[anasawad]

[ralfy]

No, that report is just stupid garbage. STUPID GARBAGE. Just as one example, the graph shows food production has clearly diverged from the Club of Rome's false and stupid prediction, meaning all the rest is also false and stupid. The Limits to Growth was always stupid, antiscientific garbage, and always will be.

Please show how food production is not the same as what is presented in the prediction.

[Truth To Power]

Please show how food production is not the same as what is presented in the prediction.

Look at the Economy graph in the Guardian report. The solid green line (per capita food production) is already well above the Club of Rome prediction. Other lines are also diverging from the CoR predictions: industrial production is lower, service production higher, etc. The food line is just the one that shows the biggest and earliest divergence. The Limits to Growth was always stupid, unscientific garbage, and always will be.

[ralfy]

Look at the Economy graph in the Guardian report. The solid green line (per capita food production) is already well above the Club of Rome prediction. Other lines are also diverging from the CoR predictions: industrial production is lower, service production higher, etc. The food line is just the one that shows the biggest and earliest divergence. The Limits to Growth was always stupid, unscientific garbage, and always will be.

You did not read the report or the article correctly. Here's the point:

The results show that the world is tracking pretty closely to the Limits to Growth “business-as-usual” scenario. The data doesn’t match up with other scenarios.

In short, what was considered "stupid, unscientific garbage" is fairly close across more than four decades of data. And to think they could only use early generation computers.

Most important is resource availability, because that's where all of that economic output comes from, and the trend line for that shows that it continues to drop. That's why we're seeing the same problem with oil:

"Oil Discoveries at 70-Year Low Signal Supply Shortfall Ahead"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... fall-ahead

And the replacements for oil? Low energy returns and quantity.

Finally, the punch line: the model does not factor in the effects of global warming. Various multinational banks, insurance organizations, military and intelligence groups, and science organizations are warning of such effects. For example,

"HSBC Notes Global Warming Trends In Quantitative Fashion'

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/04/hsbc-global-warming/

"Lloyd's calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... her-losses

The National Academies: "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes"

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatecho ... nd-causes/

"DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change"

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

And more.

[afganitia]

There aren't negacionists of climate change in Spain. So I am deeply interested in what some of them here think. What is your point?

A) climate is not changing at all
B) climate is changing, but humans can do nothing to change it
C) climate is changing, but it is positive
D) climate is changing, and humans can do a major part at stopping it or at least weaken it (no negacionist standpoint)

[Truth To Power]

You did not read the report or the article correctly.

Yes I did. Don't be ridiculous.

In short, what was considered "stupid, unscientific garbage" is fairly close across more than four decades of data. And to think they could only use early generation computers.

It's fairly close only in the four decades when their forecast could be stated as, "the recent trend will continue."

Most important is resource availability,

Wrong. Resources were most available thousands of years ago, when everyone was poor.

because that's where all of that economic output comes from,

Wrong again. While resources are necessary, output comes from the level of labor and especially capital that is applied to resources.

and the trend line for that shows that it continues to drop.

Wrong.

That's why we're seeing the same problem with oil:

"Oil Discoveries at 70-Year Low Signal Supply Shortfall Ahead"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... fall-ahead

That is economically absurd nonsense. Discoveries are low because prices are low, and advances in drilling technology have made it possible to get a lot more oil out of known fields.

And the replacements for oil? Low energy returns and quantity.

Wrong again. More energy falls on the earth in the form of sunlight every day than all the energy we have ever obtained from oil, or ever will. When technology makes that energy cheaper than fossil fuels, the energy shortages will be over for the foreseeable future.

Finally, the punch line: the model does not factor in the effects of global warming.

Which on balance are beneficial. That's one reason the model underestimated food production.

Various multinational banks, insurance organizations, military and intelligence groups, and science organizations are warning of such effects. For example,

"HSBC Notes Global Warming Trends In Quantitative Fashion'

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/04/hsbc-global-warming/

"Lloyd's calls on insurers to take into account climate-change risk"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... her-losses

The National Academies: "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes"

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatecho ... nd-causes/

"DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change"

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

And more.

More worthless, unscientific garbage, you mean...?

