Slashdot Mirror
Forecasting the Economic Impact of a Changing Climate (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Academic research has been busily trying to pin down how a changing climate will affect our planet over the long- and short-term. But a new study in the journal Nature attempts to forecast not the changes in weather, but the changes in our economy as a result of climate change. "The study (abstract) finds that climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100. This study is important because it solves a problem that has existed in prior models of climate change effects on economics: discrepancies between macro and micro level observations." Notably, the paper provides evidence that regional economies can be linked to global climate effects. "This modeling allowed them to examine whether country-specific deviations from growth trends were related to country-specific differences in temperature and precipitation trends, while accounting for any global shifts that would be experienced to affect all countries."
Those stupid fuckers can't forecast next year's economic performance and they think they can forecast it in 2100?
Per the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, in war, someone always turns a profit. Also, in peace, someone always turns a profit.
A shifting wind (if you'll pardon the turn of phrase) will always result in profit for someone.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
It's time a climate superPAC be formed to create an NRA-like political entity with teeth. Science, math, and logic just don't work on the dumb and the greedy. You gotta bribe politicians with campaign money (or lack of) to get action in our society. That's just the ugly truth.
The other side will say the existence of a superPAC is evidence of political motivation over science, but they say that anyhow now. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Table-ized A.I.
>> climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100
OK, I can see my taxes easily going up 23% in the next 2100, but how else will my income be reduced?
ExonMobil believes it. In fact they have believed it since the 1980s. We have proof. Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements. In fact they not only believe it, they are counting on it. When they first started planning arctic drillimg they counted on global warming to reduce the arctic ice and make the arctic oil cheaper to reach first.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Al Gore is not a scientist.
Smart people don't get climate news from non-experts any more than you should get legal advice from a non-lawyer.
A certain media wing cites Mr. Gore often to score political and/or vendetta points, but a decent news organization would ignore him for climate prediction and analysis.
Table-ized A.I.
n/t
Read: Farmers impacted by shorter growing seasons and unpredictable weather.
If the sea levels rise much higher we'll have bigger problems to worry about than making money.
They're not talking about natural warming, they are talking about warming induced by human activity. If nothing else, natural warming doesn't happen on such a short time-scale.
ExonMobil's internal memos specifically cite global warming caused by burning fossil fuels as the key to making arctic drilling profitable.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Pretty tired of hearing the term 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'. I am pretty sure the correct term is 'Global Poisoning'. With all the pollutants we have been injecting into the environment for the past 600 years, and all the wars and human induced destruction it seems pretty cowardly to use those terms. It is time to take responsibility for mankind's stupidity and greed and clean this shithole up.
I've always wanted to ask how robust major city seaports are in relation to climate change and sea level rise. If big cargo ships can't effectively dock at ports that are partially underwater, or the city itself is becoming flooded, that will cause commerce to come to a screeching halt. When are the seaports expected to become compromised?
I've always wanted to ask how robust major city seaports are in relation to climate change and sea level rise. If big cargo ships can't effectively dock at ports that are partially underwater, or the city itself is becoming flooded, that will cause commerce to come to a screeching halt. When are the seaports expected to become compromised? Sorry, this is a dupe, I posted anonymously accidentally and I wanted to get my name on this
How can one ignore one the greatest propaganda artists on the side that everyone keeps pointing to, until it becomes an Inconvenient Truth?
Here's the part that gets me. People love to spout off the incredible claims this guy makes, and then like a defunct prophet, discards him until it is convenient to call upon his name again.
This isn't science, it is religion. Pure Religion. They use scientific sounding terms and make bold predictions that have failed repeatedly, only to have the next round of prophets waiting in the wings with a better interpretation of their holy book!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Even if the correlations that the paper identifies are actually meaningful, they in no way support that conclusion. The relationship between temperature and economic productivity the paper finds only exists after normalizing for "cultural difference", "contemporaneous shocks", "country-specific trends in growth rates", and "non-linear effects of temperature and rainfall". That is, the "23 percent estimate" only applies if all these factors remain unchanged for a century and if there is no migration in response to climate change. Those assumptions are, of course, utterly bogus.
Of course, the correlations are likely not even related to causation, but simply reflect historical accidents and the preferences of European settlers and the agricultural technologies they developed. If other cultures had become globally dominant, or if you had done the same analysis at different points in human history, you would have reached different conclusions.
In addition, even if all the assumptions of the paper were satisfied (they are not) and even if the 23 percent estimate was well-justified (it is not), then from a policy point of view, the comparison that you need to make is not climate change vs. no climate change, it is climate change vs climate change mitigation, and climate change mitigation itself has a profound negative effect on these normalizing variables.
I'm sure I saw an article just last week where analysis of published economics papers revealed a prediction hit ratio of barely past 50%.
So it's just pseudo-science rambling.
So we have a very abstracted estimate of future economics that is derived from already abstracted estimated models of temperature. Sounds compelling...
According the IPCC's 5th assessment report in Chapter 9 models have problems with the TOA energy balance. Specifically if you look in Box 9.1 they say:
maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters
in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system
They follow up with a half dozen citations verifying this.
