What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

…thirty-one Alaskan villages under imminent threat of flooding and erosion…Isle de Jean Charles, Louisiana, home to the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw First Nation, is being depopulated with federal grant money, due to saltwater intrusion and sea level rise.

Sea levels have been gradually rising since the 1850’s. That sea levels are rising is an indication that climate changes, no surprise there. Where is the indication that man is the cause? There have been papers asserting an increased rate of rise, but plenty of papers denying it as well, and even the IPCC puts the increase in the range of 3mm/yr. Really?

“Plenty of papers”? The fact remains these people were fine for many years and now they are not.

How do you know that that very local sea level change is due to sea level rise and NOT land subsidence?

Again, Tony Heller makes a good case for why claims about sea level rise are to be taken with a giant block of salt.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Well, for one, the IPCC is going to include some Cosmic Ray (name removed by moderator)uts and M.E.E.s (Medium Energy Electrons) in the CMIP6 modelling scenario in 2021, so the IPCC itself acknowledges that those are not currently included.
Why would the IPCC begin to include what is already “properly accounted for?”

The models are always being improved to make them more accurate. That does not mean they were grossly inaccurate before.

I suppose that depends upon whether the impetus behind them is political change or scientific truth. There are numerous evidences that the IPCC and the UN are both very motivated by the will to achieve certain political ends in a way that the scientific claims made in the reports are being manipulated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Well, for one, the IPCC is going to include some Cosmic Ray (name removed by moderator)uts and M.E.E.s (Medium Energy Electrons) in the CMIP6 modelling scenario in 2021, so the IPCC itself acknowledges that those are not currently included.
Why would the IPCC begin to include what is already “properly accounted for?”

The models are always being improved to make them more accurate. That does not mean they were grossly inaccurate before.

I suppose that depends upon whether the impetus behind them is political change or scientific truth. There are numerous evidences that the IPCC and the UN are both very motivated by the will to achieve certain political ends in a way that the scientific claims made in the reports are being manipulated.

Ah, it all comes down to reading other people’s hearts!

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Well, for one, the IPCC is going to include some Cosmic Ray (name removed by moderator)uts and M.E.E.s (Medium Energy Electrons) in the CMIP6 modelling scenario in 2021, so the IPCC itself acknowledges that those are not currently included.
Why would the IPCC begin to include what is already “properly accounted for?”

The models are always being improved to make them more accurate. That does not mean they were grossly inaccurate before.

I suppose that depends upon whether the impetus behind them is political change or scientific truth. There are numerous evidences that the IPCC and the UN are both very motivated by the will to achieve certain political ends in a way that the scientific claims made in the reports are being manipulated.

Ah, it all comes down to reading other people’s hearts!

Well, okay, you win.

We ought to trust everyone no matter what they claim and no matter how their claims will impact all of humanity because it is impossible to read other people’s hearts, despite the fact that I wasn’t talking about hearts.

I was speaking about emails and provable obfuscations of data sets.

 

[EndTimes]

be more specific, that sound like goblety goop

Shouldn’t that be … Gobbledee Gook?

 

[Petro_Man]

Petro_Man:

I challenge all people to watch this video as you have time…no matter what side you land on.

Well presented and thoughtful. The lesson here is that if we a truly concerned about the impact of human beings on the environment but equally concerned about human beings alive and flourishing in the environment then the solutions are workable.

If we are inordinately concerned about the environment over human flourishing or human flourishing over the environment then we are more likely to gamble on a “winner takes all” scenario. Selecting one or other of those two end up as environment absent humanity or humanity absent a proper environment.

I thought it was very well presented and thought provoking.

My opinion is that we should be putting resources into the portions of the world without access to electricity by any means necessary. This will create wonders and fruit for the whole world. It would require more emissions but I think it is worth it

 

[Mary888]

It is obviously happening.

 

[EndTimes]

That may be, but the case for global warming can be made without them.

A Case for Global COLDING can be made without them either…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

 

[HarryStotle]

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Neither is warming a consensus, except according to debunked papers and articles.

