"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Dr. Spencer has published peer-reviewed papers. Dr. Gray got involved in GW because people started attributing GW to hurricane frenquency and intensity and Dr. Gray is an expert on hurricanes.

LOL.

Can you explain to me how one goes about disproving something that's not proven in the first place? Seems like all that any good "denier" would have to do to disprove AGW is ..... nothing.

---

All one has to do is prove conclusively that something else has caused warming trends other than man-made greenhouse gases, and provide enough weight of evidence for honest scientists who actually are good critical thinkers to find that the evidence points to the alternative.

It isn't some secret, it just takes people who are good at critical thinking, which is not something that political hacks who pretend to be scientists generally excel at.

The right's problem with this is that, like WC and seemingly yourself, you can't envision people who don't really have a political agenda, because you are so mired in your own political blinders that it is inconceivable that there are people who aren't.

"I am a political hack, so EVERYBODY must be a political hack of one shade or another, and incapable of honestly evaluating evidence."

That is an erroneous assumption.

Quote:

---

No, I asked for a source for your "it will cost trillions and trillions" to reduce carbon emissions to any appreciable degree.

It's not my fault you don't understand the underlying economics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

This is trivial. I'm not going to bother arguing the added up costs. I address the real issues. That CO2 does not contribute any significant warming. It is solar, which we cannot do anything about, and soot, which we can, yet nobody addresses soot.

Worrying about CO2 is ridiculous, at any cost, until we address the one we can that's far cheaper. Soot!

I am very conservative on my estimates. I use 55K for a solar free earth and 0.2 % increase in solar radiation. Other sources I have found say the earth would be far closer to absolute zero than I use and even the IPCC has solar radiation increases at 0.24 to 0.3%

Why don't we argue the important stuff?

---

So I can safely then assume that it will not only not cost trillions, but changing over to a low CO2 economy will actually make the economy bigger then it would have been had we not changed anything.

Thanks for ceding the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

The right's problem with this is that, like WC and seemingly yourself, you can't envision people who don't really have a political agenda, because you are so mired in your own political blinders that it is inconceivable that there are people who aren't.

---

You just don't get it.

I understand enough of the sciences to know Anthropogenic Global Warming as laid out by the left is a lie.

I guess if you understood physics, and chemistry enough, I could get through to you. I do know not all have a political reason. The problem is that people like to believe we are the cause, and they are doped. You are doped too.

The Alarmists are attributing greenhouse gas emissions for the warning we have seen. There are without a doubt, more clear causes of the warming.

I have shown you conclusive evidence the primary two causes of warming are the suns change in solar intensity and soot. Play ignorant to the sciences. I don't care. You are a lost cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

All one has to do is prove conclusively that something else has caused warming trends other than man-made greenhouse gases, and provide enough weight of evidence for honest scientists who actually are good critical thinkers to find that the evidence points to the alternative.

It isn't some secret, it just takes people who are good at critical thinking, which is not something that political hacks who pretend to be scientists generally excel at.

The right's problem with this is that, like WC and seemingly yourself, you can't envision people who don't really have a political agenda, because you are so mired in your own political blinders that it is inconceivable that there are people who aren't.

"I am a political hack, so EVERYBODY must be a political hack of one shade or another, and incapable of honestly evaluating evidence."

That is an erroneous assumption.

---

People skeptical of AGW don't have to prove anything. AGW is not some great "truth" that so-called "deniers" have the burden to disprove. If it were, there would be no need for this thread, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

People skeptical of AGW don't have to prove anything. AGW is not some great "truth" that so-called "deniers" have the burden to disprove. If it were, there would be no need for this thread, right?

---

Actually, there is a burden of proof.

If warming trends are caused/increased mainly by something other than greenhouse gasses emissions, then showing what factors are causing most of the warming, like sun activity, is the best way to debunk the AGW theory.

One can also attempt to replicate the work of the AGW scientific papers and ask some critical questions. One hallmark of valid science as opposed to pseudoscience is the ability to replicate results.

This means taking the data from the last 50-200 years and re-examining it and attempting to show how it supports some other primary cause of past warming trends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You just don't get it.

I understand enough of the sciences to know Anthropogenic Global Warming as laid out by the left is a lie.

