherein the behavior of the whole is not fully predicted by the individual parts. This is a bit like looking at a lump of water, carbon, and trace metals and thinking that those materials would never amount to a sentient being if put together, or that cutting an elephant in half would result in two smaller elephants.

This lump of water, carbon, and trace metals would beg to differ.

Sometimes the simplest things should be used. In this case, energy must be maintained. This concept does not prove my point with any quan ative values for CO2, but just that the sun has increased by a given known amount within an well accepted small error, and when you subtract this energy from the stated warming, there is little left for greenhouse gasses. Most certainly not what they are trumped up to be. Now unless you can show that the extra energy from the sun does not cause extra heat, the the AGW people are factually wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Survival in the Sahel
It's getting harder all the time

And who's to say this isn't natural climate change?

This is not a good example of anything, except to prove you are grasping at straws. It's a poor area to begin with for growing anything. It's a transitional area between two distinct climates. Any fool should know this area is unstable.

[RandomGuy]

And who's to say this isn't natural climate change?

This is not a good example of anything, except to prove you are grasping at straws. It's a poor area to begin with for growing anything. It's a transitional area between two distinct climates. Any fool should know this area is unstable.

Blame the victim. Classic.

[Wild Cobra]

Blame the victim. Classic.

Now you are taking the typical liberal view. The claimed victim cannot be talked about.

I'm not blaming the victim. I am stating facts. the area between two distinct climates will have dramatic changes. There is no normal. It isn't called "sahel" for no reason.

wiki: Sahel

There was a major drought in the Sahel in 1914, caused by annual rains far below average, that caused a large-scale famine. The 1960's saw a large increase in rainfall in the region, making the Northern drier region more accessible. There was a push, supported by governments, for people to move northwards, and as the long drought-period from 1968 through 1974 began, the grazing quickly became unsustainable, and large-scale denuding of the terrain followed. Like the drought in 1914, this led to a large-scale famine, but this time it was somewhat tempered by international visibility and an outpouring of aid. This catastrophe led to the founding of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

In June to August, 2010, famine struck the Sahel. Niger's crops failed to mature in the heat and famine occurred. 350,000 faced starvation and 1,200,000 were at risk of famine. In Chad, the temperature reached 47.6°C (117.7°F) on June 22 in Faya, breaking a record set in 1961 at the same location. Niger tied its highest temperature record set in 1998, on also June 22, at 47.1°C in Bilma. That record was broken the next day, on June 23 when Bilma hit 48.2°C (118.8°F). The hottest temperature recorded in Sudan was reached on June 25, at 49.6°C (121.3°F) in Dongola, breaking a record set in 1987. Niger reported diarrhea, starvation, gastroenteritis, malnutrition and respiratory diseases killed and sickened many children July 14th. The new military junta is appealing for international food aid and has taken serious steps to calling over seas help since coming to office in February 2010. On July 26 the heat reached near record levels over Chad and Niger, and about 20 had reportedly died in northern Niger of dehydration on July the 27th.

Dramatic changes are normal.