Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything!
There are no IPCC models.
There are plenty of people who say that the IPCC papers justify taking a deliberate, but relatively gentle approach to tackling climate change: you say these people are wrong? So we should instead move to immediately shut down all our industry and cripple our economies because the impacts of increasing CO2 on our climate is impossible to model?
The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe.
Incorrect. Spencers argument is that his model sort of aligns to reality over a short time, so it must be correct. Other scientists took his model and ran it over longer periods, and it failed hopelessly. Did the climate mechanisms suddenly change in the year 2001? Or did Spencer build a model that simply reproduces what he already had in terms of observations over an absurdly short timeframe and has no predictive ability at all?
Look at the data I've linked many times!
Did you look at it yourself?
You just do not want to admit that the models don't work.
You contradict Spencer, who says that his model does. Who should I believe?
So CO2 levels can influence the climate? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
Apparently a lot less than is claimed, given the fact that the models assume much more warming that has actually happened.
Claimed by who? Is there observation evidence to support your assertion? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence
If that's true, the the only logical course is for us to immediately move to shut down all our industry and cause worldwide economic chaos. Is that what you want? Do you see why we might want more evidence than you have provided before doing that?
Did you forget your glasses?
So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that are provably false?
Any evidence for your claim that the models are false?
So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that [I assert without evidence are] false?
Fixd
Because the alternate is that we have to assume the worst case scenario. You openly admit that CO2 levels influence the climate, but can't tell us what the extent of that influence is, or what will happen in 10 years if we continue on our current path. So, if you are right, then we need to either:
1. Invest heavily in building a model suite we can rely on - and I mean heavily, A hundred or thousand times the current funding level.
2. Give up on modeling and basically panic. Shutdown all of our CO2 emitters as fast as we can. Slaughter our farm animals, shut down the coal mines, abandon our vehicles.
So CO2 levels can influence the climate? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence
If that's true, the the only logical course is for us to immediately move to shut down all our industry and cause worldwide economic chaos. Is that what you want? Do you see why we might want more evidence than you have provided before doing that?
- which is exactly what you espouse you want.
I want the models to not be accurate? I guess I don't know my own mind.
So if the models are provably wrong (empirical data doesn't support the models), then why should we continue to rely upon the models to predict what could happen in the future?
Because the alternate is that we have to assume the worst case scenario. You openly admit that CO2 levels influence the climate, but can't tell us what the extent of that influence is, or what will happen in 10 years if we continue on our current path. So, if you are right, then we need to either:
1. Invest heavily in building a model suite we can rely on - and I mean heavily, A hundred or thousand times the current funding level.
2. Give up on modeling and basically panic. Shutdown all of our CO2 emitters as fast as we can. Slaughter our farm animals, shut down the coal mines, abandon our vehicles.
You do know that Dr. Spencer does not deny warming? He's just questioning if it's driven by CO2 - because the CO2-based models don't match up with actual measurements.
Eesh. He'll be crushed when someone mentions that the radiative properties of CO2 aren't based on modelling, and neither is the theory of CO2 driven climate. Climate will still be influenced by CO2, regardless of how inept we are at modelling.
Plot CO2 increases relative to temperature and you'll find there is no correlation [wattsupwiththat.com]. Yet we continue to use models and decide policy for billions of people based upon the conclusion that it is all CO2 that drives any warming we are experiencing.
So now Anthony Watts is also saying that we should immediately panic and burn our industry to the ground? I'd prefer not to be so alarmist.
So just to clarify: your position is to keep using failed models (provably so) rather than start over? Ignore the data, it's the model and desired outcomes that matter?
Well, the problem seems to be that as our conversation progresses the foundation of the idea that there is a problem with the models keeps getting more and more eroded. First Dr Roy, and now Anthony Watts. My personal view: we should see some actual evidence that there is a problem with the models before panicking and and taking the more drastic approach to combating climate change.
Then I suspect your argument relies on the notion that climate forecasting can be done by using regression. It can't. If it could, scientists would use regression line instead of investing years of work in climate models.
By the way, regression off a single variable (surface land OR sea temperature) IS a model. Just happens to be a very poor one.
Perhaps those who have models should work on improving them, because what they have now don't work at all for predicting what could happen.
