Oceanic acidity is increasing year by year and that is unsustainable unless you want to live in a world where the only marine life is brittle stars
Quantify that. How quickly can the oceans absorb CO2, and how much CO2 is necessary to make it so that the only marine life is brittle stars. Oh, and also explain how marine life survived atmospheric CO2 levels ridiculously higher than today. Show your work!:)
Where is the missing CO2? It made the ocean more acidic.
Or perhaps it also made more plants grow?
Will an increase in the average temperature be a good thing or a bad thing? It will be a chaotic thing, and that makes it a bad thing
That doesn't follow. Has weather gotten more chaotic in the past 150+ years since the little ice age? Do you have any evidence that weather is more orderly and predictable during an ice age?
What other negative feedbacks are in play, that is not the issue, what is the issue is that adding more energy to the system will cause more outputs, that's how it works
Um, no, we're not a closed system. If we add more energy to the system, and the system radiates more energy (or changes albedo in such a way that it absorbs less energy), none of the proposed outputs you claim will have any terrestrial effect.
Again, when you put all the things that we know together, AGW is a logical conclusion, and the burden of proof is on the other side.
Um, no. You don't get to dismiss natural climate change as the null hypothesis that easily:)
Tell you what, here are a few claims you've made:
1) a hotter world has more chaotic weather (corollary, a colder world has less chaotic weather)
2) negative feedbacks can't possibly deal with adding more energy to the system
Let's take them apart for a second. I'm assuming you'd accept #1 as falsified if we could show a colder period with more chaotic weather. Case in point, I'll cite the fact that colder global average temperatures generally mean an increase in temperature differential between the poles and the equator, leading to more cyclonic activity. By the very theories of global warming, we should expect a less chaotic weather world with the temperature differential between the poles and the equator (such as say, during the late eocene). Following the dots is left as an exercise for the reader.
As for #2, I'll assert that given the large changes in solar activity (not just TSI, but magnetic changes, etc), during which there have been some periods of time when activity has greatly increased, and some periods of time when activity has greatly decreased, we've actually got a robust system of negative feedbacks that stops any sort of runaway heating effect.
Now answer my questions, if you will:
How has the past 0.8C of temperature rise over the past 100 years negatively effected you? Why should we assume that another 0.8C of temperature over the next 100 years will be bad if the last 0.8C wasn't bad?
All (97%) of the scientists believe AGW is happening.
Oh, don't forget your caveat! That only applies to people we define as "those who have studied climate"! I'll remind you the same holds true of Back Yard Butterfly Global Warming as well, yet you surely deny that!
But really, the argument from unnamed authorities isn't your strongest argument.
No.... you just don't think there is anything that can be done. Don't WANT to think. That is what I see.
Well, remember, we've been *told* there's nothing we can do (since CO2 hangs out in the atmosphere for so long). And you keep telling me not to think (since 97% of those who have studied climate apparently believe something already, and that should be good enough).
Look, yes, we can adapt. Mitigation is a losing battle, even if I were to stipulate to all of your worst fears. Why isn't that good enough for you?
We'd all be better off is there was a mature discussion on the topic. But that will never happen.
You've been doing pretty well so far in this thread, so don't give up hope! Get past the knee-jerk name calling, the automatic assumption of bad faith, and maybe we've got a chance of finding out what we do agree on.
You have to take into account how much CO2 we emit, and it is in fact a shitload. It's probably over 150 times as much as volcanism.
Still, not impressed. You've essentially got an ocean that can buffer more CO2 than you can possibly imagine, as well as hold orders of magnitude more heat than the entirety of the atmosphere.
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know that we produce a great deal of it, what more do you need to know?
I know that cities create local weather effects through UHI, and we've built a lot of cities - what more do you need to know before we decide that we've got catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to city building?:)
Again, simply stringing together two things we might agree on, in order to claim a third thing we don't agree on, isn't the way the science game is played. Start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement (and "AGW could be falsified by showing that humans don't exist" is just as silly as "AGW could be falsified by showing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" - the existence of physical constants or emitters of CO2 isn't sufficient to lead to catastrophe or causality.)
Just precisely how you can continue to live your selfish, self-centered existence at the cost of all others?
The same way you do:) I'm breathing out CO2, enjoying the trappings of 1st world living with my huge ass carbon footprint, only I'm not being a snoot about it:)
Look, how has the past 0.8C of temperature rise over the past 100 years negatively effected you? Why should we assume that another 0.8C of temperature over the next 100 years will be bad if the last 0.8C wasn't bad?
Hope you're ready to apologize to your grand children when they're living through a Maunder minimum that lasts until 2050:)
Obviously you think that we shouldn't do anything about AGW. It either isn't happening, or it isn't a problem, and you are completely certain about that, even though 97% of scientists who study it disagree. There is no solutions to talk about, and you are not in denial.
Interesting caveat on the 97% now..."scientists who study it":) That talking point is worn out, and doesn't help your position - argument from unnamed authorities is a logical fallacy, and you've got stronger arguments than that.
As for "we shouldn't do anything about AGW", that's exactly what you feel about doing anything about BYBGW (back yard butterfly global warming). Either back yard butterfly global warming isn't happening, or it isn't a problem, and you're completely certain about that, even though 97% of scientists of study it disagree.:)
As for solutions, I'm all open to solutions based on adaptation. Mitigation is a dead issue, especially given the fact that, according to the 97% of "scientists who study it", we've already passed numerous tipping points, and CO2 is such a long lived molecule any mitigation would fail to have any significant impact. Unlike Greece, we can't simply declare bankruptcy and start our CO2 balance sheet over.
And don't forget to tell your grand-children exactly where you stood on the issue.
I absolutely will, and I hope you will too. And if they're living in something akin to a Maunder minimum, I hope you'll admit to them that you got it wrong:)
Monckton also believes he has a cure for cancer, aids, graves disease and multiple-sclerosis.
Not sure about aids, graves disease and multiple sclerosis, but I know the cure for cancer - stop eating carbohydrates. Lustig and Gary Taubes do pretty good exposes on the chronic toxicity of carbohydrates. But again, the point is, Monckton is simply a caricature, much like Al Gore, James Hansen or Michael Mann.