Read that closely because it is telling. Read the cited articles, and it's even more so. Climate models still can NOT predict TOA energy imbalance. To even get hindcasts correct, requires manual corrections to unknown or poorly understood processes like clouds. Let me observe that long term climate change driven by the greenhouse effect works ENTIRELY through the TOA energy imbalance and trapping more or less energy as gas concentrations change.
Forgive me if I believe we lack sufficient evidence and understanding to justify carbon taxations and other economic controls to try and rectify something we still can't even quantify,
African Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
InterAcademy Council as the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
Crop Science Society of America (CSSA),
Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
Well, the list goes on and on... It would be much easier to list dissenting organizations: NONE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
note that's a capital 'G' not a post-Halloween costume idea.
The angry white male vote so hates everything about their lives and the social changes over the last 50 years that destruction of civil society is a feature not a bug. Just reference the haughty faux engineer comments that will flood this comment thread about the "actual truth", because we still need to fiddle the numbers for a while or the hippies and chicks who play video games and SJWs will win. DON'T JUST DO SOMETHING, STAND THERE! Along with the pointy haired science types and libtard media. Don't give an inch fat freedom fighters. Get out to the intellectual equivalent of the Bundy ranch and point guns at everyone, secure in the fact that as white males law enforcement will make every effort not to shoot you.
Yeah I'm an old angry white male as well. But I do too much math to let politics cloud my judgement and have changed my opinions rightward? on many topics over the decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vdl3TRxv0c
The only people who would call Al Gore "one the greatest propaganda artists" are completely oblivious.
How can people still be stupid enough to fall for this FUD?
I'm shocked to find out one of the authors was also an author of the IPCC's reports. Shocked I tell you.
if the companies poo-pooing climate change are looking at these studies to see how they can profit from climate change....
When climate change ramps up (should be soon) people will have much greater concerns than the economy.. like where to find food and not enough water for the worlds 10+ billion people. We need to act NOW.
Wow, add up the funding that these groups get. $39 million here, $45 million there. Third on the list seems to be sue happy with $800,000 per year for their executive director which is now a former head of Dupont. One charges for membership, 74 million a year for another. Others are award societies that hand out awards, so I'm not sure how or why they'd have an official stance on climate change. One represents €25 billion in funding in Europe alone. But I'm sure none would lie or support things just to keep the funds rolling
Politicians will get richer.
Their cronies (like Al Gore) will get richer.
You and I will get screwed.
The link to TAFA to RTFA is http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
Essentially they took the 'productivity' of countries, mapped them against average temperature, and then turned it around making that predictive. Utter nonsense.
According to their method, since the most productive industrial countries are all temperate, then warming will turn Germany economically into Italy and Italy into, I guess, Somalia?
Sure, THAT is likely to happen. How is this substantially different from the "warmer latitudes evolve lazier people" meme from the early 20th century? I thought we'd moved on from deterministic racism like that, or is it ok as long as it's cloaked in Global Warming fear?
Any purported 'economic' analysis of warming that doesn't see ANY mitigatory factors is more religion than science. To wit:
- even warming-convinced climatologists admit that the impact of warming on rainfall patterns is nearly impossible to anticipate. Warming will most certainly increase the evaporate take-up into the atmosphere from the 70%+ surface that's water, and that water has to fall somewhere.
- warming will shift optimal growing belts toward the poles, and vegetation growth has a warmth-bias; that is, there is a temperature floor for farming, but (as long as there's adequate water) not really a ceiling. So contraction of the too-cold biomes around the poles will net-increase the arable productive farmland on earth (not that we're actually short of food today anyway, but that's another point). Plants prefer warmth, and more CO2 is also beneficial for them. Not to mention that optimal-agri-zones will shift poleward, into 'fresh' farmland that wasn't previously as intensively farmed.
- on a more human scale, melting will open the arctic to regular transit, significantly reducing shipping costs from E Asia to Europe and all but obviating the Panama Canal chokepoint, this will likely cut transport costs for a host of goods.
I'm NOT saying that warming won't be a net-bad; inundation will badly affect a humanity that largely sited its preferable living places along coasts. (Of course, given a long enough timeframe they were doomed anyway.) But I see nothing in that study that recognizes or attempts to calculate *any* beneficial countereffects of warming. To deny that there will be *some* is at best histrionics, at worst simple mendacity.
-Styopa
Agreed. It's sciency not science, and could easily be categorized as a religion.
That's one massive pile of bullshit.
I haven't read TFA, but I'll take the summary at face value. Even if average global income were to decrease, what is the impact of that? Are the costs of food, clothing, transportation, etc, going to increase, stay the same, or decrease as previously sequestered resources in the arctic become available (oil, cropland, etc)?
Just asking...
Believers are everywhere
You realize the U.S. is ~4.5% of the population... right?
Even if we went completely arboreal, and genetically engineered our children to have green skin and photosynthesize, it really wouldn't change the vector, regardless of which side you are on, and which way you think it points.
