re: Study: Temp adjustments account for ‘Nearly all of Warming’ In climate data

It makes a compelling case for a carbon tax in the US, but I'm afraid that if the threat of climate change is as dire as is being predicted, such measures will have a negligible affect on greenhouse gas emissions in light of these projections:



Of course, to escape the potential Malthusian trap in which 4 billion humans would find themselves, the UN suggests we in the developed world accept the inevitable and welcome the overflow to our shores.

What kind of impact do you suppose that moving some 244,000,000 humans from low-greenhouse gas emitting nations in the third world to the industrialized West will have on climate change?

Wouldn't you agree that, given what's at stake, a complete moratorium on immigration from low-greenhouse gas emitting nations into the US would be far easier and faster to implement than a carbon tax, and would arguably have a greater impact on present and future warming?

quote:

---

If you want to make a factual point about statements that were actually made, go ahead.

---

Earlier, I was caught between some fairly important "other things". Rather than sifting thru a few pages of your posts, I responded to one carrying the same excuse-filled tenor. But very well, have it as you will.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Ice-free arctic.

---

Maslowski's predictions were not well-regarded among most scientists at the time, as a cursory comparison of his projections vs the IPCC consensus projections shows. Given that this was a case where a scientist's bad prediction was properly rejected by his peers, I'm not sure how it translates to a broader indictment of the AGW hypothesis. The system worked, to the extent we're looking at actual published research and not Al Gore's fat mouth.

---

This was the obvious specific reference. It was a post you made early in the thread.

It was an unfortunately misinformed post in response to the premise of MULTIPLE ice free arctic predictions.

It was as uninformed as your new "between 2040 and 2060" yarn.

I say the latter is uninformed, because when asked about the ice-free arctic in 2013 or 2016 predictions, the answer by at least some of your 2040-2060 hysteriaists was they had “no idea” if the prediction was correct.

Let's repeat that.

When asked about the 2013 or 2016 predictions, your guys said they had “no idea” if the prediction was correct.

Once more.

When asked about the 2013 or 2016 predictions, the answer by your "experts" was they had “no idea” if the prediction was correct. I had an idea. Presumably you had an idea. Your 2040-2060 "experts" had "no idea".

Got it?

quote:

---

This is a debate about science

---

Then own it! When people make verifiably stupid statements, don't excuse them.

quote:

---

Usually I don't see you on the "thermometers are cucks" beat

---

The "thermometers are cucks" beat?
I have no remote clue what that means.

But whatever it means, it comes in the same post as your statement "this is a debate about science, not composition and rhetoric." As you decided to make an arse of yourself in responding as you did, I'll leave your "thermometers are cucks beat" statement to speak for itself.

quote:

---

building or planning to build

---

You should really dig into that underlying data a little more. There is a ton of active construction that has been been on hold or cancelled outright. Meanwhile the outlook for planned construction is bleak as the projects are never likely to get going.

Meanwhile coal plants are getting retired at record rates.

quote:

---

Checkmate.

---

Hardly

You're forgetting who is in the White House.

Still in denial I see.

quote:

---

why is it impossible to believe that were effecting temperature as well?

---

I think it's possibly happening I just don't think warming a degree or two over the next 100 years as many project is that big of a deal.

My summer so far is almost 2 degrees cooler this year compared to 2016.

Not many people disagree with you, man.

It's at what rate and by how much.

I don't think that's denying nor do I think you need to ask the same remedial question over and over again like you're some expert on the subject.

It's the alarmists that get people all jacked up about it; and paying a shitload of US money to other countries and welcome their people in with open arms is what will NEVER be tolerated.

If that's what you want; you better start stockpiling the AR's man. Because we have at least 40 years on you.

quote:

---

But the simple fact is, a carbon tax won't solve the problem alone

---

I would rather give up 50% of my income than have these radicals turn us into Western Europe.

There would be a war. But if you heard tPOTUS message today's we don't have any of that to worry about.

It's all wishful thinking by the radical progressives at this point:

quote:

---

You're forgetting who is in the White House.

Still in denial I see.

---

That doesn't affect whether new coal under construction or planned ever become operational.

If there isn't demand, there won't be a need for new miners.

So why do you take this study as gospel but every other study related to AGW is shite? Confirmation bias is a bitch.

quote:

---

he was talking about weather. we have a fricking US Senator who doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

---

Don't forget your president too!