Most of those scientists can already recognize a loaded question. They don't need help.
I gave you an opportunity to prove that the question was somehow loaded. You declined. Don't imagine you can now return to your pool of vomit and gulp it down again.
You say there are thousands of climate scientists that attribute the recent warming to something other than GHGs. If they ARE scientists, then this attribution means they have a theory.
I don't know, the survey isn't very good, and doesn't ask that would help understand what they are thinking.
The survey didn't occur in isolation. They are scientists. What do their published results say? Have they published any results? If not, why not?
Of course we can guess.
No, not good enough. That is not believable. This is not a smorgasbord. We are not "choosing a truth" that makes us comfortable. Where are the facts to support the theory "there is no recent warming trend"?
Well, it IS true you can't help me,. Neither, apparently, can you help the thousands of scientists whom you say attribute the recent warming trend to something other than an increase in CO2. They apparently can't detail their findings: you apparently can't help because you can't even describe their findings at any level. What help are you? They apparently can't even put their hand up and say "here I am!" - you can't help because apparently you don't know who they are, you just believe they exist. Like unicorns.
You had an opportunity to articulate this alternate theory and you muffed it. I feel pity.
So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?
Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.
No. If you want to convince me that this, simple, logical question is somehow "loaded", then by any means present evidence to that effect. But this is a weak argument, and you know it. You claim that these scientists attribute the present warming to some cause other than CO2, but you can't explain what that cause is. Is this true?
Is it also true that they themselves can't explain the present warming?
Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?
So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?
Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?
If anything, the models being wrong would make us MORE pessimistic and increase the urgency of action to prevent further climate change. Because if the models don't correlate to actual temperature then it is just as likely they will underestimate future temperature rises as overestimate. The view 'the models are wrong' is actually a pessimistic view.
You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.
If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.
Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.
Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.
Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.
You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"
The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, t
I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.
hat's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.
So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?
No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory.
Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.
IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.
To summarize - you can't cite a study because you know, conspiracy theory. TIme travelling zombie tyndall flits from school to school, making sure that no-one ever discovers that CO2 is not, in fact, a greenhouse gas.
Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.
I seem to remember the way, prior to your memory, all scientists were worried about the coming ice age, with the coming droughts.
Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.
something about fewer sunspots transferring less energy to the earth.
But that isn't what [denialists] are saying, is it.
Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.
It doesn't matter if anthropogenic CO2 causes warming or not (although there has yet to be any empiracle evidence of such).
empiracle?
What matters is the costs with correcting it verses enduring it. So far, enduring it seems to be more cost effective than the plans to correct it that are being considered by governments.
We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).
Do "denialists" have a theory?
Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?
Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published?
No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.
I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.
I should think that any geo-engineering attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to be on a massive scale - there will be plenty of time for the anxious to voice their concerns and present their evidence.
Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".
n the basis of that data, I wouldn't bet much on what the temperature will do next. Only a fool would go all in on a prediction of warming, cooling, or stability.
So the warming could in fact be much worse than what the models predict? Talk about your doom and gloom.
I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.
So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.
My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people.
Strawman.
Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transported. Medical care doesn't make sense, if there's no patient to care for.
And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.
And you've expounded endlessly on your unquenchable hunger for the flesh of babies. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. If you're so bored that you're debating my arguments that I didn't make, then please, get creative not lazy.
Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:
[ME] They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.
[YOU]
You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.
You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.
So a machine on Earth is magically is different from a machine in space? A gear is a gear whether it is on Earth or in space.
So, let's be clear: in your mind, my motorcycle HAS a space gear? I can engage this gear and rocket into space?
You ride that motorcycle or whatever you use to travel, in order to get from point A to point B.
And notably, my self funded travels (a) tend not to lead to my death (b) have an actual, stated purpose, that when asked, I can articulate clearly.
That would be any human use of space-side transportation too.
So the purpose of humans travelling to Mars is for humans to travel to mars? And therefore, the purpose of bandicoots travelling to Mars is for bandicoots to travel to mars. Oh. Hang on. Remind us again: Why is your plan better than the one with the bandicoots? I guess you forgot to tell us.
Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.