Well, that's your assertion: an assertion that seems to be based on an obvious error. We'll wait for evidence to the contrary I should think.
Or should we just accept continued reliance on models which are provably incorrect by a factor of 2 or more?
Since the alternative to modelling is to panic and burn our industry to the ground, I'd prefer not to be so alarmist as Dr Roy and your good self. We'll wait for you guys to provide some actual evidence before lighting the torches.
I'm saying this again. My doubt arises from the lack of urgency on responding to the problem.
Lack of urgency from whom?
I'll have to assume from yourself, since you are just as responsible for providing solutions as anybody else.
I'll say this again: Your refusal to accept there is a problem because the solution is difficult/painful reeks of intellectual dishonesty - like refusing to accept that there is a problem with cancer because cancer is hard to address.
If you cannot accept that we, as Americans, need to build a new nuclear power plant every month, then we have a problem.
1. I'm not an American. What a weird assumption to make.
2. No: YOU have a problem. You want a solution that is generally considered uneconomical. If you want to build cheaper Nuclear power, by all means, do so. If you want to convince others that it is cheaper than the economics say, then by all means, do that. Neither of those things is our problem to deal with.
If you cannot accept that we, as a species, need to build a new nuclear power plant on Earth every week, then I question your commitment to solve this problem and perhaps even that the problem exists.
You have some mental issue where you are fixated with Nuclear power and want others to pay for it, rather than providing an actual solution.
These two are tied together in my mind, to accept that CAGW is a real threat then nuclear power must be a large part of the solution.
The linking of those 2 things together in your mind is a problem of your mind. See a therapist.
I've heard this before. It's used often as an argument, and it works now with me just about as well as it worked on my parents when I was in high school. I don't care if all your friends believe in CAGW, that just makes a lot of people wrong, assuming Roy Spencer is correct.
Why would we assume that?
Make an argument on CAGW that is not an appeal to authority then I might believe you. What would help a lot to convince me is a focus on finding solutions.
That reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Do you also refuse to believe in diseases that don't have cures?
And whose problem is it, if you don't accept the reality of CO2 driven climate change? Because it sounds like you are trying to make it our problem: a classic burden of proof fallacy. If you have some better explanation as to what happens when the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are doubled, feel free to post that explanation, along with observational proof.
The old alarmist predictions of climate catastrophe have proven false [wattsupwiththat.com] again and again and again, so why do people believe the new ones?
That exact same blog that you link to has made numerous predictions over the years, sometimes two or more contradictory predictions at the same time:
1. It's not warming
2. It's warming but it's the sun
3. It's warming but not the sun, it's something else which we won't explain in case anyone bothers to scrutinise
4. Oh wait, did we say it's warming? It's not warming
5. It's warming, but not due to CO2, its a global conspiracy
6. It's warming, and it's CO2, but not our CO2 which is different somehow but we won't explain how
7. It's warming, and it's our CO2, but models! Something about models which makes it all okay somehow.
You would expect that a group that consistently makes inaccurate predictions would lose credibility because of that and the public would stop believing what they say.
Oooh. Can you feel the irony burning? I guess you'll just ignore that as well....
Dr. Roy Spencer [drroyspencer.com], funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil"), lays out the actual data and shows that 95% of all climate models agree that actual measured data is wrong [drroyspencer.com]. The models, basically, do not model actually all that well.
So: the models could be underestimating the warming: which is what the article says?
Puts a bit of a damper on the whole "models assume we have negative carbon output!" kind of thing, doesn't it?
No: just the opposite. If Dr Roy is right, and the models do not predict within the expected error, then it is just as likely that they are underestimating as overestimating: in fact, all sorts of disastrous consequences that we had ruled out (due to modelling) come back into the range of possibilities to consider. So if he is right, then the correct course of action is a massive, unprecedented intervention to prevent further climate change and avoid the worst effects. Not the relatively gentle (but still robust) course of action suggested by modelling.
Unless you have some secret knowledge that proves the models are overestimating: knowledge you could only obtain from a better model. In which case, where is this model?
Well, to be fair to the USAF, a known wife beater WAS just elected president. Given that there probably isn't a lot of appetite for punishing people who behave in ways that get you elected as a "tough, straight talkin' guy!"
Rapid climate changes have happened dozens of times in the past due to vulcanism. Ars Technica has a nice graph depicting them they published last week.