Besides the fact that a consensus doesn’t amount to much in the end especially if funding opportunites and political advantage drive the supposed “consensus.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Neither is warming a consensus, except according to debunked papers and articles.

Not debunked. There is a majority opinion on the basic claims of global warming. The disagreements are over the details like how much and how soon. There never was anything other than a tiny minority predicting global cooling.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Neither is warming a consensus, except according to debunked papers and articles.

Not debunked. There is a majority opinion on the basic claims of global warming. The disagreements are over the details like how much and how soon. There never was anything other than a tiny minority predicting global cooling.

Got any peer-reviewed papers to support your claims, or are we merely to take your word for them?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Neither is warming a consensus, except according to debunked papers and articles.

Not debunked. There is a majority opinion on the basic claims of global warming. The disagreements are over the details like how much and how soon. There never was anything other than a tiny minority predicting global cooling.

Got any peer-reviewed papers to support your claims, or are we merely to take your word for them?

Which claim is that? I made several in that post.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Neither is warming a consensus, except according to debunked papers and articles.

Not debunked. There is a majority opinion on the basic claims of global warming. The disagreements are over the details like how much and how soon. There never was anything other than a tiny minority predicting global cooling.

Got any peer-reviewed papers to support your claims, or are we merely to take your word for them?

Which claim is that? I made several in that post.

The basic implication that warming is worrisome AND human caused in a way that warrants immediate political attention.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

Not a convincing case. That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Neither is warming a consensus, except according to debunked papers and articles.

Not debunked. There is a majority opinion on the basic claims of global warming. The disagreements are over the details like how much and how soon. There never was anything other than a tiny minority predicting global cooling.

Got any peer-reviewed papers to support your claims, or are we merely to take your word for them?

Which claim is that? I made several in that post.

The basic implication that warming is worrisome AND human caused in a way that warrants immediate political attention.

I didn’t make that claim in the post you quoted. How about scaling back your characterization so it actually reflects what I said?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The basic implication that warming is worrisome AND human caused in a way that warrants immediate political attention.

I didn’t make that claim in the post you quoted. How about scaling back your characterization so it actually reflects what I said?

So climate change isn’t worrisome nor human caused in a way that demands political amelioration?

That would be implied by your unwillingness to defend that level of claim.

Well, then there is nothing left to dispute about since we both agree.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Let’s settle one claim before moving on to others. I claimed that “global cooling was never a thing taken seriously by scientists in this century.” I don’t think that claim needs any peer-reviewed papers to prove. Indeed, it would require some peer-reviewed papers to prove the converse.

I also claimed that the basic claims of global warming is accepted by the majority of scientists. There are peer-reviewed papers to prove that.

 

[HarryStotle]

Let’s settle one claim before moving on to others. I claimed that “global cooling was never a thing taken seriously by scientists in this century.” I don’t think that claim needs any peer-reviewed papers to prove. Indeed, it would require some peer-reviewed papers to prove the converse.

I also claimed that the basic claims of global warming is accepted by the majority of scientists. There are peer-reviewed papers to prove that.

You are deflecting.

Make the critical case that climate change is worrisome and human caused in a way that demands large scale political, economic and social investment to address it.

Everything else I will simply grant you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Let’s settle one claim before moving on to others. I claimed that “global cooling was never a thing taken seriously by scientists in this century.” I don’t think that claim needs any peer-reviewed papers to prove. Indeed, it would require some peer-reviewed papers to prove the converse.

I also claimed that the basic claims of global warming is accepted by the majority of scientists. There are peer-reviewed papers to prove that.

You are deflecting.

Make the critical case that climate change is worrisome and human caused in a way that demands large scale political, economic and social investment to address it.

Everything else I will simply grant you.

No, I do not know that. I never claimed that I did. I have serious concerns about the work-ability of many of the plans for remediation. So I am content to leave it at the simple agreement you expressed.

 

[EndTimes]

That has never been the scientific consensus in this century.

Consensus is not science…