If we double every 20 years, then that means we will use more energy in the next 20 years then we have used since the beginning of civilisation. Obviously something is going to break there eventually.
That all being said, I suppose one could make the statement that we need to grow our energy faster than our population - which means population controls (anathema to ideas of freedom - see David Wingrove's "Chung Kuo" for an interesting scifi novel based on the premise of unlimited birth rate), or more aggressive exploitation, or a combination of both. We're lucky, of course, that it seems that wealth tends to slow growth rates down, so aggressive exploitation might actually drive natural population control.
The price of energy should reflect its future availability.
NOOOOOO!!!!! That's what Big Oil *wants* you to think! Artificial scarcity is anathema to free markets, and the psychological trick of publishing stats on "proven reserves" in scary ways only distorts the market. The price of energy should reflect supply and demand. Increasing supply will lower prices.
Only took 20 years for the North Atlantic fish populations to tank, and we needed a moratorium on fishing.
Actually, we didn't need a moratorium - the natural economics work themselves out naturally. Once it becomes uneconomical to fish an area, people stop fishing it. Yes, this can be devastating to people who have bet their lives on the idea that they will always be able to economically fish an area, but making those kinds of plans isn't very prudent.
You complain that AGW isn't happening or it isn't a problem. But what you really mean is that you don't want to do anything about it. Hence the attack on the science.
No, I really do mean that AGW isn't happening, or it isn't a problem, or there is nothing we can do about it in terms of *mitigation*. I'm open to adaptation if necessary. My attack on the premise of significant or catastrophic AGW is based on my popperian view of science as falsifiable hypotheses, and comes from an honest conviction. My dislike for big government comes from a completely separate honest conviction regarding the proper place for government based on the works of classic liberals like Bastiat. I'm simply lucky that the two convictions aren't in conflict with each other:)
Just remember what you said and where you stood today, and tell it to your grand-children, when you give them sage advice about politics.
Absolutely. And I hope if our grand-children are living in a Maunder minimum event with historically low temperatures for decades, you'll have the integrity to admit to them you had it figured wrong:)
In the end, I think it's just as rare to find a gun-toting gay republican as it is to find a libertarian AGW believer, or big-government AGW skeptic. One can assert that the big/small government views is what drives the AGW views, but I think that sells people short, and is mostly an artifact of how it has been politicized. I think the problem that you rightfully point out is that often the argument over the science (be it of a
Monckton thinks he's "broken" the science. If his claims were supported by the evidence (or indeed his references), then he would be correct. He/would/ have falsified the AGW argument.
You know, and I know, Monckton is fighting a straw man. He's built it because nobody on the warmist side has bothered to specify a falsifiable hypothesis statement that contains all necessary and sufficient factors to show AGW or CAGW, but what he's done is broken straw men he's inferred from the various alarmist exclamations made without much thought. He's fighting a PR war, not a science war.
Again, no big deal. We're looking at a hypothetical forcing that might occur, and that warrantees further investigation.
It is a big deal if you insist (as some alarmists do), that "the science is settled". A potential negative feedback of this magnitude has immense consequences on what the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 is, and can easily bring temp increases down from "OMG" to "meh". The fact that the models don't even consider this factor is an indictment of their possible accuracy (even if they've overestimated the magnitude of negative feedback, it's still got real world implications that should be part of GCMs).
Yet they all (97%) agree that AGW is happening. Not CAGW. Just AGW.
Okay, but forget that nitpick for a moment. AGW is happening. If defined as a nonzero and positive amount, I'll stipulate that to be true, in the same way that BYBGW (back yard butterfly global warming) is happening, and is nonzero and positive. Assert that it's happening at a rate of 1.5C per doubling of CO2, and I'll doubt you. Assert that it's happening at a rate of.8C per doubling of CO2 and I might believe you. Assert that it's happening at a rate of.000001C per doubling of CO2, and I might believe you.
My guess (and it is a well-informed layman's guess) is that we have a 10% chance of CAGW, 30% of nothing problematic, and 60% somewhere in-between.
My guess (also well-informed layman's guess), is that we've got a 0% chance of CAGW, a 60% chance of hitting something akin to a Maunder minimum between now and 2050, and a 40% chance of business as usual.
My further guess is that even if there was a 10% chance of CAGW, nothing we could do now could stop it from occurring - the only option would be adaptation, not mitigation.
I'm talking/solutions/. Practical.
Throw away your mitigation solutions for a moment. What practical adaptation solutions do you have?
But when you look at Fox News,/and/ the Republican primaries -- we get a blanket denial that there is any problem at all! 100% certainty that there is no problem.
Would it be less offensive to you if they simply said, "Look, we don't think human CO2 has any measurable effect on natural climate change, but even if it did, nothing we can possibly do will stop it now. If people want to start focusing on adaptation (designing hurricane proof shelters, planning dikes, raising people out of poverty to they can survive natural weather disasters), great. Mitigation is a non-starter."
I am *sure* that there are some great solutions that conservatives can come up with, and am ready to have that conversation.
Well then, as your token conservative (well, really a libertarian, but I get lumped in as conservative even though I support abortion rights, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state), here's my great solution:
Drill, baby, drill. Get the cheapest energy out of the ground as
The USA has been investing hugely in wind energy [wikipedia.org]. Does "stopping" mean "exponential increase" in your world?
No, what that means to me is that good money is being thrown at bad technology. If it could compete in the market (without killing bunches of endangered raptors), it would do it without government subsidies (measured per kW generated, not just absolute value). There is a reason *the free market* abandoned wind power over a century ago.
Instead, we have huge oil/coal subsidies which end up making coal energy marginally cheaper then comparable wind turbines at present technology.
Um, no. Stop looking at the total amounts, and look at the subsidy per kW generated.
Also, remember, we can ship coal everywhere - you can't ship wind everywhere:)
The Europeans and Asians will end up owning this market if the Republicans keep subsidizing big coal/oil.
False association. China and low-wage european countries will own any manufacturing market because of labor costs compared to the US, not because of any subsidies.
You did suggest that you'd insure the world against CAGW for $350. This is not helpful for discussing what the risk is.
Sorry, I said I'd insure *you* against CAGW for $350 a year for the next 100 years, not the world. They'd have to pay me $350 a year too if they wanted in on it:)
I have heard no "skeptic" ever talking about risk.