What is your point?

A) climate is not changing at all

Climate has always been changing, and always will.

B) climate is changing, but humans can do nothing to change it

With a lot of effort we could change it. Our current effect on it is significant, but modest, and there is no reason to think it will become decisive in the near future.

C) climate is changing, but it is positive

On balance, yes.

D) climate is changing, and humans can do a major part at stopping it or at least weaken it (no negacionist standpoint)

We could probably influence it at enormous expense; but as we cannot predict how nature will change it, doing so would be a crapshoot, and a very costly one. Suppose we undertake a massive effort to reduce fossil fuel use, and then it turns out nature has an Ice Age planned for the 22nd C? The CO2 that might have saved our @$$&$ would still be in the ground. Intervention makes no sense when you can't predict the effects of your intervention. Didn't we learn that in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.?

[ralfy]

Yes I did. Don't be ridiculous.

No, you didn't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be wasting my time.

It's fairly close only in the four decades when their forecast could be stated as, "the recent trend will continue."

It's obviously for four decades, as the model was made in 1972. See, you didn't read the article.

Wrong. Resources were most available thousands of years ago, when everyone was poor.

Yeah, and global population that time was over 7 billion.

Wrong again. While resources are necessary, output comes from the level of labor and especially capital that is applied to resources.

Yeah, much of our industrial output today consists primarily of human muscle power, and we can reverse diminishing returns by simply creating more numbers in hard drives.

Wrong.

That is economically absurd nonsense. Discoveries are low because prices are low, and advances in drilling technology have made it possible to get a lot more oil out of known fields.

No, it's diminishing returns. Even when prices shot up, they didn't change. You can't even read graphs correctly.

Wrong again. More energy falls on the earth in the form of sunlight every day than all the energy we have ever obtained from oil, or ever will. When technology makes that energy cheaper than fossil fuels, the energy shortages will be over for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, all of that sunlight is automatically converted and stored by magic, and energy returns are higher. That's why we never needed to use oil during the last century.

Which on balance are beneficial. That's one reason the model underestimated food production.

No, it didn't. Try to read the article and the study this time.

More worthless, unscientific garbage, you mean...?

Yeah, compared to your fantasies above.

Climate has always been changing, and always will.

The climate change problem refers to the forcing factor of CO2 emissions, as explained in the NAS report.

For someone who insists on scientific arguments, you tend to give the opposite in EVERY point you make.

With a lot of effort we could change it. Our current effect on it is significant, but modest, and there is no reason to think it will become decisive in the near future.

That's not what NAS is saying. Sorry, your religious beliefs don't work with me.

The rest of your points are illogical and unscientific. Debating these and any other points with you is a waste of time. Given that, I will no longer respond to your posts.

[blackjack21]

There aren't negacionists of climate change in Spain. So I am deeply interested in what some of them here think. What is your point?

A) climate is not changing at all
B) climate is changing, but humans can do nothing to change it
C) climate is changing, but it is positive
D) climate is changing, and humans can do a major part at stopping it or at least weaken it (no negacionist standpoint)

E) Climate is changing, and it always has and always will; "global warming" and "climate change" hysteria is politically-motivated, and it is easily
shown to be political; no self-respecting scientist would use the term "greenhouse gas," "greenhouse effect" or "renewable energy" for multiple reasons:

1. Greenhouses trap radiation with a nearly impermeable barrier, and CO2 does not;
2. CO2 tends to be slightly lower in a greenhouse, because greenhouses grow plants;
3. Plant life absorbs solar radiation and CO2, and many plants, especially their leaves, are green in color--so "green energy" is absurd, since it doesn't generate the CO2 essential for plant life. In fact, hydro-carbons (unless you believe in an abiogenic theory) are the result of plant life, and therefore only a hydrocarbon source of energy could logically be called "green energy."
4. Plant life, as it dies, gives of methane gas--a preposterously titled, "green house gas."
5. The term "renewable energy" violates the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
6. Graphics depicting heat radiating from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere violate the second law of thermodynamics. Heat always goes from a warmer place to a cooler place, and the surface of the Earth always has more heat than the upper atmosphere.