Why then do we ignore vulcanism as a driving force thousands of times more powerful than industrialization because, "We didn't exist and couldn't have lived here in those more varied climate phases"?
Your friend above said it was not due to volcanism but instead some unspecified 'natural' climate cycle. Also, that denialists who claim that the recent warming is due to volcanism are discrediting the mainstream denialist theory.
Without the human influence on the greenhouse gas concentration, the Earth would be heading toward a glacial period. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that in absence of human-made global warming the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now[18] (see Milankovitch cycles).
Once again, I have to ask, how is this contradictory evidence proof of your theory?
This would seem to be evidence against the posited theory. At no point on the graph does the atmospheric CO2 reach anything LIKE the levels we are currently experiencing.
The usual denial hasn't been to deny melting for like thirty years at least.
It's weird then, that we haven't seen any climate contrarians responding to the denialists who say that volcanism is triggering the melting of the polar caps: and the related theory, that volcanism is causing the climate to warm. DOn't you guys care about this misrepresentation of your 'usual' theory?
What IS this theory anyway? Is there evidence to support this theory?
Instead, it's posited that the melting is due to a natural cycle; we're coming out of an interglacial period and back into bed normalcy.
(a) What natural cycle?
(b) Does this cycle appear in the climate record?
(c) What triggered this cycle to start just when the industrial revolution started?
(d) What suppressed the (experimentally proven) warming that otherwise would have occurred due to increased concentrations of CO2? Is the CO2 we released somehow different to the CO2 that was there before? How?
Some of the people who don't buy AGW are actually scientists who modify their theories occasionally, believe it or not. That's where the crazy conspiracy shit comes from. There are some sound ideas in mainstream ecology, but so much stock has been put into shutting out legit dissenters that it makes them indistinguishable from dissenting crackpots.
On numerous occasions I've asked denialists here on Slashdot to provide evidence for their posited theories, and they have not done so. I've been here for more than 10 years, asking for evidence. No evidence has been forthcoming. You want to know why people don't believe you?
In which case (and you allude to this), we can conclude that the denial of the reality of climate change is irrational, being completely based on negative feelings generated by words.
Inadvertently it seems that you forgot to actually mention how it is possible to increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and have no effect on climate.
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. "
There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other.
But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
Really? So how did your own modeling perform?
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
No: thats you.
You are the one saying "The climate is changing rapidly but we don't know why or what's going to happen next". In your scenario, anything could happen. The climate could keep warming until we reach Venus like conditions.
Talk about panic inducing!
If you truly believe your own assertions, you should be advocating that all our funds be immediately diverted to climate science:
1. To find the cause of the recent, rapid change
2. To identify and model what will happen next
3. To identify and implement the fix, which we can assume will be far more expensive than replacing our emitting technologies (which we were going to replace anyway, given how inefficient they are).
If the grid is unpredictable, then that triggers a need to invest heavily in making it predictable, since an unpredictable grid is dangerous.
The same applies to climate. If the modeling is good, then we have an accurate representation of the future direction which is between the best and worst case scenario. If the modeling can't be trusted, then the worst case scenarios become possible, which means we need to mitigate against those as well - some unpredicted secondary effect that causes runaway warming, for example. That means immediate, and drastic, and expensive, action.
If the models are bad, then this should be proven, and then we'll move on to immediately closing down all our sources of emissions.
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
1. So, was there a temperature rise in the last 20 years?
2. If so, what caused that temperature rise?
3. Did your modeling predict that rise accurately? If not, according to your own terms, you are completely, and utterly, wrong.
Sure: so presumably, as you do for Muslims, when ONE Nazi commits anact of terror, you expect that all Nazi's groups and representative to immediately denounce them, and make it clear that they aren't representative of Nazi's in general.
Except, weirdly, nobody on the right seems to be calling on either the alt right, or white supremacists, or know representatives of the Nazi's to denounce this act of terror.
Curious, no?
Maybe the fact that there are no moderate Nazi's, and maybe the fact that this publication did not denounce the terrorism, but rather made light of and glorified it, tells us that this is not a generalisation at all.
No, they both are fascist, just their central tenet is different. Both want complete State control of the economy, believe "might IS right" - violence to get their ends, and both demand an authoritarian "our view is the only one you can have". The view is different, but that is not the part of fascism that is actively projected on to others, it's simply the justification for their actions.