Well, I'm sure you've heard skeptics talk about global warming being overstated (i.e., its risks are overstated), but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. Maybe Lomberg suits your criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
Wind energy is already about on parity with coal power generation
Um, try unsubsidized wind energy without carbon fuel backup generators that kick in when wind dies down:) There's a reason why we stopped using windmills:)
Despite much information from conservatives on electric/hybrid cars, they do show promise for a future technology.
My Prius still runs on gas, and since it gets better mileage, I drive it more. Even if it was pure electric, that electricity is going to ultimately come from some carbon based fuel. Look, I love technology, but when Government Motors builds a Volt that is subsidized by the general public bailout, but only affordable to the top 1%, I'm a bit concerned that the best laid plans of mice and men have gone aglay:)
For the "skeptic", we simply have: four-legs good, environmentalism bad. We don't talk risk. We don't talk technology. We don't talk solutions. We just have denial of the problem, because even admitting climate change is occurring would be against the group think.
That's an unfair caricature. Yes, there are bible thumping moron skeptics, just like there are reincarnation believing global warming pot smoking hippies without jobs. Lomborg *is* talking risk. Lomborg *is* talking technology.
Look, climate change *is* occurring, and it will *always* occur, no matter what we do. If we can at least agree on *that*, then we can say "hey look, if climate changes this much, what kinds of technologies will we need to develop to survive"? Instead, we're force fed a diet of "reduce your CO2 footprint!"
Here's my assertion - exploit the cheapest energy we can as quickly as we can to bring people out of poverty. Increased wealth means increased survivability. Run as quickly as we can towards sustainable nuclear energy (thorium in particular). If we ever hit peak oil (there's a chance that abiogenic petroleum saves us), we'll make the transition to pure electric (nuclear) when it is economically feasible, and not one moment before. Those actions will solve the problem of surviving climate change (which as we all know, happens always).
Well, the results of Lenaerts et al. (2012) really aren't that surprising. Plenty of ice melting in other places of the world. Antarctica is huge and benefits from increased precipitation (from warmer oceans) enlarging the entire ice sheet.
Okay, so I don't want to caricature your particular belief in AGW (lesser or greater), but you've got to admit, that the public face of global warming has been talking about "ZOMG, sea levels are gonna get crazy high because ice in Antarctica is all gonna melt!" Nobody said in 1990 "hey, the antarctic is going to melt along the edges, but it's gonna gain just as much ice mass as it loses because of increased precipitation inside". The worry was always that the ice would melt, into the sea, and raise sea levels:
"But according to evidence developed in the 1990s, during a dramatic episode at the end of the last ice age, something had once raised the sea level 16 meters within three centuries. The rate of rise might have reached two feet per decade. Antarctica was the most likely source of all that water."
The caveat that "oh, all that melting ice will be replaced by fresh snow" is nowhere to be found.
You gotta find something on Watts' site that actually/breaks/ the science
"Breaks"? Without a clearly falsifiable hypothesis statement, no matter what I find, you'll claim some other ad hoc special pleading (ice melting in other parts of the world, for example). Watts talks a lot about science, and for the most part, he and his compatriots do a good job of being scientific about it (although certainly some of the comments are just as shrill as realclimate.org or desmog).
Here, try another one, which finds a significantly overlooked negative feedback:
Any attempt to decarbonize our energy system by its very definition will increase poverty by replacing cheap energy with expensive energy. Economics 101.
1% risk is enough for pretty much everybody to buy fire insurance. How much does your insurance policy cost? (Mine is ~$350 per year.) That is an acceptable amount for 1% risk.
Here, you pay me $350 per year, and I promise I'll pay you for any catastrophic global warming for the next 100 years:) Caveats the same as your fire insurance policy, of course (no "acts of god")...you prove that my CO2 emissions caused your driveway to ice up, or your AC to break, or did *anything* remotely to harm you, I'll be more than happy to insure you:)
Astrology makes predictions and is falsifiable.
Wow. I mean, just, wow. Well, if you believe Astrology is falsifiable, I can understand why you'd believe AGW is falsifiable. Nuff said, friend!
But I should point out that the little ice age and medieval warming periods were not global events.
Although obviously we didn't have a worldwide temperature network during those times, evidence has shown it occurred in every hemisphere and on every major continent - but wait, let me pull on this thread a little, would the MWP and LIA shown as global events (defined as occurring in some region on every continent) be enough to change your mind on the whole AGW thing?
Also, the effects of AGW are more speculative; however, the vast majority of deniers start much lower, at denying that warming is occuring at all -- or even that CO2 levels are rising
Well, I suppose we can caricature each other all day (you'll certainly find warmists who are firm in their believe that the effects are going to be catastrophic and must be stopped at all costs by immediate government intervention, and you'll find bible thumping skeptics who are just along for the ride because it's a republican issue). But let me be clear on what *this* particular skeptic insists:
1) climate changes, always has, always will 2) we were in a warming period from about the 70s to the late 90s, things have gone relatively flat since then 3) CO2 measurements ala Mauna Kea have been steadily increasing, but have a data process that drops a bunch of data and makes me skeptical of their conclusions 4) humans greatly impact regional weather with UHI 5) as many urban areas as we have, we still have a minor effect on the heat content of the entire atmosphere, much less the heat content of the entire ocean mass 6) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" 7) CO2 has an upper limit of effect as a greenhouse gas (once it blocks all the radiation it can, it can't block anymore) 8) Human CO2 emissions have a barely measurable effect given the background noise of natural climate change 9) A warmer world would be a *better* world
Now, most of these are simply truisms, while I'll admit others are speculation, albeit informed speculation (such as a warmer world being a better world).
Also, global warming currently predicts decreased cyclonic activity, but more violent "big" storms.
There's no rationale to that. From a purely physical standpoint, the GW everybody talks about means poles warm faster than the equator - that means less temperature differential in the atmosphere, which means less cyclonic activity. How you can get more *big* storms with less cyclonic activity (simply on a physical standpoint), is puzzling - do we have any evidence, say, from the Late Eocene when the poles were tropical in climate, that there weren't any small storms, but only *really* big ones?