Fix the problems in China and India first. While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Thats why they are now facing criminal charges in California for lying to the public when we have conclusive proof that their internal documents contradicted their public statements.
Good Lord!!!!
Where will we end up, if the politicians ever got a hold of Exxon's "lying to the public" technology?!?
Thank you, Jesus, that we are nipping this in the bud by strongly enforcing the "it's illegal to lie to the public" laws already on the books!
CAGW extremists are well known to lie consistently on wikipedia. Just like Cook's 97% consensus, they include anyone and anything that mentions humans and climate.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Even if that were true, where do you think the brush came from? Digging carbon out of the ground and burning it is going to have a different net effect than extracting carbon from the atmosphere into a plant and releasing it back into the atmosphere.
You realize the U.S. is ~4.5% of the population... right?
Even if we went completely arboreal, and genetically engineered our children to have green skin and photosynthesize, it really wouldn't change the vector, regardless of which side you are on, and which way you think it points.
Fix the problems in China and India first. While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Bushfires are part of the natural carbon cycle, that carbon was all already in the biosphere, and will become a part of vegetative matter again when the plants regrow. The CO2 the US produces is mostly from fossil fuels, which are not currently part of the active carbon cycle, unless you count time on long geological scales. Furthermore, the US is ~17% of global output. The disparity between population size and current pollution output is worrying, not just because of the magnitude, but moreso because others, like China, will seek to attain the same lifestyle. If China overnight became as large a per capita CO2 emitter as the US, global output would increase by around 30%. (Based on rough figures found by googling, page I saw had 2011 data). Given the standard of living in much of India, them aspiring to a carbon based US-level lifestyle would be even worse.
So how much do people expend on cold weather in temperate regions? I doubt it's 25% but it's not trivial. Think about seasonal clothing, transportation, heating and heating infrastructure, insulation, snow removal etc.....
love is just extroverted narcissism
They're not talking about natural warming, they are talking about warming induced by human activity. If nothing else, natural warming doesn't happen on such a short time-scale.
Since there hasn't been any warming in 18 years based on satellite observations, I guess we could say that the warming period this time around is infinite. Infinite is a long time, which I think meets your criteria for natural warming. One observation on semantics: If CO2 generated by mankind is not considered "natural", then what is it? Un-natural? This is a slippery slope that soon leads to the argument that man is not a product nature, which leads to ... GOD!
Argument from authority is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
In other words, "The literature is not in error, therefore the literature is not in error."
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Why not rename this website and have done with it? What a load of bull, every single day, 'climate change' bull.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
True American exceptionalism at its best! Can't someone else do it? You can tell America is a world leader because the government knows how to back down from a problem when another country might disagree in some way.
The "but China pollutes" argument is about the same as a 3 year-old whining that they have to walk when the 18 month old sibling gets to be carried by mommy. If America thinks its a world leader than perhaps we should fucking lead something other than pet wars where we supply ~95% of the "coalition" soldiers. If we put some effort into reducing emissions, China can just steal it fixing the two biggest CO2 polluters in one shot.
And you realize the US accounts for ~15% of yearly gobal emissions and something like 40% of all CO2 emissions since 1970 right?
French Weatherman Fired After Slamming Climate Conference
http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin...
love is just extroverted narcissism
The GP claimed only idiots believed the science. Pointing out that scientiffic experts in every remotely related field deems tge evidence overwhelming is basically the exact opposite of an appeal to authority, especially in this context.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What would you call Al Gore, if not Propagandist? False Prophet?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.
natural warming doesn't happen on such a short time-scale.
It most certainly does.
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projec...
it's in my head
Oblivious to what? Al Gore is indeed a propaganda artist. And he's making money from it left and right. The guy should be locked up regardless of whether climate change is real or not. He's a pig dog living a lavish lifestyle on the dimes of the naive and unaware.
So, the climate is crashing, and it just happens to be at the same time the dollar is collapsing, world war is breaking out, civil war is breaking out, an asteroid is approaching, the super volcano is going to erupt, water supplies dwindle, and.... need I go on?
The odds of all these things happening at the same time is astronomical. Fact is, the Dollar is collapsing, and that is a man made situation by design. Everything else is simply to help facilitate into a one world fascist government.
I will not be paying any carbon tax, and if I want to collect rain water, then I will...PERIOD.
It's already too late to do anything. Millions of years ago, the Earth was covered by forests. The trees died, as plants and animals do, and this was before mushrooms. If a tree falls in the forest, do mushrooms eat it? These days, yeah, but back then, no. So millions of years ago a lot of plant material turned into coal. We've dug up almost half of it and burned it. All that CO2, sequestered for hundreds of millions of years, has been released into the atmosphere. It took literally millions of years for all that CO2 to be sequestered, and we've released it in 150 years. No, there's no going back. Get used to it.
is to ask is what is magical about CO2 levels at 350ppm when in Earth's past CO2 has been much higher and life flourished?
You would have to duck to miss that. Even you
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Those "contingencies" never stay in the form of contingencies but become regulations regardless of the lack of the predefined happenings.