If the Nazis targeted left handed people, or those who use calculus instead of the Jews they would still have been as murderous and loathsome as they sent lefties or math professors to the gas chambers. It wasn't the target of their anger that made them horrendous - it was the way they acted out on it. The target was used as a focal point for the Nazis, to channel their anger at someone.
Much like the fascists in Antifa and BLM - they use their own targets to channel their hate and give "justification" for their fascist actions. They are Nazis, just with a different target group, one based strictly on ideology rather than a genetic trait.
No, they both are fascist [wikipedia.org], just their central tenet is different.
So they aren't both fascists?
The central tenet of fascism is fascism, by the way.
If the Nazis targeted left handed people, or those who use calculus instead of the Jews they would still have been as murderous and loathsome as they sent lefties or math professors to the gas chambers.
They'd still be loathsome - but not Nazis.
The target was used as a focal point for the Nazis, to channel their anger at someone.
Much like the fascists in Antifa and BLM
Cite evidence that BLM and the anti-fascists systematically murdered 6-8 million people based on race, religion or sexuality and we might consider them as loathsome as the fascists. Oh, you can't? Then your argument is crap.
That is a man driving a car into a crowd. That is an act indistinguishable in intent from what happened in Boston, or Nice. It's terrorism. Why are you trying to call it something else?
but up until that they where well with in their rights to protest anything they want too.
So it' ok to beat up kids with bats, attempt to set people alight, threaten clergy and churchgoers?
Then by the same token, it must be okay for us to do the same back.
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, are you being intentionally daft? Claimed by anyone who uses the IPCC models/papers as justification for anything!
There are no IPCC models.
There are plenty of people who say that the IPCC papers justify taking a deliberate, but relatively gentle approach to tackling climate change: you say these people are wrong? So we should instead move to immediately shut down all our industry and cripple our economies because the impacts of increasing CO2 on our climate is impossible to model?
The models simply do not match observed reality - being 2 to 4 times TOO HIGH, over a short timeframe.
Incorrect. Spencers argument is that his model sort of aligns to reality over a short time, so it must be correct. Other scientists took his model and ran it over longer periods, and it failed hopelessly. Did the climate mechanisms suddenly change in the year 2001? Or did Spencer build a model that simply reproduces what he already had in terms of observations over an absurdly short timeframe and has no predictive ability at all?
Look at the data I've linked many times!
Did you look at it yourself?
You just do not want to admit that the models don't work.
You contradict Spencer, who says that his model does. Who should I believe?
So CO2 levels can influence the climate? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
Apparently a lot less than is claimed, given the fact that the models assume much more warming that has actually happened.
Claimed by who? Is there observation evidence to support your assertion? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence
If that's true, the the only logical course is for us to immediately move to shut down all our industry and cause worldwide economic chaos. Is that what you want? Do you see why we might want more evidence than you have provided before doing that?
Did you forget your glasses?
So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that are provably false?
Any evidence for your claim that the models are false?
So when do we change the models? Why do we keep following models that [I assert without evidence are] false?
Fixd
Because the alternate is that we have to assume the worst case scenario. You openly admit that CO2 levels influence the climate, but can't tell us what the extent of that influence is, or what will happen in 10 years if we continue on our current path. So, if you are right, then we need to either:
1. Invest heavily in building a model suite we can rely on - and I mean heavily, A hundred or thousand times the current funding level.
2. Give up on modeling and basically panic. Shutdown all of our CO2 emitters as fast as we can. Slaughter our farm animals, shut down the coal mines, abandon our vehicles.
Which of those strategies are you recommending?
Influenced and driven are diferent things.
So CO2 levels can influence the climate? What level of CO2 change will cause a a shift of 1 degree in climate?
The bottom line is that the models simple don't match up with the actual evidence
If that's true, the the only logical course is for us to immediately move to shut down all our industry and cause worldwide economic chaos. Is that what you want? Do you see why we might want more evidence than you have provided before doing that?
- which is exactly what you espouse you want.
I want the models to not be accurate? I guess I don't know my own mind.
So if the models are provably wrong (empirical data doesn't support the models), then why should we continue to rely upon the models to predict what could happen in the future?