The key is a consistent argument that explains as much of the available evidence in as simple terms as possible
And a GCM with several dozen hard coded parameters to tweak doesn't seem to simple to me:)
If there was a 10% risk of catastrophic results from AGW, 30% chance of nothing unusual, and 60% in between, would that be enough risk to think about making a policy response?
What if there was a 1% risk of catastrophic results from AGW, 30% chance of nothing unusual, and 69% chance of something good? Would that be enough reason to second guess policy responses that require creating energy poverty around the world?
The AGW argument is supported by hundreds of hypothesis.
Ah, so it's just an *argument*, not really a hypothesis. Astrology is supported by hundreds of hypotheses, too.
If I gave you a hypothesis, you would just squint, and say that you want more.
Well, of course I'm going to ask for more if what you propose is only *necessary* but not *sufficient*. A few things that are *necessary* but not entirely sufficient:
* rising CO2 levels (of course you could argue some ad hoc special pleading for why they fall) * rising global average temperatures (again, you can also argue some ad hoc special pleading for why they fall) * CO2's absorption spectrum * quantifiable catastrophe during previous global warming episodes for humanity (holocene optimum, medieval warm period) * increasing global cyclonic activity (and not just because our instruments are more sensitive, we're talking *real* increases)
In order to get to "sufficient", you'll need essentially to exclude natural variation from our observations (which we can't), and show that a warmer world is a worse world (which it isn't). But, if you think you can actually come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that is sufficient to show that, please, be my guest:)
Been there, done that, and pretty impressed by the references of Watts and his guest posters. When the data is open, and the science isn't settled, they argue back and forth over what some bit of data really means, or if some particular sub-theory actually makes sense. Quite refreshing, actually.
The problem is that if any citation that leads through WUWT is reflexively rejected, you're simply closing your ears to uncomfortable truths. If your argument is strong enough, it shouldn't matter where the cites come from.
WUWT was on top of FakeGate from the beginning, and it's arguable that because of the sleuthing done there, Gleick was forced to come clean. For all the desmog flurry and wind blowing, WUWT was reasoned, rational, and right.
The other thing to think about for a moment (if you had paid attention when it happened) - during Climategate I, WUWT was *incredibly* careful in their handling of the damaging files given to them. Long before publishing them, they did their due diligence, and treated the data with skepticism. Desmog's post one hour after getting Gleicked, without even trying to contact HI, was sloppy, and typical of warmists unfortunately.
They want falsifiable hypotheses, and when they get one -- they will argue black is white over whether or not it is falsifiable.
I think the problem is that they want legitimately falsifiable hypotheses, not just silly statements like the CO2 absorption spectrum means that AGW is true. Yes, if any of the physical constants of the universe weren't what they are, then all of our science would be falsified. But it takes more to come up with a more than trivial hypothesis of AGW (trivial, meaning that human CO2 emissions have some nonzero and positive effect on global average temperature, in the same way that the butterfly in my backyard has some nonzero and positive effect on global average temperature). Especially when you're looking at asserting "catastrophic" consequences (or heck, even just some arbitrary definition of "bad"), everything falls apart, and Popper becomes particularly relevant.
There is actually a slew of falsifiable hypotheses in AGW.
The problem is that you need a falsifiable hypothesis to string all of those mini-hypotheses together - their mere *existence* doesn't let you conclude anything, there must be a rationale (and a falsifiable one at that) to get them to mean something. Yes, if you could show humans exhaled and emitted NO2 instead of CO2, AGW would be falsified. And if you could show that humans didn't exist, AGW would be falsified. But the individual facts that humans exist, and humans emit CO2, does *not* necessarily lead one to the conclusion that "human emissions of CO2 are increasing global average temperatures in measurable ways that will be "bad"".
Climiate science is SCIENCE. In science, belief is irrelevant. Only evidence matters.
Then let's play the science game - state your falsifiable hypothesis of either AGW or CAGW. What observations of CO2 levels and global average temperature, past, present or future, would disprove your hypothesis? Add other variables if necessary, and be specific.
And...the document isn't accurate in portraying the story.
Koch didn't drop $200k in 2011, they *hoped* to get $200k in 2012. (on top of that, they weren't for climate issues)
Nothing in the legit documents talks about how to "undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports" (skeptics see themselves as debunking the IPCC)
Nothing in the legit documents talks about "keep opposing voices out" (Heartland *invited* Gleick to speak at events, for fuck's sake!)
Nothing in the legit documents talks about "dissuading teachers from teaching science" (skeptics see themselves as *teaching* the science, and debunking the pseudo-science of AGW)
Look, no matter *what* you believe on the topic, no skeptic would ever write what was written in the forged strategy memo. Remember, they see themselves as the *good* guys!
...economic combat. Getting *anything* up in to space is expensive, and whatever the weapon du jour is (nukes, lasers, rail guns), you've got to be able to afford to design, manufacture, and launch the damn thing. Whoever masters the free market best wins.
And if you posit that there is no scarcity, and expense is no object, then frankly, nobody is going to be fighting anyone else - just hop off to some uninhabited portion of the universe, and create your own damn utopia.
All along I have been complaining about Heartland's secret payments to scientists to spruik for the institute under the credentials of the scientists' own institutions.
Ahem. *What* secret payments? Nothing in Fakegate shows any sort of secret payments whatsoever. Anonymous donors, yes. Secret payments? I mean, maybe if you found a secret payment to someone like say, Michael Mann, or Hansen, and they miraculously changed their mind on bad human global warming, you'd have something to write home about, but seriously, secret payments?
Put another way, does Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club, have a public accounting of all the money they've ever funneled to a scientist favorable of their views?
I'm afraid that those links were not any verification of forgery, but complete guesswork.
Really, you're going to deny the clear forensic evidence, the same way people deny the past 15 years have had increasing CO2 without the predicted increase in global average temperature?:)
Now I am not going to say that the document isn't a forgery.
But it it also seems you won't accept that it clearly is.
Tell you what, when they find the guy with the Epson scanner on the west coast that forged the document, and pillory him appropriately, we'll both raise a toast to well performed guesswork:)
"I just eye-balled Greenpeace's list, and they appear to list about 800 donors. It looks like about 100 (and 3 of the 14 big gifts) of those are anonymous. "
Really? One document of the bunch was supposedly forged. And who was it that made that claim?
