[Pants-of-dog]

Not according to the opinions of climatologists.

If you are referring to that long piece of text you keep copying and pasting, it does not contradict my claims.

You don't know anything about the philosophy of science, the extent of your wisdom is maybe a few bullshit popsci propaganda books and whatever idiotic bullshit you picked up from Bill Nye the science guy soundbites.

None of this contradicts my point either.

Did Bill Nye the science guy tell you that?

What part do you doubt?

You don't know shit about the history or sociology of power either so whatever. Go get an informed, intelligent opinion and then we'll talk.

The last time you mentioned carbon despotism, you had modified a short article on hydraulic despotism. From this, I assumed that you had no actual evidence for carbon despotism.

Now, I assume you will simply insult me instead of providing actual arguments. I will take that as a concession.

[Sivad]

I discounted a great deal of his first reference because it was over a decade old.

The establishment propagandists were all peddling the same bogus consensus/settled science claim a decade ago. They were definitely lying then so why should we believe them now?

And you ignored the the 2013 survey, which isn't surprising...noemon edit: rule 2

[Sivad]

If you are referring to that long piece of text you keep copying and pasting, it does not contradict my claims.

You mean the survey of climate scientists that directly contradicts all of your claims?

None of this contradicts my point either.

You don't have any point, you have mindless denial and militant ignorance.

[Pants-of-dog]

You mean the survey of climate scientists that directly contradicts all of your claims?

How does it contradict anything I have said?

You don't have any point, you have mindless denial and militant ignorance.

So you seem unable to show how science does not support the ACC theory, you are unable to show how science has only come up with a plausible model for catastrophic climate change, you have no evidence for your weird claim about carbon despotism, nor can you refute that climate change already has negative impacts.

[Sivad]

Now, I assume you will simply insult me instead of providing actual arguments.

If you had ever demonstrated even a shred of good faith in your discussions or if you had an informed intelligent perspective then I'd engage in earnest with you, but as it is you're just a petty amusement to help pass the time. I love a challenging discussion but since you don't take this stuff seriously I can't take your nonsense seriously.

[Pants-of-dog]

So, I was correct in my prediction.

Please read the following statements:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, and...
2. Humans are the main source of CO2 emissions.

Do you agree or disagree with these two statements?

[XogGyux]

There was a time where idiotic politicians and quack-scientists argued that the Lead content in our gasoline or paints was acceptable... Decades later we have it banned, the actual science is clear and vindicated and now we look back with disdain to those moron idiots that kept oposing until science eventually prevailed. Same shit with the CFCs and the ozone layer. The sad part is that republican rather choose to have whatever position is against democrat even if it is stupid and silly. Long gones are the days that republicans such as Nixon who created the EPA and expanded the clean air act or Bush sr. who ran w/ progressive environmetal agenda.

I see no excuse to be this stubborn and wrong at the same time.

[Stormsmith]

We need to ask what can we do about climate change while there's still time.

[Sivad]

Please read the following statements:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, and...
2. Humans are the main source of CO2 emissions.

Do you agree or disagree with these two statements?

Neither of your two statements have any relevance to the discussion, but they do show just how clueless you are about the science. CO2 alone can't cause much warming, the question is how sensitive the system is to minor perturbations. And since the system is so incredibly complex and the science is so limited, it's at best an open question.

[Sivad]

I see no excuse to be this stubborn and wrong at the same time.

yeah, I really don't get it? All you have to do is read the 2013 survey, or the 2011 survey, and you'll see there is no consensus. There's a majority opinion on some issues but nothing even close to a 97% consensus(other than that the earth has warmed). There are dissenting opinions from many prominent members of the scientific community and even those that say there is cause for concern also say that the issue has been shamelessly hyped and distorted in the media by activist scientists and media popularizers.

There is no excuse for persisting in this bullshit, people just refuse to come off it because they have so much of their political identities invested in it and if they admitted that they got carried away with hype and bullshit they'd lose ground politically for their side in the great liberal-conservative conflict.

[Sivad]

The debate has gotten so stupid that there are even people denying the potential for abuse and manipulation with carbon pricing. Right off the top of my head I can think of a lot of ways a carbon price could be used for major geopolitical steering, massive financial profiteering, controlling the development of the global periphery, central economic planning in developed countries, etc. And I'm just one guy, the ruling class has thousands of think tanks and tens of thousands of technocrats working for them, there is no strategy or method for using the carbon price as an instrument for profit, power, or control that they're not aware of.

And given history, it's not a question of if it will be abused, the only question is how and how much the ruling class is gonna abuse the masses with it. If you trust those fuckers or their institutions then you're just an idiot.

[XogGyux]

yeah, I really don't get it? All you have to do is read the 2013 survey, or the 2011 survey, and you'll see there is no consensus. There's a majority opinion on some issues but nothing even close to a 97% consensus(other than that the earth has warmed). There are dissenting opinions from many prominent members of the scientific community and even those that say there is cause for concern also say that the issue has been shamelessly hyped and distorted in the media by activist scientists and media popularizers.

There is no excuse for persisting in this bullshit, people just refuse to come off it because they have so much of their political identities invested in it and if they admitted that they got carried away with hype and bullshit they'd lose ground politically for their side in the great liberal-conservative conflict.

You are wrong.