Because the alternate is that we have to assume the worst case scenario. You openly admit that CO2 levels influence the climate, but can't tell us what the extent of that influence is, or what will happen in 10 years if we continue on our current path. So, if you are right, then we need to either:
1. Invest heavily in building a model suite we can rely on - and I mean heavily, A hundred or thousand times the current funding level.
2. Give up on modeling and basically panic. Shutdown all of our CO2 emitters as fast as we can. Slaughter our farm animals, shut down the coal mines, abandon our vehicles.
Which of those strategies are you recommending?
You do know that Dr. Spencer does not deny warming? He's just questioning if it's driven by CO2 - because the CO2-based models don't match up with actual measurements.
Eesh. He'll be crushed when someone mentions that the radiative properties of CO2 aren't based on modelling, and neither is the theory of CO2 driven climate. Climate will still be influenced by CO2, regardless of how inept we are at modelling.
Plot CO2 increases relative to temperature and you'll find there is no correlation [wattsupwiththat.com]. Yet we continue to use models and decide policy for billions of people based upon the conclusion that it is all CO2 that drives any warming we are experiencing.
So now Anthony Watts is also saying that we should immediately panic and burn our industry to the ground? I'd prefer not to be so alarmist.
So just to clarify: your position is to keep using failed models (provably so) rather than start over? Ignore the data, it's the model and desired outcomes that matter?
Well, the problem seems to be that as our conversation progresses the foundation of the idea that there is a problem with the models keeps getting more and more eroded. First Dr Roy, and now Anthony Watts. My personal view: we should see some actual evidence that there is a problem with the models before panicking and and taking the more drastic approach to combating climate change.
I don't.
Then I suspect your argument relies on the notion that climate forecasting can be done by using regression. It can't. If it could, scientists would use regression line instead of investing years of work in climate models.
By the way, regression off a single variable (surface land OR sea temperature) IS a model. Just happens to be a very poor one.
Perhaps those who have models should work on improving them, because what they have now don't work at all for predicting what could happen.
Well, that's your assertion: an assertion that seems to be based on an obvious error. We'll wait for evidence to the contrary I should think.
Or should we just accept continued reliance on models which are provably incorrect by a factor of 2 or more?
Since the alternative to modelling is to panic and burn our industry to the ground, I'd prefer not to be so alarmist as Dr Roy and your good self. We'll wait for you guys to provide some actual evidence before lighting the torches.
I'm saying this again. My doubt arises from the lack of urgency on responding to the problem.
Lack of urgency from whom?
I'll have to assume from yourself, since you are just as responsible for providing solutions as anybody else.
I'll say this again: Your refusal to accept there is a problem because the solution is difficult/painful reeks of intellectual dishonesty - like refusing to accept that there is a problem with cancer because cancer is hard to address.
If you cannot accept that we, as Americans, need to build a new nuclear power plant every month, then we have a problem.
1. I'm not an American. What a weird assumption to make.
2. No: YOU have a problem. You want a solution that is generally considered uneconomical. If you want to build cheaper Nuclear power, by all means, do so. If you want to convince others that it is cheaper than the economics say, then by all means, do that. Neither of those things is our problem to deal with.
If you cannot accept that we, as a species, need to build a new nuclear power plant on Earth every week, then I question your commitment to solve this problem and perhaps even that the problem exists.
You have some mental issue where you are fixated with Nuclear power and want others to pay for it, rather than providing an actual solution.
These two are tied together in my mind, to accept that CAGW is a real threat then nuclear power must be a large part of the solution.
The linking of those 2 things together in your mind is a problem of your mind. See a therapist.
Where is this model?
I've heard this before. It's used often as an argument, and it works now with me just about as well as it worked on my parents when I was in high school. I don't care if all your friends believe in CAGW, that just makes a lot of people wrong, assuming Roy Spencer is correct.
Why would we assume that?
Make an argument on CAGW that is not an appeal to authority then I might believe you. What would help a lot to convince me is a focus on finding solutions.
That reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Do you also refuse to believe in diseases that don't have cures?
And whose problem is it, if you don't accept the reality of CO2 driven climate change? Because it sounds like you are trying to make it our problem: a classic burden of proof fallacy. If you have some better explanation as to what happens when the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are doubled, feel free to post that explanation, along with observational proof.