It's been independently verified as a forgery by several sources, but here's a particularly well done one:
"I should also probably note that I disagree pretty strenuously with Heartland's position on global warming. I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it."
The problem here is that the documents that are legitimate aren't damning, and the one document that has even the slightest scent of malfeasance was *forged*. Imagine for a moment if with the release of the climategate emails, it was found that "hide the decline" was a forged entry!
The story here is that because bad human global warming believers aren't winning the argument, they're resorting to dirty tricks. Nothing undermines their position more than their need to forge caricatures of their opponents in order to make points.
The difference is that Heartland Institute have just been caught out doing this exact practice, whereas Greenpeace has not.
What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.
I have been monitoring the local news outlets in my area and there has been barely a mention of this story.
That's because the *real* story is "Global Warming activists forge documents to discredit Heartland", and the MSM doesn't want to give that any play:)
Judge them by how underhanded and deceptive they are.
Okay, exactly what is underhanded and deceptive about funding skeptical climate curriculum, or more access to climate data? Be specific.
Science is not won with "argument" or "debate". There are no "sides". It is not "won" or "lost".
Actually, Galileo might have a different opinion:)
But if you want to be specific, hypotheses are debated, argued, and can "win" or "lose" depending on observations. As there is no falsifiable hypothesis statement of "something bad is going to happen if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere" (or none that you've bothered to state), it's simply not science, it's apocalyptic hand-waving.
Gee, that's just what fundamentalist christians say about the literal infallibility of the KJV bible:)
Look, you want to play science, start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement (whatever position you'd like to take). You want to declare that "there is no argument", and that "the science is settled", you just go ahead and keep preaching to the choir in the Church of Global Warming:)
Slashdot Mirror
Quantify that. How quickly can the oceans absorb CO2, and how much CO2 is necessary to make it so that the only marine life is brittle stars. Oh, and also explain how marine life survived atmospheric CO2 levels ridiculously higher than today. Show your work! :)
Or perhaps it also made more plants grow?
That doesn't follow. Has weather gotten more chaotic in the past 150+ years since the little ice age? Do you have any evidence that weather is more orderly and predictable during an ice age?
Um, no, we're not a closed system. If we add more energy to the system, and the system radiates more energy (or changes albedo in such a way that it absorbs less energy), none of the proposed outputs you claim will have any terrestrial effect.
Um, no. You don't get to dismiss natural climate change as the null hypothesis that easily :)
Tell you what, here are a few claims you've made:
1) a hotter world has more chaotic weather (corollary, a colder world has less chaotic weather)
2) negative feedbacks can't possibly deal with adding more energy to the system
Let's take them apart for a second. I'm assuming you'd accept #1 as falsified if we could show a colder period with more chaotic weather. Case in point, I'll cite the fact that colder global average temperatures generally mean an increase in temperature differential between the poles and the equator, leading to more cyclonic activity. By the very theories of global warming, we should expect a less chaotic weather world with the temperature differential between the poles and the equator (such as say, during the late eocene). Following the dots is left as an exercise for the reader.
As for #2, I'll assert that given the large changes in solar activity (not just TSI, but magnetic changes, etc), during which there have been some periods of time when activity has greatly increased, and some periods of time when activity has greatly decreased, we've actually got a robust system of negative feedbacks that stops any sort of runaway heating effect.
Now answer my questions, if you will:
How has the past 0.8C of temperature rise over the past 100 years negatively effected you? Why should we assume that another 0.8C of temperature over the next 100 years will be bad if the last 0.8C wasn't bad?
Oh, don't forget your caveat! That only applies to people we define as "those who have studied climate"! I'll remind you the same holds true of Back Yard Butterfly Global Warming as well, yet you surely deny that!
But really, the argument from unnamed authorities isn't your strongest argument.
Well, remember, we've been *told* there's nothing we can do (since CO2 hangs out in the atmosphere for so long). And you keep telling me not to think (since 97% of those who have studied climate apparently believe something already, and that should be good enough).
Look, yes, we can adapt. Mitigation is a losing battle, even if I were to stipulate to all of your worst fears. Why isn't that good enough for you?
You've been doing pretty well so far in this thread, so don't give up hope! Get past the knee-jerk name calling, the automatic assumption of bad faith, and maybe we've got a chance of finding out what we do agree on.
Still, not impressed. You've essentially got an ocean that can buffer more CO2 than you can possibly imagine, as well as hold orders of magnitude more heat than the entirety of the atmosphere.
1) where is the missing CO2 - http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/the-ipccs-missing-co2-remains-a-major-embarassment-of-its-consensus-science-its-still-awol-maybe.html
2) will an increase in the average global temperature statistic be a bad or a good thing
3) what other negative feedbacks are in play - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/declining-global-average-cloud-height-a-significant-measure-of-negative-feedback-to-global-warming/
I know that cities create local weather effects through UHI, and we've built a lot of cities - what more do you need to know before we decide that we've got catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to city building? :)
Again, simply stringing together two things we might agree on, in order to claim a third thing we don't agree on, isn't the way the science game is played. Start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement (and "AGW could be falsified by showing that humans don't exist" is just as silly as "AGW could be falsified by showing that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas" - the existence of physical constants or emitters of CO2 isn't sufficient to lead to catastrophe or causality.)
The same way you do :) I'm breathing out CO2, enjoying the trappings of 1st world living with my huge ass carbon footprint, only I'm not being a snoot about it :)
Look, how has the past 0.8C of temperature rise over the past 100 years negatively effected you? Why should we assume that another 0.8C of temperature over the next 100 years will be bad if the last 0.8C wasn't bad?
Hope you're ready to apologize to your grand children when they're living through a Maunder minimum that lasts until 2050 :)
Interesting caveat on the 97% now..."scientists who study it" :) That talking point is worn out, and doesn't help your position - argument from unnamed authorities is a logical fallacy, and you've got stronger arguments than that.
