131 replies to this topic

[2 Aces]

Chris, I told you and Joe long ago that trying to reason with *militant liberals with an agenda* is pointless. Radical liberal ideology always overrides any rational common sense and honesty that they might have.

In the meantime, they have yet to prove their climate change case beyond a reasonable doubt or answer substantive questions that would seem to disprove their climate change doomsday predictions.

Case dismissed.

[apeman45]

Chris - read your posts and Grumpy Old Guy's posts.  Yours are filled with insults and no logic and not even attempts at backing up your argument.  I don't even know what your argument is other than the same old tired graph that you have posted at least 100 times.  Grumpy Old Guy has repeatedly refuted your graph with rational explanations which you refuse to address so I understand GOG's disinterest in continuing the futility of interacting with you.  Read the Average Joe's posts and learn how to carry on a rational conversation and the ability to express an alternative view of a complex issue.

[Chris]

Chris - read your posts and Grumpy Old Guy's posts.  Yours are filled with insults and no logic and not even attempts at backing up your argument.  I don't even know what your argument is other than the same old tired graph that you have posted at least 100 times.  Grumpy Old Guy has repeatedly refuted your graph with rational explanations which you refuse to address so I understand GOG's disinterest in continuing the futility of interacting with you.  Read the Average Joe's posts and learn how to carry on a rational conversation and the ability to express an alternative view of a complex issue.

Oh come on, I got "Climate Clown" and you got "Climate Denier".  He has refuted nothing, he just want's to calculate a "rate of change" on the last 40 years of a six hundred million year span on a graph. Can't be done.  His "disinterest" is only because he can not explain the super high CO2 levels in Earths past, he has not addressed 2000 ppm, 1800 ppm, 4000 ppm of CO2 in the past,  he can't blame those numbers on Man so he is silent.  He can only accuse Man of the recent CO2 increase, he can't prove it.  To do this he has to ignore the graph below, that's why he has not once addressed the higher, much higher CO2 levels in the Earth's past.  And life thrived through it all, even got bigger, more massive, more diverse.   When he does address the past high CO2 numbers, I'm all ears.   Chris

 

And Ape, what's wrong with the chart...?   Anything there not true...?   Let me know, you studied Geology so you should recognize it.

 

  

[The Average Joe]

The ENTIRE AGW panic is that we have "unprecedented" warming and that it is directly linked to CO2. Chris' chart clearly shows that there is NO direct link between CO2 and temperature. A more refined graph will show that CO2 change typically TRAILS temperature change by a few hundred years.

Yes, we all agree that globally, temperatures are increasing slightly. Yes, we all agree that CO2 is increasing, and most agree that that is due to burning of fossil fuels. However, warmists must prove a couple things for their cataclysmic change claim to have any merit.

 

First, and most importantly, they must prove that CO2 drives the temperature, and thus the climate. There is ZERO evidence of this. There are many theories, but none of them have proven the claim. In fact, nearly 100% of the climate models based on those theories have had even their widest margin of error projections outside the ACTUAL measurements.So they fail on that task.

 

Second, they must prove any temperature increase is not due to natural variability. This is an impossible task. There is NO WAY to say how much temperature increase can be attributable to man and how much is natural because they don't understand all the natural processes and how they interact. So they fail on that task.

 

Third, they must prove that a warming planet is a bad thing.  While certain local areas will have negative consequences, globally, there will be a net positive. A greener earth, more crops, etc. At the very worst, I see it as a push. My perspective is that they fail on this task as well.

 

Fourth, they must prove that their "solutions" will actually do anything other than cripple energy production and transfer obscene amounts of money to developing nations. Again, they fail, because that is exactly what they propose.

 

And fifth, they must prove that an increase from 0.03% CO2 to 0.04% or even 0.06% CO2 is a calamity.  As CO2 has been as much as 0.7% , or 15-20 times as much as current, WITHOUT a corresponding increase in temperature, I think they fail in that claim as well.

[Chris]

Great post Joe....!   You are a voice of reason in this time of charlatans and false profits of "climate change" doom and gloom.   Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Ape,  Appreciate your support.

 

Joe,  Will reply to your most recent comments late tonite.  My turn to cook dinner today. 

[Chris]

Ape,  Appreciate your support.

 

Joe,  Will reply to your most recent comments late tonite.  My turn to cook dinner today. 

Watch that CO2 off gassing when you do...!  Some people around here say it's evil stuff, bad stuff, that we got too much of it, it will kill us all.....!    Oh, wait, it's been like at 2500 ppm just 150 million years ago and all the emerging mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, plants, insects, and ocean life was just fine.....  Actually thrived, got real big, diverse, and in spades...!   Not to worry, go ahead and cook your dinner.   We are only at 400 ppm or so now...   I'll start to worry at 2500, or maybe 4000....,  or maybe at.....?   Well hopefully you get the point, this time.    Not to worry.  Chris      

 

[2 Aces]

Today's Trivia Question: Who would continually respond to *panic-stricken climate change trolls* who obviously have a Liberal agenda and who will never admit that their theory might have some holes in it?

Answer: Joe and Chris.

I'm not sure who is crazier, the *climate panic patrol*, or Chris/Joe?