What is my point? Only politicians and media people would broadcast something like "green energy," "greenhouse gas," "renewable energy," etc. No self-respecting scientist would do that unless they were paid copious amounts of money by politicians or media people, because to say such things seriously would call into question the scientist's basic level of intelligence. Therefore, the notion of "climate change" is inherently politicial, and motivated primarily by money and power.

[JohnRawls]

Climate change is a fact. Who is causing it is disputed but also more or less a fact when overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans impact the climate more so than most think.

I support moving to renewable energy but not fully since the technology isn't there fully. On the other hand we can use nuclear energy also which is being disregarded for some reason. We need to decrease our societies dependency on oil. Eventually it will end. We can't forever convert hydrocarbons in to chemicals and energy because it is a finite resource. All resources are technically finite but some of them will not end any time soon (Couple of thousands of years if not millions). Oil will be in short supply in the next hundred or two hundred years.

[blackjack21]

Climate change is a fact.

The climate is always changing--mostly very, very slowly, but the fossil record shows some abrupt changes too.

Who is causing it is disputed but also more or less a fact when overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans impact the climate more so than most think.

"Who" isn't the question. No single person has the power to change the climate. "What" is the question. Is it changes to the composition of the atmosphere? Is it land use? Is it the tilt of the Earth? Is it variation in solar irradiance? These are reasonable questions. Most scientists depend upon funding from the government--i.e., they are effectively the wards of politicians. This is why they are easily whipped into agreement--at least those who value their government-grant-dependent paychecks.

I support moving to renewable energy but not fully since the technology isn't there fully.

Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as "renewable energy." Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I support using photovoltaics in both residential and businesses. I support geothermal and wind. I support hydroelectric power. I also support coal, natural gas, and other hydrocarbon energy use. I also support carbon sequestration. CO2 liquifies under pressure, and it can also be extracted with algae. However, I do not think CO2 is reasonably classified as a pollutant.

On the other hand we can use nuclear energy also which is being disregarded for some reason.

We are governed by people who are not nearly as smart as they'd like you to think they are.

We need to decrease our societies dependency on oil.

That is advisable at least for geopolitical reasons among others. However, it would be better if we talked intelligently about it as a society instead of investing copious amounts of money into worthless propaganda like "Green House Gasses" and the like.

We can't forever convert hydrocarbons in to chemicals and energy because it is a finite resource.

All physical resources are finite. Life is not forever if we're to believe modern physics.

All resources are technically finite but some of them will not end any time soon (Couple of thousands of years if not millions).

If we can figure out how to get a fusion reactor running economically, we'll be just fine in the long run. However, stars have the advantage of gravity, and we have not mastered that.

Oil will be in short supply in the next hundred or two hundred years.

Easily recoverable oil from known reserves, perhaps. There are entire Saudi Arabias under the ocean. It's just cheaper to get oil from terrestrial sources at this time.

[garrulousunlawful]

what?
climate change?
why wasnt i told about this?
tomorrow morning I will trade in my 2,5 liter merc for a 6,9 liter v8 double carb classic merc.
we all have to do our bit i guess.

[garrulousunlawful]

what?
climate change?
why wasnt i told about this?
tomorrow morning I will trade in my 2,5 liter merc for a 6,9 liter v8 double carb classic gas guzzler merc.
we all have to do our bit i guess.

[Truth To Power]

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did. I also read, "The Limits to Growth" shortly after its publication, and knew even then that it was unscientific garbage.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be wasting my time.

What is the point of such a silly non sequitur?

It's obviously for four decades, as the model was made in 1972.

And the facts have begun to diverge from the predictions exactly when the predictions have begun to diverge from, "the recent trend will continue."

See, you didn't read the article.

See, I did.

Yeah, and global population that time was over 7 billion.

No it wasn't. Why even bother with such an obvious falsehood?

Yeah, much of our industrial output today consists primarily of human muscle power,

No it doesn't. Why are you disingenuously pretending I have said something that could possibly be interpreted as implying that it does?

and we can reverse diminishing returns by simply creating more numbers in hard drives.

You could start a volume-discount strawman emporium.

No, it's diminishing returns.

No it's not.

Even when prices shot up, they didn't change.

