Time for AGW deniers/doubters/skeptics to get real

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you think, Trippy?

The case of the deniers is that CO2 levels and climate are related, but that increased temperature results in increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and not vice versa.
Do you think that people who deny that CO2 causes climate change, have a reasonable case, or are they like the tobacco firms who used to deny that smoking caused cancer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you mean Confirmation Bias?

 

You are conflating the idiots with the reasoned skeptics. There are complete idiots on both sides of this debate. The arguments of Lindzen and Choi, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Roy Spencer, William Gray, just to name a few are not so easily put aside.

The recent temperature rise (post 1975) is almost certainly attributable in part to our dumping CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere. However, to get to the alarmist claims in the IPCC, the IPCC has to posit positive feedbacks. Those alarmist claims are not justified if negative feedbacks dominate the climate rather than positive feedbacks.

Sans unproven technologies magically becoming proven, or killing of 80% of humanity, there is *no way* we are going to be able to cut our carbon emissions by 80% in the next 40 years. Without extraordinary proof that the extreme projected (not current) warming will occur, economic reality will trump whatever happens in Copenhagen. Push too hard and you will lose. Pushing for an 80% reduction is pushing too hard.

 

Agree 100%. Much better to put some money into researching alternative energy sources than to destroy our economy trying to reach some unobtainable reduction in carbon output.

 

So what if climate change IS real.


Kyoto, and all the other "economic" "carbon tax" solutions are nothing but a jack on so-called rich countries and do nothing to combat the environmental problem!

You cannot have an ECONOMIC SOLUTION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM.

No one has put forth the true solution to human waste and modern inefficient use of resources: Destroy consumer capitalism. It's needed regardless of "Global warming" or it's causes. Consumption without need or regard for our own health and well being must be defeated.

It's not about "save the planet" it's "save ourselves". If they sold the whole thing to the public in a truthful manner...for truly selfish reasons we must reduce our consumption, it might meet with less resistance. Trying to force people to consume less for the sake of "global warming" is a fucking waste of time even if the world was a dictatorship.

 

Thanks Trippy.
There is another fallacy, based on confusing contiguity with causation.
Two things may occur together because they have the same cause rather than one thing causing the other.
A cloud causes rain and a cloud causes thunder (roughly).
But rain does not cause thunder or vice versa.

We understand clouds pretty well, so are likely to make this mistake, but such errors are a major reason for wrong medical diagnosis.


......the first people to start denying climate change were the tobacco companies.


That would be a supreme irony, wouldn't it?

 

the climate reacts very slowly to the changes in the atmosphere. if earth is going to be less habitable in our lifetime, it will be, whether we reduce our pollution of the atmosphere or not.

 

Well, actually that's a lower level of certainty than normally used by most scientific work, but that's more than reasonable for me. The Hadley lot probably got dragged into the fallacy of 95%. Happens to everyone. Literally everyone.

 

No one is talking destroying the economy except those on the right trying to scare people again.

 

Quoting James R. "
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded it is 90 per cent certain that the current cycle of climate change is being driven by human activity. It's fifth assessment report, discussed overnight in Copenhagen, will further bolster the evidence. Few scientific theories approach this level of certainty."

Exactly! Few scientific studies conclude with 90% of anything on this massive of a scale. This just shows how corrupted this "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" is. Its really sad that these bureaucrats are using this oncemore for their own advantage. Because as we all know it takes millions of dollars to combat the so called green-house-caused-by-humans effect, and who is going to get the money? Why who else but them.

I really hate these sort of people, they have probably initiated these so called "hacked-emails" bonanza.

 

Mandating an 80% reduction in CO[sub]2[/sub] output without having the foggiest idea of how to accomplish that doesn't count?

 

LOL, more alarmist scary stuff. Who said, "without having the foggiest idea"? There is an idea. There are a lot of already know technologies to accomplish the goal. Additionally, it is not an overnight reduction, it is a phased reduction over a period of a decade or longer.

The suppositions upon which your question is based are false or at the very least misleading and incomplete.

 

You know what, who cares?

I mean, who cares if climate change is human-driven or otherwise? Whether or not it is or isn't our faults, don't many solutions to "climate change" go hand-in-hand with the ideas of energy independence and the conservation of resources anyway?

Regardless of whether or not we're causing rapid climate change, many of the more intelligent proposed solutions to the supposed emissions problem do follow that metric. Environmentalists propose cars that run on alternative, locally-produced energy. Environmentalists propose alternative, renewable energy sources that are, for the most part, very distributable, and would result in power grids that are very robust against wide-spread power outages, strengthening the electrical infrastructure. These technologies can be developed by government incentives that help boost economies with new industries, rather then simply imposing emissions restrictions, which of course would hinder an economy by requiring factories to retrofit with technologies that may or may not have been developed yet.

I mean, the other side of the argument is that we're not the cause of climate change, or at all responsible for it, and so we can keep going as is; burning oil like there's no tomorrow, sold to us at prices that will spike devastatingly any decade now, and which is shipped to us largely from places that make the news every other day with the words "___ more soldiers were killed in ____ this week..."

Personally, I'm on board with the skeptics, I don't think humans contribute enough to cause climate change. But so what? Many of the "eco-friendly" technologies being developed and proposed solve alot of other problems other then just our emissions outputs. This is why I really don't participate in the climate debate anymore, because it doesn't freaking matter: the consequences of acting in favor of one side of the argument are awesome and can strengthen individuals and nations alike. On the other side is just inaction and stagnation.

 

1. What about arguments like this:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
which suggest that human contributions to the greenhouse effect constitute only 0.28% of the total?
Do you accept that his figures are correct, or has he fudged them somehow?

2. Irony.
It would be ironic if Tobacco companies, who spent years denying that smoking caused cancer, resulting in the deaths of millions of people, then went on to do the same with the global effects of CO2 emissions.