I think the worst part of your whole belief system here is the idea that we'll be smart enough to take people to Mars and land them on the surface safely, but dumb enough not to wonder or plan ahead of time for what happens when they get there.
Oh, I didn't say that you and you cohorts were smart enough to land a human safely on Mars. You aren't even smart enough to be able to articulate why you would send a human (as opposed to, say a bandicoot) in the first place.
If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.
Someone who isn't you.
None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions.
Not my space ambitions. The ambitions of humanity. Shout and scream all you like, that won't stop the pursuit of knowledge, even the pursuit of things that you are uncomfortable knowing about. We don't need your 5 bucks. If you like, you can sign a piece of paper saying you won't pay for science, and we'll make sure you don't enjoy the benefits of the research the rest of us paid for.
I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.
You don't get to dictate to us on which science is useful or which is not. You don't get to control what interests others. You don't get to suppress facts that you don't like, and you don't get to decide if a piece of science gets funded or not based on your level of comfort with the research.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you need to buy a book about logic, or take a course.
You failed to articulate a scientific basis for you theorem nor a clear statement on why you believe you are not required to do so. You failed.
I can't teach a moron.
Your local fallacy is ad hominem. Your failures are your own problem.
Most of those scientists can already recognize a loaded question. They don't need help.
I gave you an opportunity to prove that the question was somehow loaded. You declined. Don't imagine you can now return to your pool of vomit and gulp it down again.
You say there are thousands of climate scientists that attribute the recent warming to something other than GHGs. If they ARE scientists, then this attribution means they have a theory.
What is this theory?
Where have they published this theory?
I don't know, the survey isn't very good, and doesn't ask that would help understand what they are thinking.
The survey didn't occur in isolation. They are scientists. What do their published results say? Have they published any results? If not, why not?
Of course we can guess.
No, not good enough. That is not believable. This is not a smorgasbord. We are not "choosing a truth" that makes us comfortable. Where are the facts to support the theory "there is no recent warming trend"?
You had an opportunity to articulate this alternate theory and you muffed it. I feel pity.
So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?
Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.
No. If you want to convince me that this, simple, logical question is somehow "loaded", then by any means present evidence to that effect. But this is a weak argument, and you know it. You claim that these scientists attribute the present warming to some cause other than CO2, but you can't explain what that cause is. Is this true?
Is it also true that they themselves can't explain the present warming?
Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?
Can you link to this explanatory material?
If a survey says 97% think there's been warming, then it means 3% don't think there's been warming.
And this 3% who think there has has been no warming. Have they any evidence to present to that effect?
Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?
I do believe (snip)
And should we be concerned about your beliefs? Why?
So I guess all those scientists searching for the cause and the IPPC are just wasting their time eh?
Hard to make judgement call on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and whether they are wasting their time, but I'd say it seems like a worthy cause - unless you meant the International Plasma Protein Congress (IPPC)? Or perhaps the International Probabilistic Planning Competition? or the The International Pastors' and Partners' Conference (IPPC)?
If anything, the models being wrong would make us MORE pessimistic and increase the urgency of action to prevent further climate change. Because if the models don't correlate to actual temperature then it is just as likely they will underestimate future temperature rises as overestimate. The view 'the models are wrong' is actually a pessimistic view.
I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. I
You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.
If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.
Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.
Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.
Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.
Reality proves my assertion.
You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"
The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, t
I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.
hat's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.
So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?
I do not need to cite any papers for a political and economical solution.
If you can't prove your assertion, it has all the credibility of screaming "A Wizard did it!"
No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory.
Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.
Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.
What thirty years?
You can't subtract 30 from 2014?
I seem to remember the way, prior to your memory, all scientists were worried about the coming ice age, with the coming droughts.
Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.
something about fewer sunspots transferring less energy to the earth.
Something something sunspots something something. Well, I'm convinced.
But that isn't what [denialists] are saying, is it.
Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.
with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".
You mean like "no warming in 17.5 years?"
Exactly like that claim.
To me its the supporters of AGW that need [snip]
Nope. Don't care about your ridiculous fantasies.
It doesn't matter if anthropogenic CO2 causes warming or not (although there has yet to be any empiracle evidence of such).
empiracle?