Yes they did.

You can't even read graphs correctly.

I invite readers to read the graphs themselves, and confirm that my reading is correct.

Yeah, all of that sunlight is automatically converted and stored by magic, and energy returns are higher. That's why we never needed to use oil during the last century.

No, that's just more disingenuous silliness from you, with no relation to anything I have said.

No, it didn't.

It most certainly and indisputably did. I invite readers to look at the graph and confirm that fact for themselves.

Try to read the article and the study this time.

Inexplicable. Try to provide an actual checkable reference for your claims about the article and study this time.

Yeah, compared to your fantasies above.

Non-response noted.

The climate change problem refers to the forcing factor of CO2 emissions, as explained in the NAS report.

Which is unscientific garbage. I am talking about actual, empirically observable climate change, not absurd and unfounded projections.

For someone who insists on scientific arguments, you tend to give the opposite in EVERY point you make.

I have referred readers to the data presented in the article. You have bloviated.

That's not what NAS is saying.

Do tell.

Sorry, your religious beliefs don't work with me.

I am not the one believing $#!+ without evidence, here.

The rest of your points are illogical and unscientific.

Translation: you can't answer them.

Debating these and any other points with you is a waste of time.

True: you will be proved wrong, but will decline, merely on that ground, to reconsider your proved-false beliefs.

Given that, I will no longer respond to your posts.

Thus exemplifying humanity's Core Problem: people who would rather continue to BE wrong than ADMIT they are wrong.

[Truth To Power]

Since you did not link to evidence showing that anthropogenic climate change theories are wrong,

Maybe because that wasn't the topic...?

that is one more post. I bet you can go on for pages and pages.

Why do you claim I don't link to evidence when you know that I do when it is appropriate? When I am explaining the actual meaning of evidence the other party has linked to, it is NOT appropriate to link to any other evidence. Are you even capable of understanding such elementary facts of logic?

@Truth To Power
You don't know the difference between weather and climate.

No, that's just false and disingenuous garbage from you. You have presented no evidence to support such a claim, nor will you ever be doing so.

You really think many are taking you seriously now when discussing this topic ?

Seriously enough to be makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written.

Someone should count the number of days you little lying bitches refused to respond to my post. Your days are numbered.

I don't see anything in particular to take issue with in your post, although I think objecting to use of widely understood terms like "greenhouse effect," "greenhouse gas" and "renewable energy" on grounds of their scientific inaccuracy is a bit over-fastidious. We know greenhouses work by blocking convection, not radiation. Fine. We know renewable energy does not actually defy entropy, and might more accurately be called, "ambient source" energy. Fine.

[anasawad]

@Truth To Power
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html
You can do something called reading, and know what the difference is between weather and climate.
Climate can be predicted because its bound to several cycles and majors factors.
Weather is effected by much smaller factors and fluctuates much more, weather is hard to predict because its too short in period.

You did write that weather and climate are not different things.
http://prntscr.com/cx7bt8

Countless evidence was and will be presented over and over again, in every debate to ever come up in the future.
You still manage to ignore all and present no evidence what so ever to support a counter argument.

The only thing you do is keep saying, No, they aren't, it isn't, wrong, bla bla bla. That is literally the stupidest type of arguments to exist in the history of mankind.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another post by a critic of anthropogenic climate change theories with no link to evidence.

I find it useful to point out that in the vast majority of climate change debates, it is the proponents of ACC theories that actually link to evidence to support their arguments.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html
You can do something called reading, and know what the difference is between weather and climate.

I knew it before you were born.

Climate can be predicted because its bound to several cycles and majors factors.

No, it can't, because it is affected by exogenous factors that cannot be predicted. Weather, which is also bound by several cycles and major factors, is actually easier to predict than climate because there is less time for such factors to come into play.

Weather is effected by much smaller factors and fluctuates much more, weather is hard to predict because its too short in period.

Climate varies in yearly cycles, weather in daily cycles (of course there are also longer cycles in both cases, but the yearly and daily are the dominant ones). It is actually easier to predict weather for a given number of cycles than climate.