Wow, impressive. You can really turn a phrase.
Oh wait, something about it looks familiar.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We should do our part even if others flake. Otherwise, nobody does anything because they use the bad apples as an excuse to slack off. That's 2nd-grader logic.
We could use threats of tariffs to encourage other countries to clean up their act, but that's also politically difficult to pull off. Enough of our voters and/or lobbyists/bribers have to be interested before anything like that is done in the USA, which brings us back to the original topic.
Table-ized A.I.
So you think the USA should be a follower and not a leader?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
This is chilling http://dailycaller.com/2015/09... These idiots are no better than the 16th century Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith! Heaven forbid anyone question the party doctrine!
There is not significant enough climate change to worry about at this time according to the data. We do have more significant things to worry about that are far more likely to chew us up in this century. And what does this have to do with slashdot anyway?
What would you call Al Gore, if not Propagandist? False Prophet?
A slow-speaking politician? I wouldn't call him anything that would ascribe attributes to his personality, such as "artist". I would not hold him responsible for what his opponents in various media entities say of him. In politics, there are 3 groups: the rights, the wrongs, and everyone else. I belong in the "everyone else" group. I don't prescribe to ideas based on popular media points. I don't parrot the party canon for fear of being "othered". If something piques my interest, I will research it vehemently before coming to any sort of conclusions. Of course I am human and thus prejudice is unavoidable. But in understanding that prejudice, I am able to recognize the behavior and adjust my actions accordingly. This is a technique some people call "self control" and it has helped me avoid many long, arduous, unsolvable political arguments.
A few degrees warmer and we'll just have more productive farms. And we might need some pipelines to move water from one region to another. An ice age on the other hand would be a disaster.
Oh we're all quite aware that everything Gore has been nothing less than than sheer pseudo-science:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
If anyone's 'oblivious' it's those who worship him.
The rubes are already in the tank for Global Cooling... I mean Global Warming... I mean climate change.. Damn! This from a bunch of pointy headed academics that wouldn't last 30 days in the real world and don't have enough common sense to get out of the rain. 18" of ocean level rise in 100 years will absolutely not take out 25% of the global economy. The oceans have risen a number of times before (land bridge to Australia anyone remember that?) Also google sunken cities, there are dozens around the planet that we have found in the shallow coastal waters (but still under 30 feet of water). They were built on the coast, and as we came out of the last ice age, global ice levels fell and the oceans rose, forcing people to abandon those locations.
In the real word, the climate changes, it has always changed, and it will continue to change, and the scientific climate models that have been accurate over the last 15 years indicate that CO2 and methane produced by humans are figuratively pissing in the ocean when it comes to climate change. If you are a climate change wacko, do yourself a favor and google global climate historical data and look back a few million years (hell even 50,000 years). The globe was doing this long before man, and it will continue long after we are gone. The question is do we want to bend over and take it from the planet, or use our resources to survive whatever climate change is happening?
The billions of dollars of wealth that envirowackos want to siphon out of the economy for their crackpot environmental schemes are much better spent elsewhere, and if in 100 years the oceans rise 18", well fuck, build a goddamn seawall ya lazy retards. If some island in the pacific with a population of 5000 goes underwater because they cant build an 18" seawall, well then we should relocate them somewhere else and teach them the benefits of living in a modern world with sanitation, electricity, steel reinforced concrete and cheeseburgers. Cry me a river for some backwater savages that can't adapt; I'm pretty sure we shouldn't tank the global economy over those guys.
That is the economic impact.
Oh look, Al Gore is getting richer, while putting yet another mansion close to the ocean (hello, if AGW means flooding the coasts, there goes that place down the drain!)
But he'll be a billionaire because cronies always get rich.
He's become more of a tool for propagandists than a propagandist himself. I agree his documentaries have spin, but if a politician produced something that did NOT have spin, I would be completely shocked. (It would be like a doctor with clear handwriting. I'd become suspicious.)
The bottom line is don't get your news from politicians on either side of any issue. Follow that guideline and Gore would and should be a non-factor in the broader debate.
Table-ized A.I.
If you're using a time frame of only a hundred years then any day in the year has a very strong chance of being the hottest or the coldest on record.
However, on a geological time scale, the Earth has been cooling consistently from when it was a volcanic/radioactive wasteland.
And 50% or more of inventions. The world, which shares inventions, would be much better off being more l8ke us than the other way around.
We can no more predict the state of tech in 2115 than 1915 could today's. Less so, more likely, especially with China and India opening up with more economic freedom (see second sentence above) adding 3 billion people driving via economic might and capacity, investment in R&D.
I will happily take that angry red forecast picture, with that level 2115 tech, than a sweet green-blue picture (no doubt the colors that would be used) and, say, year 2080 tech.
And no, you cannot have both. A century of hundreds of economic experiments involving billions of test subjects demonstrate otherwise. (See first two sentences.)
