re: Nice to see the NY Times doubling down on global warming

quote:

---

Nobody?

Really?

---

Obviously the information you linked has limited relevance to solar effects over time

Would you be kind enough to link our best available science establishing solar impact in W/m2 @ 50K-yrs BP, 150K-yrs BP, 250K-yrs BP, 350K-yrs BP versus 100K-yrs BP, 200K-yrs BP, 300K-yrs BP, 400K-yrs BP?

That would be very helpful.

The 'answer' for the man-made AGW believers is SYSTEMATIC CONTROL of man's actions. Herding cats, essentially. And control in ways that will necessarily affect ECONOMIC GROWTH to a far greater degree than it will the Earth's temperature. It'll take a hundred years of systematic action to reverse any temp rise trend, even if it could.

But a radical slow down/virtual crash of a highly dependent World Economy...could happen almost overnight. Such an economic collapse would result in a calamitous disruption of the delivery system of basic goods and services, resulting in God only know what manner of societal desperation, anarchy and political upheaval. And it won't take a hundred years...more like the time it takes for a human to die of drinking bad water.

Of course, when the population die off happens, then the whole man-made AGW issue...becomes MOOT. Problem solved.

So, what are the ODDS of economic collapse? A hell of a lot higher if the AGW policies/mechanisms are employed. Does anyone see a 'black helicopter' scenario in this theory? Reduction of population...by doing the 'right' thing...both Progressive wet dreams.

Strap in. It won't be Earth's temperature that kicks our arse. Unless it's from a n-bomb exchange.

How does one "double down" on a scientific fact?

quote:

---

you've got to be willfully ignorant to ignore the mountains of evidence we have at this point

---

Fewer people than you think genuinely believe global warming is not real. Where they disagree - and where there are not "mountains of evidence" - is that global warming is due to man, and that there's actually something we can do to prevent it. Neither of those things has by any means been proven by science. In fact, there is a lot of scientific evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

How does one "double down" on a scientific fact?

---

Doomsday predictions are very much part of the climate change agenda, which differs from the scientific facts surrounding climate change.

quote:

---

And this is why people do not believe the AGW/CC hype

---

People don't believe the hype because Al Gore signed on to it. As soon as he signed his name to it, it became highly politicized and the mandated stance from the other side was that it's bullshite simply because of Al Gore.

For every scientist that you can find that says AGW/CC is real, you can find just as many that say it's fake. If you claim to know one way or the other, you're probably a partisan hack.

Is it something to lose our shite over? probably not.
Is it something that needs to be watched and studied? Absolutely.

quote:

---

Lag and sensitivity will catch up?
So that's it.
It just takes a while for the CO2 molecules to warm up, but once they do it's going to get hot.
Good to know.

---

so with respect to your post above and the apparent flippant nonsensical manner in which you post, you clearly dont get their significance to future temperature trends apparently and/or you dont know what those are...gotcha

quote:

---

More recently (12/28/10) he incorrectly labeled a graph of temperatures for the previous 10,000 years to claim that most of these years were warmer than present. His “current temperature” was really 1855 and not the much warmer present day. He was notified of his mistake but refuses to issue a retraction (see LINK

First off, Easterbrook did no such thing.

---

Wow, you really cant read for comprehension can you...His whole former department in the Letter to the Senate basically said Easterbrook is a charlatan and you are still here defending him when the evidence is laid out for you.

Those were just 2 articles I found on the fraud this guy tries to spin. would you like another from one of his colleagues at Western who basically said 'renounce Easterbrook or our credibility is shot as a University' goes over his data point by point?

Easterbrook is a fraud, sorry, next time use sources that are reputable.

quote:

---

so from the ignorance of the two terms and their significance to future temperature trends

---

Well cuz, you know you're going to get asked, so I might as well step in. In your world of AGW BS, how would "lag and sensitivity catch up" in circumstances of constant atmospheric CO2 levels at 400ppm?

quote:

---

What I object to is mass hysteria

---

Bingo. The movement is managed by drama queens.

quote:

---

Of course the climate is changing. And man may very well be contributing in part to that. What I object to is mass hysteria in an attempt to give a central authority extraordinary power to "do something about it" when the fact remains that regardless of what happens here in the United States we still face a massive coordination problem with the rest of the world.

---

More so, a vibrant economy and cheap energy will be required to deal with these climatic changes; and in regard to the current Progressive/AGW Ideologue policy...it virtually shuts down economies and raises energy cost exponentially. A recipe for disaster and de-population en masse. Especially the Third-Worlders. Which many Greens would (tacitly) support; assuming their conscience wouldn't take a hit.

Helluva debate! With serious consequences.