You did write that weather and climate are not different things.
http://prntscr.com/cx7bt8

No, that is false. Readers are invited to confirm for themselves that your claim is objectively incorrect as well as disingenuous. I said they are not ENTIRELY different things, which is certainly true. In fact, the only significant difference between weather and climate is time scale. Both describe atmospheric conditions. Both are governed by physical laws. Both vary in predictable cycles of fixed length. Both affect people's activities but are outside human control. Etc.

Countless evidence was and will be presented over and over again, in every debate to ever come up in the future.

That is certainly true.

You still manage to ignore all and present no evidence what so ever to support a counter argument.

That is certainly untrue.

The only thing you do is keep saying, No, they aren't, it isn't, wrong, bla bla bla. That is literally the stupidest type of arguments to exist in the history of mankind.

No. When an assertion is made without evidence, it can just as easily be denied without evidence. There is no obligation to present evidence to counter a claim made without evidence. And the stupidest type of argument to exist in the history of mankind is not denial of claims made without evidence. It is claiming the support of "evidence" that actually proves you wrong. Readers should note that I specialize in identifying the latter type of argument, which is what makes P-o-d's "you never link to evidence" refrain so hilariously irrelevant and wrong-headed, as well as objectively false.

[Truth To Power]

Another post by a critic of anthropogenic climate change theories with no link to evidence.

P-o-d may be congenitally unable to understand that a fact identified in the body of a post does not require an external link to evidence. It is itself the evidence. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that fact to him.

I find it useful to point out that in the vast majority of climate change debates, it is the proponents of ACC theories that actually link to evidence to support their arguments.

I find it useful to point out that in the vast majority of climate change debates, it is the proponents of ACC theories that link to evidence they claim supports their arguments but actually doesn't, and may even disprove them. And when this fact is identified and explained to them, they typically expostulate that the other side has not provided a link to evidence, ignoring the fact that THEY THEMSELVES ALREADY PROVIDED the link to the evidence that proves them wrong.

[anasawad]

No, it can't, because it is affected by exogenous factors that cannot be predicted. Weather, which is also bound by several cycles and major factors, is actually easier to predict than climate because there is less time for such factors to come into play.

No, see here is the thing, climate in overall is infact easier to predict because its connected to much more steadier factors.
Weather on the other hand can fluctuate based on any event in any specific area.
That means you can study the climate, and since its long term you can use historical data to get results, like the ones used in proving global warming.
Weather on the other hand is extremely hard to predict because any event could change it thats why its never 100% accurate the weather forcast.

Climate varies in yearly cycles, weather in daily cycles (of course there are also longer cycles in both cases, but the yearly and daily are the dominant ones). It is actually easier to predict weather for a given number of cycles than climate.

Incorrect. Weather is daily. Climate is set over an extended periods of time mostly decades and not based on per year cycle. The cycles that the global climate goes through are usually measured in thousands of years.

No, that is false. Readers are invited to confirm for themselves that your claim is objectively incorrect as well as disingenuous. I said they are not ENTIRELY different things, which is certainly true. In fact, the only significant difference between weather and climate is time scale. Both describe atmospheric conditions. Both are governed by physical laws. Both vary in predictable cycles of fixed length. Both affect people's activities but are outside human control. Etc.

Really ? thats the best argument you can give ?
But regardless, yes they're entirely different concepts. They're related but they're by far not the same concept.

That is certainly true.

That is certainly untrue.

No. When an assertion is made without evidence, it can just as easily be denied without evidence. There is no obligation to present evidence to counter a claim made without evidence. And the stupidest type of argument to exist in the history of mankind is not denial of claims made without evidence. It is claiming the support of "evidence" that actually proves you wrong. Readers should note that I specialize in identifying the latter type of argument, which is what makes P-o-d's "you never link to evidence" refrain so hilariously irrelevant and wrong-headed, as well as objectively false.

So you're saying, that decades of data and tests and scientific research proving the global warming is happening, along with all the predictions based on those tests coming true, is not an evidence nor proves anything ?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power,

You seem to think that your unsupported opinion is fact.

And if there was evidence that contradicted ACC theories, you would link to it.

You don't, so you make these posts about how you already disproved it or how smart you are or incredible mental gymnastics to support a point.