As for "we shouldn't do anything about AGW", that's exactly what you feel about doing anything about BYBGW (back yard butterfly global warming). Either back yard butterfly global warming isn't happening, or it isn't a problem, and you're completely certain about that, even though 97% of scientists of study it disagree. :)
As for solutions, I'm all open to solutions based on adaptation. Mitigation is a dead issue, especially given the fact that, according to the 97% of "scientists who study it", we've already passed numerous tipping points, and CO2 is such a long lived molecule any mitigation would fail to have any significant impact. Unlike Greece, we can't simply declare bankruptcy and start our CO2 balance sheet over.
I absolutely will, and I hope you will too. And if they're living in something akin to a Maunder minimum, I hope you'll admit to them that you got it wrong :)
Not sure about aids, graves disease and multiple sclerosis, but I know the cure for cancer - stop eating carbohydrates. Lustig and Gary Taubes do pretty good exposes on the chronic toxicity of carbohydrates. But again, the point is, Monckton is simply a caricature, much like Al Gore, James Hansen or Michael Mann.
Fair enough, we certainly going to plateau, and if one is really desirous of being pessimistic, you can read this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
That all being said, I suppose one could make the statement that we need to grow our energy faster than our population - which means population controls (anathema to ideas of freedom - see David Wingrove's "Chung Kuo" for an interesting scifi novel based on the premise of unlimited birth rate), or more aggressive exploitation, or a combination of both. We're lucky, of course, that it seems that wealth tends to slow growth rates down, so aggressive exploitation might actually drive natural population control.
NOOOOOO!!!!! That's what Big Oil *wants* you to think! Artificial scarcity is anathema to free markets, and the psychological trick of publishing stats on "proven reserves" in scary ways only distorts the market. The price of energy should reflect supply and demand. Increasing supply will lower prices.
Actually, we didn't need a moratorium - the natural economics work themselves out naturally. Once it becomes uneconomical to fish an area, people stop fishing it. Yes, this can be devastating to people who have bet their lives on the idea that they will always be able to economically fish an area, but making those kinds of plans isn't very prudent.
No, I really do mean that AGW isn't happening, or it isn't a problem, or there is nothing we can do about it in terms of *mitigation*. I'm open to adaptation if necessary. My attack on the premise of significant or catastrophic AGW is based on my popperian view of science as falsifiable hypotheses, and comes from an honest conviction. My dislike for big government comes from a completely separate honest conviction regarding the proper place for government based on the works of classic liberals like Bastiat. I'm simply lucky that the two convictions aren't in conflict with each other :)
Absolutely. And I hope if our grand-children are living in a Maunder minimum event with historically low temperatures for decades, you'll have the integrity to admit to them you had it figured wrong :)
In the end, I think it's just as rare to find a gun-toting gay republican as it is to find a libertarian AGW believer, or big-government AGW skeptic. One can assert that the big/small government views is what drives the AGW views, but I think that sells people short, and is mostly an artifact of how it has been politicized. I think the problem that you rightfully point out is that often the argument over the science (be it of a
You know, and I know, Monckton is fighting a straw man. He's built it because nobody on the warmist side has bothered to specify a falsifiable hypothesis statement that contains all necessary and sufficient factors to show AGW or CAGW, but what he's done is broken straw men he's inferred from the various alarmist exclamations made without much thought. He's fighting a PR war, not a science war.
It is a big deal if you insist (as some alarmists do), that "the science is settled". A potential negative feedback of this magnitude has immense consequences on what the actual climate sensitivity to CO2 is, and can easily bring temp increases down from "OMG" to "meh". The fact that the models don't even consider this factor is an indictment of their possible accuracy (even if they've overestimated the magnitude of negative feedback, it's still got real world implications that should be part of GCMs).
97%?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/gmu-on-climate-scientists-we-are-the-97/
Okay, but forget that nitpick for a moment. AGW is happening. If defined as a nonzero and positive amount, I'll stipulate that to be true, in the same way that BYBGW (back yard butterfly global warming) is happening, and is nonzero and positive. Assert that it's happening at a rate of 1.5C per doubling of CO2, and I'll doubt you. Assert that it's happening at a rate of .8C per doubling of CO2 and I might believe you. Assert that it's happening at a rate of .000001C per doubling of CO2, and I might believe you.
My guess (also well-informed layman's guess), is that we've got a 0% chance of CAGW, a 60% chance of hitting something akin to a Maunder minimum between now and 2050, and a 40% chance of business as usual.
My further guess is that even if there was a 10% chance of CAGW, nothing we could do now could stop it from occurring - the only option would be adaptation, not mitigation.
Throw away your mitigation solutions for a moment. What practical adaptation solutions do you have?
Would it be less offensive to you if they simply said, "Look, we don't think human CO2 has any measurable effect on natural climate change, but even if it did, nothing we can possibly do will stop it now. If people want to start focusing on adaptation (designing hurricane proof shelters, planning dikes, raising people out of poverty to they can survive natural weather disasters), great. Mitigation is a non-starter."
Well then, as your token conservative (well, really a libertarian, but I get lumped in as conservative even though I support abortion rights, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state), here's my great solution:
Drill, baby, drill. Get the cheapest energy out of the ground as
No, what that means to me is that good money is being thrown at bad technology. If it could compete in the market (without killing bunches of endangered raptors), it would do it without government subsidies (measured per kW generated, not just absolute value). There is a reason *the free market* abandoned wind power over a century ago.
Um, no. Stop looking at the total amounts, and look at the subsidy per kW generated.
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/05/big-wind-sen-alexander/
Also, remember, we can ship coal everywhere - you can't ship wind everywhere :)
False association. China and low-wage european countries will own any manufacturing market because of labor costs compared to the US, not because of any subsidies.
Sorry, I said I'd insure *you* against CAGW for $350 a year for the next 100 years, not the world. They'd have to pay me $350 a year too if they wanted in on it :)
Well, I'm sure you've heard skeptics talk about global warming being overstated (i.e., its risks are overstated), but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. Maybe Lomberg suits your criteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
Um, try unsubsidized wind energy without carbon fuel backup generators that kick in when wind dies down :) There's a reason why we stopped using windmills :)
My Prius still runs on gas, and since it gets better mileage, I drive it more. Even if it was pure electric, that electricity is going to ultimately come from some carbon based fuel. Look, I love technology, but when Government Motors builds a Volt that is subsidized by the general public bailout, but only affordable to the top 1%, I'm a bit concerned that the best laid plans of mice and men have gone aglay :)
That's an unfair caricature. Yes, there are bible thumping moron skeptics, just like there are reincarnation believing global warming pot smoking hippies without jobs. Lomborg *is* talking risk. Lomborg *is* talking technology.
