Global Warming and Extreme Weather Effects

Which real scientists? The ones you agree with or the ones you don't?

 

There is a great deal of evidence. All that is needed is an open and curious mind and some initiative. You acknowledge (post #567) that there is real science in opposition to alarmism. Why are you not familiar with this work which is readily available in the public sector ??

 

All of them ... now you are demonstrating (again) that you have no clue what the conversation is about or what "the bar" even references. Please do try to keep up.

- - - Updated - - -

Citation needed

 

All scientists agree that it has warmed since the beginning of the last century. In fact it has warmed since the end of the little Ice Age. All scientists can agree that CO2 can cause warming but that's about it on agreement.

 

Did you somehow feel that you had not sufficiently demonstrated your ignorance of what the conversation was about, so you thought you should add some more ignorance to the pile? Cuz that's all you did here. FWIW = The conversation was about the need to back up any assertion made. All scientists must do that whether they are proponents or skeptics. Please try to keep up.

 

Smarmy arrogance. Hallmark of a poor argument. You appear to think you know more than anyone else so tell us where warming is supposed to show first according to the hypothesis?

 

True enough. I get tired of explaining stuff to people over and over. And when I say 'people', I mean you.

<sigh> nope, wrong again. These are the Hallmarks of a poor argument: Logical Fallacies I totally recommend you download and print their free poster. You desperately need it.

Nope. I freely admit that I know less then most. But I know more than you about backing up assertions apparently. And I know more than you about recognizing logical fallacies. For instance, your changing the subject from 'Scientists need to back up assertions' to a question about 'where warming is supposed to show first' is a fallacy called a Red Herring.

 

That's some pretty funny stuff right there. Basically you claim to know less than most but more than people who are talking about things you don't understand and claiming you know more than them because you know less than most. That is probably why you are incapable of answering any of the questions put forth.

 

Direct questions answered by Befuddled Alien = many
Direct questions answered by Hoosier = zero

Come back when that score is more even

At any rate I see you predictably continue with the red herring fallacy (with the addition of an ad hominem). Huge surprise there. Not.

I predict that whatever reply you give to this will continue the red herring attempt. Let's see what happens <crosses fingers>.

 

Just because you think your obfuscation and inability to answer questions relating to the CO2 hypothesis is relevant pretty much negates any possibility of a red herring.

Hardly an ad hominem. You evidently don't understand I am just pointing out your own statements that make little sense.

 

Unexplainable response from someone who professes to understand the issue. The response demonstrates alarmism from one who condemns alarmism, claims to respect skepticism, but has no initiative to do the homework.

 

Hurray, I was right! ... Your playbook needs some work. Much too predictable. And the added bonus of you demonstrating that you don't know what a red herring fallacy is. Sweet!

 

You certainly work very hard at avoiding any discussion of the subject.

 

You are entirely missing the point. I'm interested in the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists studying climate.

And, your notion that significant warming will be beneficial is obvious nonsense.

 

Why would it be obvious nonsense? Mankind has always benefited from warmer climate. Many of the great expansions coincide with the warm periods showing in the GISP2 Greenland ice record, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods. In fact that record shows it was warmer than now during those periods. During the cold periods is when man suffers the most.

 

Climate change has been shown to be behind the drought that contributed to the sutuation in Syria, as farmers moved into the cities, but Assad had no answer for them.

In far off history, people could avoid drought, sea rise, etc. by moving. Today, the population density of earth is such that we don't accept people moving in any significant numbers. Thise farmers in Syria couldn't go to Turkey or Israel, or wherever.

As our military points out, climate change is a serious national security concern.

 

The alarmist headline is that climate change is the cause. If you delve into it you'll find that the population has increased quite dramatically and water policy is nearly nonexistent. Like in California, no planning for the future.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/

 

Absolutely.

The denial of climate change has led to far too little action on both prevention and mitigation.

Regardless of what we do, warming WILL continue. Ignoring that is a huge mistake.

Look at the city of Miami Beach. Look at the places where we're still allowing building, followed by government bailouts following storms. Look at Syria (and think what it would mean if India had a major drought). Look at the claims by Russia of newly exposed land in the Arctic - now before the UN.


During 3 presidential debates we haven't seen any discussion of climate change!! We're in denial.

 

It's quite shocking from across the pond. The complete lack of the subject in the debates is crazy.
The US has lost most of the remaining respect I think. No longer leader of the free world or someone we can trust to take global leadership.

Guess the EU is our best hope.

 

Yes. We (as in Earth) need the EU+UK, (however that gets figured out).

The partisan nature of US politics today leaves our legislature failing on just about every issue, while the president has limited power.

I tend to believe that the US can recover, but even if we did it would not reduce the need for the EU+UK.

 

The vast majority of scientists agree that increasing CO2 concentration contributes to global warming. The differences lie in what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is. BTW, why do those proposing energy policy implementation to reduce global warming never quantify the amount of global warming (in degree reduction) from those policies ??

The conclusion that warming up to 3 deg C above the temp in 2000 is the consensus of economists who have studied the issue.

 

Yeah, those annoyingly analytical Germans are shutting down their nuclear reactors and replacing the capacity with coal fired plants. So much for the economically stagnant EU.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody cares about global warming because it is not a problem regardless of how many attempt to make a case by confusing climate variation with global warming. Trump sees it for what it is and Hillary only mentions it to get environmental voters out.

 

The UK is not much better than the US. It's in the grips of Murdoch and his anti-science, anti-immigrant and anti-globalism agenda. Maybe even more so than the US.

Clinton is tough and a better politician than Obama going in. Infinitely so. She might be able to lead on the issue. The question is if she can with the Republican Party.
We will see how Congress looks after the election.

 

Unlike the US the EU set goals back in the 90's that we have been following quite well. We have emission reduction goals for the next decades still.
Read more;
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/eu/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...e_2020_indicators_-_climate_change_and_energy

 

And how much will all this reduce the global average temperature in the year 2100 ?? What will be the impact of Germany switching from nuclear to coal ??

This is the same EU which has averaged ~ 1.7% gdp growth rate over the last 20 years.