This paper will no doubt minimize or skip this brute fact entirely.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
At some point, a powerful country will be willing to go to war to halt carbon emissions. If you do the game theory math, if you don't bring down greenhouse emissions, the earth will eventually overheat and mass death will occur. If this is the outcome, there isn't any reason not to start blowing up everyone and everything emitting greenhouse gas. Either everyone dies, or you start dishing out death and destruction, and you might survive the resulting war(s). It's a pretty cold blooded calculus.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
23% sounds like a lot, but relative to the economic growth that will occur in the same period, it is tiny:
What is needed is to compare the economic impact of climate change to the economic impact of *stopping* climate change (i.e. less energy usage=less GDP). If the latter is bigger, we should just let climate change happen. (Or more precisely, we should look at each climate change intervention and see if its benefits outweigh its costs. This likely means that government-funded renewable energy R&D is justified, while emissions caps are not.)
The US is the ONLY country which has reduced their Co2 emissions. That includes your precious EU.
Leftist Caused Climate Hysteria is a HOAX to Control and Steal from YOU!! Cooked up data, the same models and computers running into the future that can't predict the actual weather more than 3 days out is all these idiots have. And we are supposed to change our lives based on this? Just this week NASA admitted that the south pole ice is fine and has been for at least 10 years. I would hope that the people of Slashdot would be intelligent enough to NOT fall for this garbage that is more akin to a religion than actual science.
The US is the ONLY country which has reduced their Co2 emissions.
Company 2 emissions? Joint 2 (wouldn't that be redundant?) emissions?
So, being the biggest, loudest most outspoken "Global Warming" alarmist means nothing to you? Or you just saying that because he has said provably wrong predictions in the past?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Thank FSM that you're the FP, the comments above you are chock full of stupid.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Just how does one estimate the losses of border wars caused by global warming? And how about the secondary effects when some people suffering economic losses from global warming gravitate to crime, drugs or alcohol. Compound that with damage to fisheries such as death of coral reefs and factors killing off fish. In south Florida we now have a lion fish invasion which will probably impact tourism to some degree which is traced to global warming. Slightly warmer seas caused lion fish to thrive. There are so many variables that i doubt that the real economic losses can be measured even when they actually happen. The cattle industry has been severely afflicted in the western states by warming. Now flooding caused by warming makes the cattle feed expensive so we already know we are five years or more into expensive beef even if warming vanished today. In California there are large areas filled with high end homes that only an idiot would buy as they are so dry that one spark can trigger worse fires than ever before seen in America. Meanwhile our military is already spending money trying to brace for conflicts caused by global warming. We are already in a horrid mess.
He's a geek with political muscle, as was Maggie Thatcher and many of the US "founding fathers".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
SJW headlines will no doubt echo the theme.
He vowed to spend $100M or so of his money trying to get climate alarmists elected(he has spent about $75M so far).
But *his* spending is not a corrupting influence on the democratic process, not at all evil like the spending the Koch brothers did (who spent $7M between them).
Definition: Shill Chill
The attempt by paid accomplices of the fossil fuel industry to freeze out discussion and cool concerns about global warming due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Their income is going to go down by 23% ! And that of their robo-industrial-complex-baron owners I suppose.
The actual people, most of them, won't have to worry about this, because their income-earning jobs will long have been replaced by automation.
I wonder what the effect of bands of neo-luddite anarchists, roving across the flooded or parched lands in angry desperation, will be on the global economy.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Whatever spouting of denialist delusions gets you through your massively over-consuming day without crushing guilt and self-loathing...
God forbid we might have to actually lift a finger and adjust something in our lives.
Aye there's the rub. To accept the truth and have to shift one's butt by a few centimetres uncomfortably.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1. Petroleum based Fertilizer stocks will go through the roof (combating desertification and creating farmland to replace the previously above-ground farmland)
2. No more batshit crazy North Korea issues, now it's 70% underwater.
3. The change in weather patterns will make some places a whole lot more pleasant. Greenland for instance...is actually turning green as we speak.
4. The inevitable Nuclear winter should really take the edge off of this whole 'global warming' thing.
XD One massive conspiracy isn't it.
Just the other day, I read an article, saying OPPS....we were wrong! Originally, "scientist" were in a panic. Reflective sunlight was reduced coming off ice shelves in Greenland or somewhere around there. "Scientist" were CONVINCED that burning of "fossil fuels" caused soot & dust, to be deposited on the ice, reducing the amount of light reflected. After finding that there isn't any ice melting, these same "scientist" have found that the error in the readings were due to decaying sensors on the satellite, that had NOT been calibrated/checked in a long time.
So you think the USA should be a follower and not a leader?
Environmental policy in the U.S. is generally led by California, and the rest of the nation adopts their standards.
So do I think they should lead the way by not using natural gas to produce almost 50% (49.3%) of their electricity? Yeah, I think it'd be *great* if they'd get off their asses and build more nuclear plants, and use the night reduction on load to desalinate water for the Southern Californians who insist on living in a freaking desert, and growing food there for export to other countries.
And do I think they should use nuclear, rather than burning coal and importing electricity from coal generators in other state for another 28% of their electricity? You betcha.
