re: AGW Deniers - Seems Kind of Hopeless

And I responded with valid questions. What I "believe". Isn't relevant. In order to put my support behind something I would need to see the proposed solution. Then weighing the value of the proposed solution against the overall issue can be determined.

I agree there was a health insurance problem in the us. Obamacare was not a very good solution to it. I would like some information on the solution to agw.

LINK



Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]

LINK

NCA assertion: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100. This recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years.

Facts: During the last Ice Age (~10-20,000 years ago), vast areas of continents were covered with ice sheets up to 10,000 feet thick. [Ed: That's almost two miles.] There was so much water tied up in these ice sheets that it caused sea level to drop about 120 meters (400 feet). 11,500 years ago, the climate changed abruptly, warming at rates up to 20 °F in a century, bringing the Ice Age to a very sudden end. The ice sheets melted at an astonishing rate, causing sea level to rise sharply. We know the chronology of this sea level rise (Fig. 21), so we can calculate the rate of sea level rise as the ice sheets melted. Sea level rose 50 meters (160 ft) between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. That’s a rate of sea level rise of 4 feet per century, during a time when gigantic ice sheets were melting from warming of tens of degrees per century.

quote:

---

What would it take for you to change your mind?

---

A correctly constructed thermodynamic model that accounts for a sufficient number of state variables.

I'd also need to see some explaination how a < 1 degree change in temperature can drive weather, when weather is driven by temperature temperature differentials of >10 degrees.

quote:

---

Models that nailed the temp change in the next 5 years?

---

That's not how models are calibrated, so no.

quote:

---

After a peer review a rather scientific 1% of your quips have been funny

---

quote:

---

if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible

---

Can you define partially? Something tells me you are pretending it references a much more significant portion of warming than these scientists do.

But, certainly you have specifics, right?

quote:

---

I'd also need to see some explaination how a < 1 degree change in temperature can drive weather, when weather is driven by temperature temperature differentials of >10 degrees.

---

A short bit of logic would lead to the fact that certain weather conditions might, under the current climate, be teetering on the edge of their event limits........therefore even a minor shift in temperature could account for their increased occurrence.

But thank you for your answer.

quote:

---

A short bit of logic would lead to the fact that certain weather conditions might, under the current climate, be teetering on the edge of their event limits......

---

Nope. Not how thermo works. Temperature differentials are the thing that drives the weather. And clearly, the larger temperature differential will dominate. It's simple causality.

quote:

---

therefore even a minor shift in temperature could account for their increased occurrence.

---

That would be like saying a fruit fly landing on an aircraft carrier rocks the boat more than a 20 ton F-14 does when it lands.

The position just makes no sense because everything can be ascribed to climate change, and if everything can, there is no normal, and if there is no normal, then climate change is the normal.

It's idiotic.

quote:

---

So I was thinking this weekend that the chances for someone who currently denies the existence of AGW being convinced that they are wrong is pretty hopeless. I say this because what could possibly change their mind given this:

NASA - Consensus

---

So is this NASA's function? To generate consensus on AGW? Or is it Muslim outreach? It isn't going into space, because we've shut that down.

quote:

---

Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change......what could possibly change their mind?

---

I agree that humans are, at least partially, responsible for climate change - which is different than AGW, of course, because we are part of the climate, and our heavy construction and industrial activity does affect the local, regional and global climate to at least a certain degree.

quote:

---

......what could possibly change their mind? 99% of scientists? 100%? I think thats doubtful.

---

Right 100% of any population are never going to agree on anything - even the poliboard's hatred of Rex is stuck in the 99s.

quote:

---

It seems that what we have is a situation where literally no scientific evidence can be presented to them which can affect change on their opinion.

---

The warming is not nearly as severe as the alarmists said it would be. The solutions are extreme, costly and will be, ultimately, ineffective, even if we were to convince China and India (Good luck with that) to sign on and participate.

The left has created this by crying wolf/chicken littling about every little bit of human activity - I, for one, am much more worried about fresh water sustainability, maintaining the ocean as source of food, etc., than I am a few tenths of a degree celsius, for which human activity isn't even the sole cause.

Sitting around in the dark and freezing to death simply isn't an option. If we're going to burn up in a furnace of our own making, at least we'll have the convenience of climate control, relatively inexpensive energy, comfortable automobiles on the way.

This has always been, and remains a scam - a con (albeit a particularly complex one) to get the west to cripple itself with arbitrary limits on, particularly, energy production, while China, India and Africa race past us over the next 60 to 100 years. The proposed solutions will do nothing to curb this problem, which isn't all that serious in the first place, will cost lives, lost economic opportunity, lost industrial competitiveness, etc., by all the ill-headed leftists in the west who sign on to this.

It remains silly to tax "carbon" a naturally occurring element that is not even a pollutant. It is a relatively transparent effort by the powers that be to create an artificial market, wholly controlled by governments, to further regulate (as well as the usual picking of favorites/punishing enemies) human activity - and, in this case, only in the developed west.

I will continue to say so, regardless of how many government-funded scientists scream at us to curb CO2 emissions.

We can't control the sun, we can control natural climate processes - and we certainly can't stop China and India from producing more CO2 in a year than the entire world did in a decade, just a few decades ago.

/rant

Science also tells us life begins at conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg, but I don't see many of you liberals get behind that idea. I guess it ain't important to the progressives. Global warming much more important than murder. Got it.