I guess if you understood physics, and chemistry enough, I could get through to you. I do know not all have a political reason. The problem is that people like to believe we are the cause, and they are doped. You are doped too.

The Alarmists are attributing greenhouse gas emissions for the warning we have seen. There are without a doubt, more clear causes of the warming.

I have shown you conclusive evidence the primary two causes of warming are the suns change in solar intensity and soot. Play ignorant to the sciences. I don't care. You are a lost cause.

---

I don't have the time to delve into this to the level of being able to really truly evaluate the data. I have said as much.

What I, and just about everybody else for that matter, am faced with is formulating a course of action based on known data and weigh evidence according to a subjective assessment of reliability.

You have proven yourself to be biased and generally untrustworthy when it comes to intellectual honesty about the strengths and weaknesses of your assertions. I cannot trust your evaluation of this data with any real degree of certainty.

By the same token, you and Darrin have provided some fair evidence that the bodies behind the bulk of the AGW theory have some of the same intellectual blinders that you do.

There exists on one hand, a fair amount of data supporting a conclusion from someone absolutely known to be biased, but cannot be logically dismissed as incorrect simply because they are not honest.

There exists on the other hand, data from people who do appear to have some bias, but who have a lot of data that supports a completely opposite conclusion. This also cannot be logicaly dismissed as incorrect simply because of this bias.

I still need to make a decision, because there is at least a reasonable possibility that the IPCC is at least somewhat correct.

This goes all the way back to the OP, yet again.

The worst case scenario for AGW may indeed be unlikely or even remote, but the conservative risk-mitigation strategy says that a moderate effort to avoid this is warranted.

If it really turns out to be false, we have not broken the bank to avoid AGW, and if it turns out to be true, we have at the very least bought ourselves as a civilization time to fix/avoid the worst.

This is especially true since WC and the "deniers" (for wont of a better term) can provide so little evidence of how likely their worst-case scenario is, i.e. a ruined economy. That it is reasonably possible suggests we moderate our response, as I have advocated. It is also reasonably possible that our economy will actually grow faster if we act to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. This mitigating factor adds to the case for acting to cut them.

This is how to deal with uncertainties. You evaluate risks, data, and a course of action and find the solution that offers the best mitigation of known risks.

You are right. I don't completely understand your data, just as I don't completely understand the data underlying the IPCC report. I don't have to.

^^^Honest, restrained, learned and reasonable.

In other words, a very typical RG post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

^^^Honest, restrained, learned and reasonable.

In other words, a very typical RG post.

---

Thank you.

And by the by, my earlier comment about searching for an answer on google came out snarky and that is not at all what I intended, sorry about that.

A better response would have been::

"Sorry, I don't have that answer about Obama's stimulus plan off the top of my head, it is probably not too hard to find though."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

.A better response would have been::

"Sorry, I don't have that answer about Obama's stimulus plan off the top of my head, it is probably not too hard to find though."

---

Eh, you were right.

Some of us are constrained by having a real life, and everybody gets a little cranky in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Eh, you were right.

Some of us are constrained by having a real life, and everybody gets a little cranky in here.

---

I really wasn't cranky, it just came out that way. I had little time to post and didn't really think through the reply.

I have noticed that WC hasn't bothered to support his "trillions" figure, beyond some half-assed glib generalities.

I win. HA!

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I really wasn't cranky, it just came out that way. I had little time to post and didn't really think through the reply.

I have noticed that WC hasn't bothered to support his "trillions" figure, beyond some half-assed glib generalities.

I win. HA!

/thread

---

I haven't bothered supporting it because it has been in the regular news as costing that much on a semi regular basis. To be stuck on such a point is your war of rationalizing not being able to deal with the facts of global warming from a real scientific perspective.

I challenge you to do this. Find anyone you know with a BS degree. Ask them to take the IPCC report data that solar intensity changes are from 0.24% to 0.3% and ask them how much that changes the temperature of the earth. Simply remind them that the earth would be really cold without the sun. Let them pick their point and maybe tell them I believe it would be between 5 kelvin to 55 kelvin with no solar radiation.

Ask then how much that 0.24% to 0.3% increase makes that the IPCC report acknowledges.

Every time I think this thread is gone, it rears its ugly head again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I haven't bothered supporting it because it has been in the regular news as costing that much on a semi regular basis. To be stuck on such a point is your war of rationalizing not being able to deal with the facts of global warming from a real scientific perspective.

