Conservatives and climate change

[DC]

We have an obligation to maintain the increase in standard of living for everyone. It's going to "get worse" if you mean +ppm.

You have to look at what we've achieved as a society during the period of increased fossil fuel and CO2 emissions and weigh that against what the downturn in the economy will do.

It's foolish to think we can do anything to curb emissions in the next 50 years world wide barring a significant technological breakthrough. Or a war.

You ever seen that Star Trek episode where they go into a nebula and the stuff starts sticking to the hull? The junk piles up on the hull and they're so far in by the time they realize it they have no choice but continue. That's us, we've got to "Push On Through" and hope for the best. The sooner you realize this the happier you will be.

yet another just made up prediciton that you see as to be just accurately enough.........

laughable

 

[Furcifer]

LOL

you bring up the strawman " You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP."

you brought up no energy, noone in this topic has brought that up, only you

but now it is me that is mistaken.

laughable.

dont make strawmen arguments when you cannot handle them.

You're not making sense. That's a statement of fact.

If you don't clean your room it's going to get messy.

That's not a strawman.

If you don't use energy you don't generate GDP

Neither is that.

Seriously, you're off the hook here and there's no dial tone, just that annoying buzz.

 

[Furcifer]

yet another just made up prediciton that you see as to be just accurately enough.........

laughable

That's not a made up prediction, that's the projected time span in which China and India industrialize and begin using energy on a per capita basis near that of the Western World.
Keep laughing, it's happening whether you realize it or not.

 

[SezMe]

The petty semantics between you and DC have degraded this thread.

We have an obligation to maintain the increase in standard of living for everyone.

Who is "we"? Why do we have to maintain the "increase"? Why not just maintain the current level? Why for everyone? Bill Gates has to have his standard of living increase?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm still waiting for refutations of the basic science, none of which have appeared here...we haven't seen anyone even try to refute the radiative properties of CO2 or the atmospheric measurements.
Until that happens, everyone is agreeing that AGW exists, or, alternately, that they don't know what they are talking about.

Some of the second hypothesis is true of all of us. Nobody understands all of the relevant science (the physics of the gas/radiation interaction, plant physiology (tree rings and temperature), geochemistry, fluid dynamics (atmosphere circulation and heat transport), statistics).

As to: "refute the radiative properties of CO2 or the atmospheric measurements" or "agree...that AGW exists": the story is told (untrue, actually) that Euler said in a debate with Diderot something like: "Sir, (a+bⁿ)/n=x, therefore God exists. Respond."
Euler's argument is nonsense. However, even if it was "2+2=4 (true), therefore God exists", the response is: the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Many other considerations must enter into a realistic climate model, as the modelers themselves acknowledge. If it were as simple as you say, aren't you implicitly accusing the people who construct complex climate models on the public dime of fraud?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In a previous post, Malcolm Kirkpatrick said he trusted Freeman Dyson's interpretation of the science. Here's Freeman Dyson explaining why we don't need a time machine:...
The Keeling graph can be seen here:...
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2005/keeling/keeling_web.html

I don't need a time machine to read about historic temperature measurements. I would need a time machine to read thermometers which report historic temperature measurements. jj wrote "I'm also sure that you can read instruments that show the historical trends of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere" and I replied "If you supply the time machine, sure". If you write that triceratops had a body temperature of X^o, I can read what you write. If you want me to take a triceratops' body temperature, I will need a time machine. Right? The immediate argument here is about the requirement that we trust people who supply data and calculations, that no one can compile all the relevant information on his own.

 

[SezMe]

Malcolm, I would appreciate it if you would use the quote function instead of italics when quoting someone else's posts so that it is easy to check if your citations are correct.

 

[mhaze]

If you deny or repeatedly attempt to refute, without compelling evidentiary support, the body of findings and understandings of current mainstream science, then you are a "denier" of science.

So the scientists who argued that Global Warming is not a crisis were as you previously called them..."Deniers"...

As well as half the audience.

And when Deniers get the podium, more Deniers are born in the audience.