The old alarmist predictions of climate catastrophe have proven false [wattsupwiththat.com] again and again and again, so why do people believe the new ones?
That exact same blog that you link to has made numerous predictions over the years, sometimes two or more contradictory predictions at the same time:
1. It's not warming
2. It's warming but it's the sun
3. It's warming but not the sun, it's something else which we won't explain in case anyone bothers to scrutinise
4. Oh wait, did we say it's warming? It's not warming
5. It's warming, but not due to CO2, its a global conspiracy
6. It's warming, and it's CO2, but not our CO2 which is different somehow but we won't explain how
7. It's warming, and it's our CO2, but models! Something about models which makes it all okay somehow.
You would expect that a group that consistently makes inaccurate predictions would lose credibility because of that and the public would stop believing what they say.
Oooh. Can you feel the irony burning? I guess you'll just ignore that as well....
Dr. Roy Spencer [drroyspencer.com], funded solely by Government grants (not "Big Oil"), lays out the actual data and shows that 95% of all climate models agree that actual measured data is wrong [drroyspencer.com]. The models, basically, do not model actually all that well.
So: the models could be underestimating the warming: which is what the article says?
Puts a bit of a damper on the whole "models assume we have negative carbon output!" kind of thing, doesn't it?
No: just the opposite. If Dr Roy is right, and the models do not predict within the expected error, then it is just as likely that they are underestimating as overestimating: in fact, all sorts of disastrous consequences that we had ruled out (due to modelling) come back into the range of possibilities to consider. So if he is right, then the correct course of action is a massive, unprecedented intervention to prevent further climate change and avoid the worst effects. Not the relatively gentle (but still robust) course of action suggested by modelling.
Unless you have some secret knowledge that proves the models are overestimating: knowledge you could only obtain from a better model. In which case, where is this model?
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
You mean predictions like:
"It's not warming"
"It's warming but it's the sun/moon/jupiter"
"It's a something something natural cycle! Natural!"
"It's warming but it's good somehow (mumble mumble)"
Predictions like those?
No?
Then that's a start, right?
Well, to be fair to the USAF, a known wife beater WAS just elected president. Given that there probably isn't a lot of appetite for punishing people who behave in ways that get you elected as a "tough, straight talkin' guy!"
Rapid climate changes have happened dozens of times in the past due to vulcanism. Ars Technica has a nice graph depicting them they published last week.
Why then do we ignore vulcanism as a driving force thousands of times more powerful than industrialization because, "We didn't exist and couldn't have lived here in those more varied climate phases"?
Your friend above said it was not due to volcanism but instead some unspecified 'natural' climate cycle. Also, that denialists who claim that the recent warming is due to volcanism are discrediting the mainstream denialist theory.
So who should we believe - you, or the other guy?
Without the human influence on the greenhouse gas concentration, the Earth would be heading toward a glacial period. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that in absence of human-made global warming the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now[18] (see Milankovitch cycles).
Once again, I have to ask, how is this contradictory evidence proof of your theory?
This would seem to be evidence against the posited theory. At no point on the graph does the atmospheric CO2 reach anything LIKE the levels we are currently experiencing.
The usual denial hasn't been to deny melting for like thirty years at least.
It's weird then, that we haven't seen any climate contrarians responding to the denialists who say that volcanism is triggering the melting of the polar caps: and the related theory, that volcanism is causing the climate to warm. DOn't you guys care about this misrepresentation of your 'usual' theory?
What IS this theory anyway? Is there evidence to support this theory?
Instead, it's posited that the melting is due to a natural cycle; we're coming out of an interglacial period and back into bed normalcy.
(a) What natural cycle?
(b) Does this cycle appear in the climate record?
(c) What triggered this cycle to start just when the industrial revolution started?
(d) What suppressed the (experimentally proven) warming that otherwise would have occurred due to increased concentrations of CO2? Is the CO2 we released somehow different to the CO2 that was there before? How?
Some of the people who don't buy AGW are actually scientists who modify their theories occasionally, believe it or not. That's where the crazy conspiracy shit comes from. There are some sound ideas in mainstream ecology, but so much stock has been put into shutting out legit dissenters that it makes them indistinguishable from dissenting crackpots.