Source for energy production by resource type: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
I'm OK with them leading, as long as *someone* does it. The U.S. certainly isn't doing it.
Life also flourishes in Chernobyl, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'd be nice to live there.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
and see what sticks. That's the AGW fanboy approach to implementing totalitarian socialism. These clowns will stop at NOTHING to argue for global wealth resistribution and unlimited government power over the individual.
The average person who is supposed to be swayed by all these insane arguments is supposed to forget some basic facts:
1. Climate AND weather are ALWAYS changing; The alternative, stasis, would be VERY BAD for all life on Earth.
2. Economies ALWAYS change in response to ALL changes in the underlying environment (not just the weather type of "environment" but rather the more generic form of the word "environment")
3. All the global schemes of wealth and power redistribution being promised in the "fight against global warming" will be as illusory as every other promise to "level the playing field" that rich leftists ALWAYS make. The Soros/Gates/Buffet types NEVER have any intention of surrendering THEIR power and money. These schemes ALWAYS transfer money and power from the middle class to the super-rich NOT from the super-rich to the poor. The gap between the richest and poorest has, for example, grown faster under President Obama than under any recent President. For all the toying with socialism in Europe, you will note that there are still plenty of super-rich there; it's the middle class that is stuck without the ability to rise, and the lower classes are only able to rise to a level of existence - NOT to truly rise.
The way you refute a peer-reviewed study is with better peer-reviewed studies. A spam list of unreviewed opinions all written by the same handful of dissenters refutes nothing. Provide better data, or take your unfounded opinions and baseless accusations elsewhere.
The way you confirm a peer-reviewed study is with more peer-reviewed studies, conducted independently and using different lines of evidence, to see if they arrive at similar results. Like this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, to cite a few.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
So many issues associated with the impact of global climate change, that forecasting the economic impact, sort of makes not sense. The real question will be the socio-political impact based upon the consequences and the impact on the lives of people living in at risk locations either through flooding or adverse changes in localised weather patterns. We are talking something like a billion people being severely affected.
So a billion people going nuts and reacting violently, how will that impact the economy, well pretty much fuck it up into non-existence. Of course there is the idea of richer nations going nuts and seeking to limit population via war, so a sort of crazy war genocide economy exist and flourishes in it's own sick way. So how severe will the socio-political impact be and what steps will be taken out to prepare for the disruptions ahead to limit the negative impact upon humanity as a whole, as it will affect everyone.
Trying to imagine that our current socio-political structure will just keep on stumbling through this crisis with no real change, the rich continuing to live to extreme excess and the shrinking middle class will just have to get used to less a whole lot less or else, is really naive. This being the model they are using to gauge the economic impact, I doubt that model, the current model will survive.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
And yet, if you are worried about lowering co2, the smart money would be to focus on either the largest, which is china with 33-43% , or better yet, ALL nations. In addition, since co2 comes mostly from business and gov choices and uses, and not directly from ppl, it makes far more sense to normalize based on emissions / GDP, not per capita.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And 100% of those inventions relied on inventions from other countries. You are arguing like an 8-year-old.
"The way you refute a peer-reviewed study is with better peer-reviewed studies"
Learn to read:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514003759
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9
And yet, if you are worried about lowering co2, the smart money would be to focus on either the largest, which is china with 33-43% , or better yet, ALL nations. In addition, since co2 comes mostly from business and gov choices and uses, and not directly from ppl, it makes far more sense to normalize based on emissions / GDP, not per capita.
27% according to what I read, not 43%. I'm sure they are producing more now than 4 years ago, although I also know that China's past emissions have been over-estimated due to the fact that the coal mined there is of a poorer quality than average. On the subject of how to normalize measurement of emissions, doing it by GDP could be useful for some purposes, but most certainly not for any attempt at limiting emissions. When GPD/capita is so closely tied to CO2/capita, attempting to limit emissions based on GDP is essentially limiting people's right to make money based on how much money they make.
Indicating there is no shame whatsoever in the quest for research funding and the quest for political power.
For the demographic that can't be scared by the 'war on terror', or swayed by the 'war on drugs', we brought you the 'war on climate change'.
And for those who aren't scared by any of those, well, scare them where it hurts ... the pocketbook.
YES! Climate change will make you POOR!!! Are you scared now?
Climate change proponents have shown their true colours.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
And isn't it convenient that these so-called memos from the 80s mysteriously show up on the net just as the new chairman of the IPCC, a former economist from Exxon, takes office...
But since California is our leader, and they are sitting on their hands instead of leading... meh. Let the other countries who are *vastly* ramping up their use of fossil fuels to achieve a higher standing of living for their people (China, India) take the lead, if they want to.
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.
Worse still, the 100 warmest years on record ALL occur after the industrial revolution. That's right,100% of the top 100 warm years on record are all due to global wa.....
Oh, just a second, this just in, the 'record' for temperatures only extends back for 100 years. That's not much of a sample set for analyzing processes like climate that operate over millennia is it?