The debate has gotten so stupid that there are even people denying the potential for abuse and manipulation with carbon pricing. Right off the top of my head I can't think of a lot of ways a carbon price could be used for major geopolitical steering, massive financial profiteering, controlling the development of the global periphery, central economic planning in developed countries, etc. And I'm just one guy, the ruling class has thousands of think tanks and tens of thousands of technocrats working for them, there is no strategy or method for using the carbon price as an instrument for profit, power, or control that they're not aware of.

And given history, it's not a question of it will be abused, the only question is how and how much the ruling class is gonna abuse the masses with it. If you trust those fuckers or their institutions then you're just an idiot.

Wait, what? What are you ranting about? You are discussing 2 different points as if they are all the same.
Whether human activity has a measurable impact on climate change is completely independent of what are the possible steps that we could take to address this problem.

Perhaps you are right that carbon taxing is not the most appropriate approach, perhaps it is, perhaps it is just a tiny step on a more complicated multi-target system. Whatever a "possible solution" might look like, STEP 1 is recognizing the problem, STEP 2 is deciding whether we should do something about it or whether we say, screw it, I rather get cooked and STEP 3 is to debate possible ways to solve the problem STEP 4 is to try the solution, STEP 5 is to go back to step 3 if STEP 4 solution is inadequate or insufficient.
You are denying step 1 while ranting that one of possible solutions in STEP 2 is not to your taste.... silly.

You use words such as "major geopolitical steering, massive financial profiteering, controlling the development of the global periphery, central economic planning in developed countries, etc" as if that was not happening already. You don't think there is massive geopolitical steering around fossil fuels? What are all the wars in the middle east about, what is the deal with stupid Venezuela just to name a few. Drop from your cloud, you are not suggesting a problem that does not already exist. In fact, independence from fossil fuels, regardless of wether climate change is real or not, it is a good thing. Environmental damage is not limited to climate change, air polution is also of concern and undeniable AND... dependence from these unstable countries (and a fairly volatile market at that) is simply not in our best interest.

[Sivad]

You are wrong.

You guys just refuse to look at those surveys.

Wait, what? What are you ranting about?

All I can say is thank god for wingnuts, without them the world would be doomed to liberal babbittry.

You are discussing 2 different points as if they are all the same.

No, I'm raising two separate points in two separate posts.

[Pants-of-dog]

Neither of your two statements have any relevance to the discussion, but they do show just how clueless you are about the science. CO2 alone can't cause much warming, the question is how sensitive the system is to minor perturbations. And since the system is so incredibly complex and the science is so limited, it's at best an open question.

Actually, both statements are entirely relevant to a discussion on ACC.

I am not interested if you think CO2 causes “much” warming, whatever that means.

Do you agree with the two statements or not?

[Sivad]

Actually, both statements are entirely relevant to a discussion on ACC.

How?

I am not interested if you think CO2 causes “much” warming, whatever that means.

It's not what I think, that's the science. A doubling of CO2 with all else equal will only produce less than one degree of warming. The debate is about the sensitivity of the climate system, not CO2. You don't even know what the hell you're arguing about.

Do you agree with the two statements or not?

[Hindsite]

We need to ask what can we do about climate change while there's still time.

We can't do anything about it. Only God can do something about it.
Christians are just waiting for the return of Christ. Praise the Lord.

[One Degree]

The US is not going to be the most affected. We can close our borders and work on self sufficiency as a backstop. If the worse happens, the population in the rest of the world will be rapidly reduced, allowing us to start over.
May seem heartless, but it is stupid not to have a plan for our own survival if one for the world is not possible.
We should apply solutions on more than one level. Ending immigration and reducing our own population is an essential step. Ending immigration world wide would also put pressure on others to control their births.

[Drlee]

Here is why we should look at what the experts say and not what some untrained troll says on POFO.

Sivad said:

It's not what I think, that's the science. A doubling of CO2 with all else equal will only produce less than one degree of warming.

NOAA says:

As with all probability-based estimates, there’s what’s likely to happen and what is possible. Although the “long tails”—extremely low and extremely high values—of warming remain possible, climate experts think it is extremely unlikely that equilibrium warming from doubled carbon dioxide will be less than 2°F, and very unlikely that it will be more than 11°F.

He likes to call getting your scientific information from scientists Babbitry. He doesn't understand the science, which is obvious, and he obviously didn't understand Lewis' book either.

[Pants-of-dog]

How?

They show how we are casuing ACC.

It's not what I think, that's the science. A doubling of CO2 with all else equal will only produce less than one degree of warming.

So you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Do you also agree with the second statement?

The debate is about the sensitivity of the climate system, not CO2.

That is another part of the debate that we will get to once you have finished answering some basic questions.

[Sivad]

Here is why we should look at what the experts say and not what some untrained troll says on POFO.

Sivad said: It's not what I think, that's the science. A doubling of CO2 with all else equal will only produce less than one degree of warming.




NOAA says:

As with all probability-based estimates, there’s what’s likely to happen and what is possible. Although the “long tails”—extremely low and extremely high values—of warming remain possible, climate experts think it is extremely unlikely that equilibrium warming from doubled carbon dioxide will be less than 2°F, and very unlikely that it will be more than 11°F.

Drlee, our mensa science expert, doesn't know the difference between equilibrium climate sensitivity and direct CO2 forcing without feedbacks(3.7 W/m2 = 1C). I wish there was someone else here that could understand what blithering incompetence you just displayed. You're lucky this is pofo, dude.

Oh, and the NOAA estimate you cited is incorrect, the IPCC has revised the estimate to between "1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C"


Too funny.