I challenge you to do this. Find anyone you know with a BS degree. Ask them to take the IPCC report data that solar intensity changes are from 0.24% to 0.3% and ask them how much that changes the temperature of the earth. Simply remind them that the earth would be really cold without the sun. Let them pick their point and maybe tell them I believe it would be between 5 kelvin to 55 kelvin with no solar radiation.

Ask then how much that 0.24% to 0.3% increase makes that the IPCC report acknowledges.

---

That is your support for your costs? The liberal media news that you don't trust? "Common knowledge?"

That is pretty weak.

As for the rest of it, why bother? It will work itself out eventually one way or another, if the science is good.

I can make reasonable decisions without being 100% certain about the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Every time I think this thread is gone, it rears its ugly head again.

---

As long as I hear libtards talk about anthropogenic warming, I will be a proud Denier!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As long as I hear libtards talk about anthropogenic warming, I will be a proud Denier!

---

By the way, what is up with the Confederate Battle Flag???

The surfing pic was pretty cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That is your support for your costs? The liberal media news that you don't trust? "Common knowledge?"

That is pretty weak.

As for the rest of it, why bother? It will work itself out eventually one way or another, if the science is good.

I can make reasonable decisions without being 100% certain about the issue.

---

I'm not going to bother with the trillion plus. It doesn't matter if the number is larger or smaller. It is too large at almost any cost considering it will be spent in useless ways when the truth is denied.

Can we focus on the facts of warming please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

As long as I hear libtards talk about anthropogenic warming, I will be a proud Denier!

---

... and still unable to grasp the basics of economics. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm not going to bother with the trillion plus. It doesn't matter if the number is larger or smaller. It is too large at almost any cost considering it will be spent in useless ways when the truth is denied.

Can we focus on the facts of warming please?

---

It won't be useless at all, in fact, our economy will actually be better off going to a low CO2 energy structure.

The whole debate about AGW is irrelevant because of that, so worrying about the science is pointless. Leave that to the eggheads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

By the way, what is up with the Confederate Battle Flag???

The surfing pic was pretty cool.

---

I decided to be a bit more bold than I already am. I am a rebel at heart. I am a firm believer in states rights, and that's what that symbol signifies to me.

As for the natural waterslide pic?

That's off the side of Mt. Palgongsan in S. Korea, of me, but from 1983, maybe 1984, when I was stationed on that mountain top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I decided to be a bit more bold than I already am. I am a rebel at heart. I am a firm believer in states rights, and that's what that symbol signifies to me.

As for the natural waterslide pic?

That's off the side of Mt. Palgongsan in S. Korea, of me, but from 1983, maybe 1984, when I was stationed on that mountain top.

---

I thought it was a surfing pic. Kinda hard to tell being that small.

As for states rights: meh. I think if the Libertarians really got their way, it would be an economic catastrophe of the highest order.

Today, we are no more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate.

/thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newsweek, 1975

http://austrianeconomists.typepad.co...newsweek_2.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I thought it was a surfing pic. Kinda hard to tell being that small.

As for states rights: meh. I think if the Libertarians really got their way, it would be an economic catastrophe of the highest order.

---

We simply disagree. That's a bit outside this thread also. Question about the avatar change is answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Today, we are no more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate.

/thread

---

Since you have brought it up, let's see if you can see the logical flaws in your implication as well as the factual errors in the above statement.

Let's begin, then, with a simple question that has a yes or no answer.

Are you honest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Since you have brought it up, let's see if you can see the logical flaws in your implication as well as the factual errors in the above statement.

Let's begin, then, with a simple question that has a yes or no answer.

Are you honest?

---

There was no logical flaw in my statement and I am honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

There was no logical flaw in my statement and I am honest.

---

There is no logical flaw in your statement. Your statement:

Today, we are no more in a position to predict the climate of 2030 than people of 1975 were in a position to predict our current climate.

... is factually incorrect.


The implication that "Because scientists said something different 30 years ago, their contradiction means they are wrong now."

... is logically flawed.

I will take you at your word that you are honest until proven otherwise.

Let's start with the factually incorrect statement.

True or false:

We have done absolutely no research into global climate and climate systems since 1975.