Look, climate change *is* occurring, and it will *always* occur, no matter what we do. If we can at least agree on *that*, then we can say "hey look, if climate changes this much, what kinds of technologies will we need to develop to survive"? Instead, we're force fed a diet of "reduce your CO2 footprint!"
Here's my assertion - exploit the cheapest energy we can as quickly as we can to bring people out of poverty. Increased wealth means increased survivability. Run as quickly as we can towards sustainable nuclear energy (thorium in particular). If we ever hit peak oil (there's a chance that abiogenic petroleum saves us), we'll make the transition to pure electric (nuclear) when it is economically feasible, and not one moment before. Those actions will solve the problem of surviving climate change (which as we all know, happens always).
Okay, so I don't want to caricature your particular belief in AGW (lesser or greater), but you've got to admit, that the public face of global warming has been talking about "ZOMG, sea levels are gonna get crazy high because ice in Antarctica is all gonna melt!" Nobody said in 1990 "hey, the antarctic is going to melt along the edges, but it's gonna gain just as much ice mass as it loses because of increased precipitation inside". The worry was always that the ice would melt, into the sea, and raise sea levels:
"But according to evidence developed in the 1990s, during a dramatic episode at the end of the last ice age, something had once raised the sea level 16 meters within three centuries. The rate of rise might have reached two feet per decade. Antarctica was the most likely source of all that water."
The caveat that "oh, all that melting ice will be replaced by fresh snow" is nowhere to be found.
"Breaks"? Without a clearly falsifiable hypothesis statement, no matter what I find, you'll claim some other ad hoc special pleading (ice melting in other parts of the world, for example). Watts talks a lot about science, and for the most part, he and his compatriots do a good job of being scientific about it (although certainly some of the comments are just as shrill as realclimate.org or desmog).
Here, try another one, which finds a significantly overlooked negative feedback:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/declining-global-average-cloud-height-a-significant-measure-of-negative-feedback-to-global-warming/
Any attempt to decarbonize our energy system by its very definition will increase poverty by replacing cheap energy with expensive energy. Economics 101.
Here, you pay me $350 per year, and I promise I'll pay you for any catastrophic global warming for the next 100 years :) Caveats the same as your fire insurance policy, of course (no "acts of god")...you prove that my CO2 emissions caused your driveway to ice up, or your AC to break, or did *anything* remotely to harm you, I'll be more than happy to insure you :)
Wow. I mean, just, wow. Well, if you believe Astrology is falsifiable, I can understand why you'd believe AGW is falsifiable. Nuff said, friend!
Although obviously we didn't have a worldwide temperature network during those times, evidence has shown it occurred in every hemisphere and on every major continent - but wait, let me pull on this thread a little, would the MWP and LIA shown as global events (defined as occurring in some region on every continent) be enough to change your mind on the whole AGW thing?
Well, I suppose we can caricature each other all day (you'll certainly find warmists who are firm in their believe that the effects are going to be catastrophic and must be stopped at all costs by immediate government intervention, and you'll find bible thumping skeptics who are just along for the ride because it's a republican issue). But let me be clear on what *this* particular skeptic insists:
1) climate changes, always has, always will
2) we were in a warming period from about the 70s to the late 90s, things have gone relatively flat since then
3) CO2 measurements ala Mauna Kea have been steadily increasing, but have a data process that drops a bunch of data and makes me skeptical of their conclusions
4) humans greatly impact regional weather with UHI
5) as many urban areas as we have, we still have a minor effect on the heat content of the entire atmosphere, much less the heat content of the entire ocean mass
6) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"
7) CO2 has an upper limit of effect as a greenhouse gas (once it blocks all the radiation it can, it can't block anymore)
8) Human CO2 emissions have a barely measurable effect given the background noise of natural climate change
9) A warmer world would be a *better* world
Now, most of these are simply truisms, while I'll admit others are speculation, albeit informed speculation (such as a warmer world being a better world).
There's no rationale to that. From a purely physical standpoint, the GW everybody talks about means poles warm faster than the equator - that means less temperature differential in the atmosphere, which means less cyclonic activity. How you can get more *big* storms with less cyclonic activity (simply on a physical standpoint), is puzzling - do we have any evidence, say, from the Late Eocene when the poles were tropical in climate, that there weren't any small storms, but only *really* big ones?
And a GCM with several dozen hard coded parameters to tweak doesn't seem to simple to me :)
What if there was a 1% risk of catastrophic results from AGW, 30% chance of nothing unusual, and 69% chance of something good? Would that be enough reason to second guess policy responses that require creating energy poverty around the world?
Ah, so it's just an *argument*, not really a hypothesis. Astrology is supported by hundreds of hypotheses, too.
Well, of course I'm going to ask for more if what you propose is only *necessary* but not *sufficient*. A few things that are *necessary* but not entirely sufficient:
* rising CO2 levels (of course you could argue some ad hoc special pleading for why they fall)
* rising global average temperatures (again, you can also argue some ad hoc special pleading for why they fall)
* CO2's absorption spectrum
* quantifiable catastrophe during previous global warming episodes for humanity (holocene optimum, medieval warm period)
* increasing global cyclonic activity (and not just because our instruments are more sensitive, we're talking *real* increases)
In order to get to "sufficient", you'll need essentially to exclude natural variation from our observations (which we can't), and show that a warmer world is a worse world (which it isn't). But, if you think you can actually come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that is sufficient to show that, please, be my guest :)
Okay, I'll bite. Why not the current topic of Gleick's confession?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/
Or, if you want to skip to something a little more sciency:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/new-paper-a-high-resolution-surface-mass-balance-map-of-antarctica-shows-no-significant-trend-in-the-1979-2010-ice-sheet/
Do you disagree with his emphasis on the money quote?
"We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the results from Monaghan et al. [2006]."
As per his cite, full paper here: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050713.pdf
Been there, done that, and pretty impressed by the references of Watts and his guest posters. When the data is open, and the science isn't settled, they argue back and forth over what some bit of data really means, or if some particular sub-theory actually makes sense. Quite refreshing, actually.