On numerous occasions I've asked denialists here on Slashdot to provide evidence for their posited theories, and they have not done so. I've been here for more than 10 years, asking for evidence. No evidence has been forthcoming. You want to know why people don't believe you?
That's your answer.
This is the reason?
In which case (and you allude to this), we can conclude that the denial of the reality of climate change is irrational, being completely based on negative feelings generated by words.
Inadvertently it seems that you forgot to actually mention how it is possible to increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and have no effect on climate.
"The problem here is "because something is complex, we cant model it" is a new and improved kind of terminally stupid. " There are numerous 'climate' models. They all vaguely agree with each other. But not one of them agrees with, you know, actually observed reality.
Really? So how did your own modeling perform?
So clearly we can't model climate. But Climate Changers are demanding that politicians destroy the lives of billions and burn trillions of dollars because 'Muh Science!'
No: thats you.
You are the one saying "The climate is changing rapidly but we don't know why or what's going to happen next". In your scenario, anything could happen. The climate could keep warming until we reach Venus like conditions.
Talk about panic inducing!
If you truly believe your own assertions, you should be advocating that all our funds be immediately diverted to climate science:
1. To find the cause of the recent, rapid change
2. To identify and model what will happen next
3. To identify and implement the fix, which we can assume will be far more expensive than replacing our emitting technologies (which we were going to replace anyway, given how inefficient they are).
The same applies to climate. If the modeling is good, then we have an accurate representation of the future direction which is between the best and worst case scenario. If the modeling can't be trusted, then the worst case scenarios become possible, which means we need to mitigate against those as well - some unpredicted secondary effect that causes runaway warming, for example. That means immediate, and drastic, and expensive, action.
If the models are bad, then this should be proven, and then we'll move on to immediately closing down all our sources of emissions.
None of the 'Global Warming!' computer models have come close to predicting the temperature changes (or lack thereof) of the last twenty years or so. In what sense is so-called 'science' whose predictions don't match reality not blatantly, utterly wrong?
1. So, was there a temperature rise in the last 20 years?
2. If so, what caused that temperature rise?
3. Did your modeling predict that rise accurately? If not, according to your own terms, you are completely, and utterly, wrong.
Except, weirdly, nobody on the right seems to be calling on either the alt right, or white supremacists, or know representatives of the Nazi's to denounce this act of terror.
Curious, no?
Maybe the fact that there are no moderate Nazi's, and maybe the fact that this publication did not denounce the terrorism, but rather made light of and glorified it, tells us that this is not a generalisation at all.
No, they both are fascist, just their central tenet is different. Both want complete State control of the economy, believe "might IS right" - violence to get their ends, and both demand an authoritarian "our view is the only one you can have". The view is different, but that is not the part of fascism that is actively projected on to others, it's simply the justification for their actions.
If the Nazis targeted left handed people, or those who use calculus instead of the Jews they would still have been as murderous and loathsome as they sent lefties or math professors to the gas chambers. It wasn't the target of their anger that made them horrendous - it was the way they acted out on it. The target was used as a focal point for the Nazis, to channel their anger at someone.
Much like the fascists in Antifa and BLM - they use their own targets to channel their hate and give "justification" for their fascist actions. They are Nazis, just with a different target group, one based strictly on ideology rather than a genetic trait.
No, they both are fascist [wikipedia.org], just their central tenet is different.
So they aren't both fascists?
The central tenet of fascism is fascism, by the way.
If the Nazis targeted left handed people, or those who use calculus instead of the Jews they would still have been as murderous and loathsome as they sent lefties or math professors to the gas chambers.
They'd still be loathsome - but not Nazis.
The target was used as a focal point for the Nazis, to channel their anger at someone.
Much like the fascists in Antifa and BLM
Cite evidence that BLM and the anti-fascists systematically murdered 6-8 million people based on race, religion or sexuality and we might consider them as loathsome as the fascists. Oh, you can't? Then your argument is crap.
No, that is a riot
That is a man driving a car into a crowd. That is an act indistinguishable in intent from what happened in Boston, or Nice. It's terrorism. Why are you trying to call it something else?
but up until that they where well with in their rights to protest anything they want too.
So it' ok to beat up kids with bats, attempt to set people alight, threaten clergy and churchgoers?
Then by the same token, it must be okay for us to do the same back.
Right?