 

It's a toss-up.

[Chris]

Today's Trivia Question: Who would continually respond to climate change trolls who obviously have a Liberal agenda and who will never admit that their theory might have some holes in it?

Answer: Joe and Chris.

I'm not sure who is more stupid. It's a toss-up.

Hey Aces, I see it as a public duty to inform the uniformed on this subject and not let the Anthropogenic Global Warming "Climate Clowns" have the last laugh,the last word without challenging them with the science and the numbers every time.   So far they can't even answer simple questions or acknowledge that CO2 has been in the thousands of ppm in the past and life thrived on this planet.  I can, and I will not concede until they prove me wrong.  So far, they can't.   Just a theory on their part, and a political one at that, not based on any real science and all of the numbers, all of the data.   Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Jos,  some comments on your last...

 

-  In your 1st paragraph,  you state, "...there is no direct link between CO2 and temperature."  Then in the next sentence you state, "A more refined graph will show that CO2 change typically TRAILS temperature change by a few hundred years."    So, there is a direct link between CO2 and temperature?  Or there is no direct link between them?  Which?

 

-  You also reference the graph that's been posted on this forum multiple times claiming, "...there is no direct link between CO2 and temperature."  That graph is completely deficient because it fails to show the concentrations of the three other major greenhouse gasses over the last 600 million years.  Those other gasses being water vapor, methane, and ozone.  Is it possible that those gasses may have played a part in modulating the temperatures over that period of time?  It's certain.  Where is that data?

 

-  In the next paragraph, you state, "...must prove that CO2 drives the temperature, and thus the climate.  There is ZERO evidence of this."   I disagree. There is abundant evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as such, has an effect on temperatures.  See this reference:

 

https://www.skeptica...ouse-effect.htm

 

-  In your next paragraph, you state, "...must prove temperature increase is not due to natural variability.  This is an impossible task."  So you challenge someone to prove something, then say it's impossible to prove.  huh?  Talk about stacking the deck.  It's like me telling you to prove that 2 + 2 = 5.  It's a waste of time for both of us.   BTW, it is impossible.  Know why?  Because you can't prove a negative, sometimes referred to as the Invisible Unicorn Fallacy.

 

-  In your next paragraph, you state, "...must prove that a warming planet is a bad thing."   "Bad thing" is a terribly subjective term.  How do you define "bad thing"?  Then you ask for proof of this "bad thing"?  To prove something, you need a clear definition of the objective.  Here are just a couple of the "bad things" that could happen:

 

     =  For agriculture - CO2 is essential for the growth of crops, but there are a number of other conditions required also...reliable source of water, arable soil, adequate sunlight.  So as the planet warms, we won't be growing corn near Fairbanks because arctic soil is very poor and sunlight is inadequate.

 

     =  For health - fewer people may die during cold spells.  But more will die during heat spells.  The young, sick, and elderly are vulnerable to both.  1000's died in India last summer from heat waves.

 

     =  Disease propagation - warming climate will allow disease bearing insects to migrate further north and south.  Already happening.  Malaria is appearing where it's never been seen before.

 

-    In your next paragraph, you state, "...prove that their solutions will actually do anything...".   That's not how solutions are developed.  Imaging the head of a cancer research facility telling his staff that they must prove that their solutions will work and absolutely cure cancer before he'll fund their projects.  What kind of results will that produce?  Everybody will quit.

 

-  Finally, you state, "...they must prove that an increase of CO2...is a calamity".  We already have the empirical proof.  52 cities along the American East and Gulf coasts are experiencing regular events of tidal flooding (2 - 4 times a month) that are predicted to get more frequent as time passes.  To people living in these areas, the calamity has already arrived.  Go ask them.

[The Average Joe]

Bottom line. If you cannot PROVE your theory (and the onus is on those that submit said theory), then it is just a theory. Not fact. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas and guess what, most models don't include it. Nor are there any accurate models out there for it because global climate is incredibly complex. There is no direct link between CO2 and AGW in the context warminsts use i.e. that it drives the climate. They may be linked in some way, but it seems that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around, although there could be other explanations for this.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In a closed system, it is pretty effective. We do not have a closed system. We have variable carbon sinks, variable radiation, variable cloud cover, variable orbit, variable ozone, etc. No, there is no proof nor accurate climate model that shows current rising levels of CO2 are driving temperature.

 

I merely observe that you cannot prove a negative, nor can you prove a positive. The truth is that scientists have no idea how to model our complex climate, nor do they have any idea what weight to give the dozens of variables. hence it is impossible to claim that one variable is responsible for  x% of actual change.

 

Yep, subjective. Warmists make all kinds of claims, but the truth is, we won't know all the good an bad until time goes by. I stand by my "push" outcome.

 

Yes, you must show that destroying our energy infrastructure, increasing energy costs dramatically and funneling insane amounts of our money to third world nations will actually accomplish anything before we write the check.

 

Again, occasional flooding is not directly linked to CO2, nor is the 2 inches of sea level rise in the last hundred year. Don't build in a flood plain. Or wetlands. Or marsh.

 

I stand by all my statements.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Blindly...