It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Think of it this way. The economy tanked a few times in the past things are generally stable and some variation is ok. Your new bank account has had regular deposits of $100/month for the past year. You haven't made any withdraws but last week you started losing $1000/day after you let vagrants mine your garbage. But its not worth worrying about because the sample set is so small and the economy naturally goes up and down right?
I know its not the perfect analogy of why you should care and you CERTAINLY didn't come here to have your mind changed. I'm just spitting this out so I can refine it and eventually it will be succinct enough to help someone who hasn't though much about it sort through denialist bullshit. Thanks for your services.
Go look at oco2 data. China is producing a LOT more co2 than is acknowledged by them. In particular, they are lying about the amount of coal that they burn.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
On a side note, normalizing on emissions / GDP does not limit their making money. What it does is tie the cost of a good to the very real cost of the pollution that is emitted. For those areas that move to solar, wind, geo-thermal, nukes, etc, they would have little to no tax on goods produced there ( assuming none of parts come from high co2 area ). This rewards them relative to those that will pollute. Take the example of Wyoming vs say California. Any goods, or goods with parts , from wyoming should and would have higher tax than CA. Why? Because currently, majority of their power comes from coal ( though wind is on the rise ).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
Think of it this way...
citations needed.
According to the latest proxy reconstructions by Michael Mann, the hockey stick author that alarmists love, the current 'record' warmth of the last couple decades was matched 2-3 times naturally over the last 2 thousand years. The links there are to his supplementary information page for his actual paper, and the last is to the raw data of his reconstruction right up to the year 2007. Check for yourself that his data finds that around 1000AD, 850AD and 550AD temperatures met or exceeded those since the year 2000AD.
If you want to contradict that record, please give me more than the waving of your hands that "dozens of different methods" show. The only different methods that paint a different picture is if you plot instrumental temperature against the reconstructed temperatures of something like Mann and others work. The part you would miss(and Mann has done this routinely) is noticing that not only is the instrumental record from say 1990-2010 higher than anything in the last 200 years. The instrumental temperatures from 1990-2010 are EQUALLY higher than the proxy record temperatures from 1990-2010!
Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?
The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".
Yes, let's take the word of a known fraud:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
matched 2-3 times naturally
Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.
He effected a bored affect.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
matched 2-3 times naturally
Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.
You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.
This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.
From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.
I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.
Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?
The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".
You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.
This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.
From my link up thread it is noted in the link to the raw data:
Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.
I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.
Still looking for the pure reconstructed figures for 1900 onwards...
from an at-source carbon-tax?
A simple at-source carbon tax on fossil fuels, with gradual increases built in is what the most intelligent people who think and talk about the problem propose as the major solution.
It allows the free market to operate to find the most efficient way around high fossil-fuel prices. GHG emissions therefore go down efficiently.
The most elegant and effective version of the carbon tax would put the revenue toward fundamental research on new energy technologies, and possibly toward short-term subsidies for development and adoption of alternatives, such as EV rebates, solar feed-in-tariff programs, etc.
The most politically palatable version just gives the carbon-tax money back to citizens as a dividend, allowing some to still buy gas, and others to make smarter alternative decisions and benefit financially.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
So the "ice age is coming" of the 1970s becomes "global warming" in the 1980s/90s and has now morphed into "climate change" because the warming stopped 14-18 years ago. "Climate Change" is so nice because they won't have to change their scam's name every time the climate does something they don't expect .... like CHANGE! For goodness sake climate is always changing and humans for all their arrogance have very little to do with it. Urban heat island is proven and CO2 might have a 1 to 1.66 degree C change for each doubling. Nothing to get worried about (IPCC says so).
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
Here are 2 predictions. First I predict that CO2 will continue to increase because China and other countries don't care about CO2. They don't even care about real pollutants much less CO2. Second I predict it will get colder over the next 20-30 years. Why?
The PDO is in its negative phase, the AMO has peaked and is on the way down and the sun is in its quietest phase in hundreds of years. So we have a great opportunity to do real science. If CO2 does control the climate then we should get warmer despite all those factors. If it doesn't then expect it to get much colder over the next several decades. So far the evidence of science is that CO2 does NOT control the climate.
If you want to read a great explanation of why the IPCC models are broken beyond belief there was a great article describing that and all the other problems with climate science by Dr Brown of Duke university
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
According to Climate Action Tracker, Bhutan is leading the way. Also, China, India, the EU and Mexico are all doing a better job at emission reduction than the United States.
According to NY Times: China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks, China is increasing emissions, not reducing them.
Which fails to speak to my original point, which is that as goes California, so the rest of the U.S., and California isn't going anywhere, despite talking a good game. So you are basically agreeing with me (but disagreeing with me and the NY Times on the slope of China's vector relative to the slope of the U.S.'s vector).
While you are at it, fix the brush fires from lightning in Africa, which account for about 26.3% of annual CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere.
Even if that were true, where do you think the brush came from? Digging carbon out of the ground and burning it is going to have a different net effect than extracting carbon from the atmosphere into a plant and releasing it back into the atmosphere.