The problem is that if any citation that leads through WUWT is reflexively rejected, you're simply closing your ears to uncomfortable truths. If your argument is strong enough, it shouldn't matter where the cites come from.
WUWT was on top of FakeGate from the beginning, and it's arguable that because of the sleuthing done there, Gleick was forced to come clean. For all the desmog flurry and wind blowing, WUWT was reasoned, rational, and right.
The other thing to think about for a moment (if you had paid attention when it happened) - during Climategate I, WUWT was *incredibly* careful in their handling of the damaging files given to them. Long before publishing them, they did their due diligence, and treated the data with skepticism. Desmog's post one hour after getting Gleicked, without even trying to contact HI, was sloppy, and typical of warmists unfortunately.
I think the problem is that they want legitimately falsifiable hypotheses, not just silly statements like the CO2 absorption spectrum means that AGW is true. Yes, if any of the physical constants of the universe weren't what they are, then all of our science would be falsified. But it takes more to come up with a more than trivial hypothesis of AGW (trivial, meaning that human CO2 emissions have some nonzero and positive effect on global average temperature, in the same way that the butterfly in my backyard has some nonzero and positive effect on global average temperature). Especially when you're looking at asserting "catastrophic" consequences (or heck, even just some arbitrary definition of "bad"), everything falls apart, and Popper becomes particularly relevant.
The problem is that you need a falsifiable hypothesis to string all of those mini-hypotheses together - their mere *existence* doesn't let you conclude anything, there must be a rationale (and a falsifiable one at that) to get them to mean something. Yes, if you could show humans exhaled and emitted NO2 instead of CO2, AGW would be falsified. And if you could show that humans didn't exist, AGW would be falsified. But the individual facts that humans exist, and humans emit CO2, does *not* necessarily lead one to the conclusion that "human emissions of CO2 are increasing global average temperatures in measurable ways that will be "bad"".
Hate the game, not the player :)
Then let's play the science game - state your falsifiable hypothesis of either AGW or CAGW. What observations of CO2 levels and global average temperature, past, present or future, would disprove your hypothesis? Add other variables if necessary, and be specific.
Obligatory popper reference: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
And...the document isn't accurate in portraying the story.
Koch didn't drop $200k in 2011, they *hoped* to get $200k in 2012. (on top of that, they weren't for climate issues)
Nothing in the legit documents talks about how to "undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports" (skeptics see themselves as debunking the IPCC)
Nothing in the legit documents talks about "keep opposing voices out" (Heartland *invited* Gleick to speak at events, for fuck's sake!)
Nothing in the legit documents talks about "dissuading teachers from teaching science" (skeptics see themselves as *teaching* the science, and debunking the pseudo-science of AGW)
Look, no matter *what* you believe on the topic, no skeptic would ever write what was written in the forged strategy memo. Remember, they see themselves as the *good* guys!
...he never says "they are real", he only says "he got them anonymously".
Gleick has lawyered up, and I'm getting some popcorn.
Oooh, busted.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/breaking-gleick-confesses/
...economic combat. Getting *anything* up in to space is expensive, and whatever the weapon du jour is (nukes, lasers, rail guns), you've got to be able to afford to design, manufacture, and launch the damn thing. Whoever masters the free market best wins.
And if you posit that there is no scarcity, and expense is no object, then frankly, nobody is going to be fighting anyone else - just hop off to some uninhabited portion of the universe, and create your own damn utopia.
Ahem. *What* secret payments? Nothing in Fakegate shows any sort of secret payments whatsoever. Anonymous donors, yes. Secret payments? I mean, maybe if you found a secret payment to someone like say, Michael Mann, or Hansen, and they miraculously changed their mind on bad human global warming, you'd have something to write home about, but seriously, secret payments?
Put another way, does Greenpeace, or the Sierra Club, have a public accounting of all the money they've ever funneled to a scientist favorable of their views?
Really, you're going to deny the clear forensic evidence, the same way people deny the past 15 years have had increasing CO2 without the predicted increase in global average temperature? :)
But it it also seems you won't accept that it clearly is.
Tell you what, when they find the guy with the Epson scanner on the west coast that forged the document, and pillory him appropriately, we'll both raise a toast to well performed guesswork :)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/05/let-greenpeace-live-up-to-standard-it.html
"I just eye-balled Greenpeace's list, and they appear to list about 800 donors. It looks like about 100 (and 3 of the 14 big gifts) of those are anonymous. "
It's been independently verified as a forgery by several sources, but here's a particularly well done one:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/heartland-memo-looking-faker-by-the-minute/253276/
And note, this is by a *believer* in bad human global warming:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/leaked-docs-from-heartland-institute-cause-a-stir-but-is-one-a-fake/253165/
"I should also probably note that I disagree pretty strenuously with Heartland's position on global warming. I not only believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening, but also support stiff carbon or source fuels taxes in order to combat it."
The problem here is that the documents that are legitimate aren't damning, and the one document that has even the slightest scent of malfeasance was *forged*. Imagine for a moment if with the release of the climategate emails, it was found that "hide the decline" was a forged entry!
The story here is that because bad human global warming believers aren't winning the argument, they're resorting to dirty tricks. Nothing undermines their position more than their need to forge caricatures of their opponents in order to make points.
What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.
That's because the *real* story is "Global Warming activists forge documents to discredit Heartland", and the MSM doesn't want to give that any play :)
Okay, exactly what is underhanded and deceptive about funding skeptical climate curriculum, or more access to climate data? Be specific.
Actually, Galileo might have a different opinion :)
But if you want to be specific, hypotheses are debated, argued, and can "win" or "lose" depending on observations. As there is no falsifiable hypothesis statement of "something bad is going to happen if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere" (or none that you've bothered to state), it's simply not science, it's apocalyptic hand-waving.
How's that for grinding your bones? :)
Gee, that's just what fundamentalist christians say about the literal infallibility of the KJV bible :)
Look, you want to play science, start off with your falsifiable hypothesis statement (whatever position you'd like to take). You want to declare that "there is no argument", and that "the science is settled", you just go ahead and keep preaching to the choir in the Church of Global Warming :)