What matters is the costs with correcting it verses enduring it. So far, enduring it seems to be more cost effective than the plans to correct it that are being considered by governments.
Cite a paper that backs this assertion
We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).
Do "denialists" have a theory?
Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?
Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published?
No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.
I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.
What debate is that?
Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".
n the basis of that data, I wouldn't bet much on what the temperature will do next. Only a fool would go all in on a prediction of warming, cooling, or stability.
So the warming could in fact be much worse than what the models predict? Talk about your doom and gloom.
I've already stated that I think space development should be funded by those who want to.
So you can't articulate a reason why we should send humans to Mars (as opposed to, say bandicoots). Didn't think so.
My complaint is not about funding my ambitions versus yours. It's about the above assertion that because something is heavily mechanized, then there's no place for people.
Strawman.
Most of that stuff above needs people in order to operate and needs people in order to justify its use. Transportation of humans doesn't make sense if humans aren't actually being transported. Medical care doesn't make sense, if there's no patient to care for.
And what mostly doesn't make sense is the thought process that convinced you that this has anything to do with whether robots are superior to humans for space exploration.
And you've expounded endlessly on your unquenchable hunger for the flesh of babies. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. If you're so bored that you're debating my arguments that I didn't make, then please, get creative not lazy.
Well, one of these things happened. I guess you can't count, in addition to not being able to remember your own statements -specifically this one:
[ME] They will plead for rescue, and we won't send rescue, and we will feel guilt, and they will feel anger and betrayal. They will starve, they will die painfully of radiation sickness, they will die in accidents, asphyxiation, they will commit suicide.
[YOU] You will feel guilt why? Sounds like the makings of a good reality show.
You said, unequivocally, that people dying painfully of radiation sickness would make for a good TV show. Later, you called people who were keen going to Mars idiots who deserved to die for being stupid and ignorant.
So a machine on Earth is magically is different from a machine in space? A gear is a gear whether it is on Earth or in space.
So, let's be clear: in your mind, my motorcycle HAS a space gear? I can engage this gear and rocket into space?
You ride that motorcycle or whatever you use to travel, in order to get from point A to point B.
And notably, my self funded travels (a) tend not to lead to my death (b) have an actual, stated purpose, that when asked, I can articulate clearly.
That would be any human use of space-side transportation too.
So the purpose of humans travelling to Mars is for humans to travel to mars? And therefore, the purpose of bandicoots travelling to Mars is for bandicoots to travel to mars. Oh. Hang on. Remind us again: Why is your plan better than the one with the bandicoots? I guess you forgot to tell us.
Your snarky attitude is unlikely to convince us to fund your death TV plan. And you should go ahead and lobby to remove funding for space science, see how that works out alongside begging for funding for a plan that costs 100x as much as sending a robot to Mars, but doesn't do any science, and has no notable benefit for humanity - apart from the opportunity to watch people die in despair. I'm sure that will work out well for you.
I think the worst part of your whole belief system here is the idea that we'll be smart enough to take people to Mars and land them on the surface safely, but dumb enough not to wonder or plan ahead of time for what happens when they get there.
Oh, I didn't say that you and you cohorts were smart enough to land a human safely on Mars. You aren't even smart enough to be able to articulate why you would send a human (as opposed to, say a bandicoot) in the first place.
Actually it doesn't work that way.
Afraid it does.
If you're not paying for it, then someone else is.
Someone who isn't you.
None of which have been furthered by your space science ambitions.
Not my space ambitions. The ambitions of humanity. Shout and scream all you like, that won't stop the pursuit of knowledge, even the pursuit of things that you are uncomfortable knowing about. We don't need your 5 bucks. If you like, you can sign a piece of paper saying you won't pay for science, and we'll make sure you don't enjoy the benefits of the research the rest of us paid for.
I'd rather have useful science like medicines, gene therapy, electricity, nutrition, the internet, etc.
You don't get to dictate to us on which science is useful or which is not. You don't get to control what interests others. You don't get to suppress facts that you don't like, and you don't get to decide if a piece of science gets funded or not based on your level of comfort with the research.
So suck it up.