Thanks.

 

[DC]

You're not making sense. That's a statement of fact.

If you don't clean your room it's going to get messy.

That's not a strawman.

If you don't use energy you don't generate GDP

Neither is that.

Seriously, you're off the hook here and there's no dial tone, just that annoying buzz.

I have never questioned that without energy use you dont have a GDP.
i specifically asked you where you got the idea that we have to stop using energy.
wich you answered with a link to a paper instead of saying that you do not hold that view.
and instead of just admiting that you misread or misunderstood my question, you try to twist it and blame me for it.

But i see you were simply misstaken, and thats OK. but don't try to blame me. that is laughable.

 

[DC]

So the scientists who argued that Global Warming is not a crisis were as you previously called them..."Deniers"...

As well as half the audience.

And when Deniers get the podium, more Deniers are born in the audience.
Thanks.

wich has nothing to do with them being right or wrong.

 

[DC]

That's not a made up prediction, that's the projected time span in which China and India industrialize and begin using energy on a per capita basis near that of the Western World.
Keep laughing, it's happening whether you realize it or not.

yeah your predictions are true and so accurate, but those that spend years modeling climate models as realistic and accurate as possible are not good enough for you, you are a hypocrite.
because science cannot predict wich of your 3 feathers will hit the ground first you seem to think maybe one of the feathers will stay floating in air and never hit the ground.
science predicts, all 3 will hit the ground. face it.

 

[Furcifer]

The petty semantics between you and DC have degraded this thread.

No, the semantics argument I'm prepared for, this is a horse of a different colour.

Who is "we"? Why do we have to maintain the "increase"? Why not just maintain the current level? Why for everyone? Bill Gates has to have his standard of living increase?

The global community. Because we owe it to them. Because the status quo is unacceptable. Because it would otherwise amount to racism. The Bill Gates' give us something to aspire to, so yes.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, I would appreciate it if you would use the quote function instead of italics when quoting someone else's posts so that it is easy to check if your citations are correct.

In another discussion, someone objected to my use of the quote function. Can't please everybody, it seems. I copied and added a link, and you could backtrack through the Clinger quote to the jj comment, anyway.

 

[DC]

i would have thought we owe it to our kids to leave behind a for humans working climate and not the mess we generate curerntly.

 

[mhaze]

Can you cite or reference objectively compelling support for this assertion?

Sure. CO2 absorbs in certain parts of the spectrum, therefore we must tax people and force little wormy style light bulbs on them. And electric cars. And windmills that only work an hour or two a day.

 

[DC]

Sure. CO2 absorbs in certain parts of the spectrum, therefore we must tax people and force little wormy style light bulbs on them. And electric cars. And windmills that only work an hour or two a day.

if it would only absorb it would not be that problematic, but it reradiates.

 

[mhaze]

i would have thought we owe it to our kids to leave behind a for humans working climate and not the mess we generate curerntly.

I would have thought we should leave our kids a thriving economy instead of telling them that we listened to green morons, and taxed and regulated industries until they moved to China and India.

 

[DC]

I would have thought we should leave our kids a thriving economy instead of telling them that we listened to green morons, and taxed and regulated industries until they moved to China and India.

and you don't think we can't do both?

 

[Furcifer]

yeah your predictions are true and so accurate, but those that spend years modeling climate models as realistic and accurate as possible are not good enough for you, you are a hypocrite.

No that's a round about measure or median from 30 to 75 years. China's growth has slowed.

because science cannot predict wich of your 3 feathers will hit the ground first you seem to think maybe one of the feathers will stay floating in air and never hit the ground.
science predicts, all 3 will hit the ground. face it.

No everyone knows they hit the ground because it's a fundamental principle.

 

[mhaze]

....lol somehow i suspect mhaze bases his science denial on his traditional sky daddy religion. No wonder he didn't like me mocking the bible qouting politicster.

Ah, no, I simply noted that guy actually cared about the effects of cap and trade on the poor. As I do.

As you don't.