The brush came from the ground. The brush fires came from lightning. The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
Here's a history, if you care to read it; sadly other countries have adopted the U.S. policy as well:
http://www.nps.gov/fire/wildla...
The brush came from the ground.
Not true, the carbon came from the atmosphere originally.
The uncontrolled, large area brush fires came from misguided environmental policies, which prevent the clearing of "natural brush" and the creation of fire breaks. The resulting fires are called "fire use" or "let burn" fires. It came out of some misguided philosophies from the 1960's and 1970's. It was first instituted by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) in 1968.
The US NPS is not responsible for brush fires in Africa. Further, "fire use" and "let burn" fires have the effect of clearing "natural brush" and creating natural fire breaks. That's the opposite of your claim above.
The problem with out of control fires has never been allowing natural burning of forest, but rather the aggressive stamping out of wildfires common to many parts of the world in the 20th Century, particularly the first half of the century. That's what led to the build up in brush undergrowth and other fuels for wildfires.
But this issues is completely irrelevant to CO2 build up in the atmosphere. When bush burns, it eventually grows back, taking in carbon from the atmosphere and soil (the latter which also ultimately came from the atmosphere).
Did you read them? None of those are actually studies, they're just comments on a real study's methodology. They present no data of their own, contrary or otherwise.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
And how will that do anything other than raise fuel prices even more? Oh right, it fills the states coffers.
Thanks ever so much for the new (2015) carbon tax on fuel governor Brown, I guess 40 cents a gallon (highest in the nation) just wasn't enough for your slush fund this year.
>And how will that do anything other than raise fuel prices even more? Oh right, it fills the states coffers.
How does punishing murderers do anything but cost taxpayers money ?
But if this is found to be a crime and they are convicted, they would be forced to stop lying - and lying here would include lobbying politicians to lie for them.
You have an issue with fuel prices ? Time to consider an electric car maybe ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I have an issue with them being close to a buck more than other states for no goddamn reason, sure. Why don't you?
Because it would need to be about 30 dollars more before the cost of gas even begins to approach the externalities you inflict on everybody else when you buy it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually electric cars are cleaner even on a fossil grid because they are so much more energy efficient. So you still produce far less CO2 per mile driven.
But that aside yes we need to go for cleaner grids as well. There I have a bit of an advantage over you though. About 90% of the power in my city is nuclear. Solar is of course ideal and you can do that yourself.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Good for you? The majority of the country runs on coal. I agree Nuclear energy is far cleaner, unfortunately it's also far (as in more than 10 times) more expensive, even assuming you can thread through the mob of nutjob eco-warriors and actually build one.
Solar isn't at all ideal (for this application) since it only works in the daytime and that's when people and their cars are at work.
You never clarified what you meant so I assumed you were referring to Cook's 97% which in fact is more like 0.3%.
Nevertheless, there are thousands of published skeptic and lukewarmer journals out there:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
This is only from the past couple of decades, but there are far far more.
OK, so which one of the studies on that list has new survey data that attempts to refute the 97% consensus figure? Are you trying to imply that the dissenting authors in that list of papers represent significantly more than 3% of climatologists (though the list makes no claims that all the papers' authors are dissenting)? Or did you just bring them up to change the subject?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Well then prove that it's only 3%.
FYI, every single so-called consensus has been proven to be nothing more than bullshit cagw extremist nonsense.
I did. I linked to a number of peer-reviewed studies & surveys containing actual data, performed by different people at different times with different approaches - and they all gave similar results. Multiple lines of peer-reviewed evidence is the highest standard of proof we have.
You claim that the consensus on AGW is "nothing more than bullshit cagw extremist nonsense" - but you have no peer-reviewed data to back this accusation. So this is just your personal opinion. Nothing is "proven" just because someone said so on a blog. Any belief that your layman's opinion is somehow more valid than the expert conclusions of practicing climatologists is pure Dunning-Kruger Effect, even more obviously when your opinion is based on no data whatsoever.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
First of all 'consensus' is a political term and the way its being used is very much anti-science and second, using a search phrase to prove the existance of a consensus is not only sheer laziness but idiotic.
If anything, dumb fucking extremist asshats like yourself is what's wrong with the climate.
Fyi jackass, the links I pointed to link to a huge number of peer-reviewed jounals that refute every single one of your shit climate jihad links .
You my friend are the spitting definition of a bullshit artist.
OK, so you're now claiming that the general agreement among climate scientists is purely political, not an expert conclusion based on the science they've been doing, and therefore these thousands of practicing climatologists have been steadfastly ignoring the evidence that their observations of the last 40 years have been showing, and the tens of thousands of published and peer-reviewed studies showing increasing global land and sea temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea levels & acidification etc etc etc are therefore deliberately fabricated, risking their reputations and careers in a massive conspiracy - all in the name of their supposed political beliefs?
Well heck, I'm convinced.
extremist
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You're confusing science with some imagined bizarro political response to the situation science is telling you about. Try and understand the difference before you go off the deep end next time.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?