yes plants use CO2 for Photosynthesis. but that's not the end of the story. plants have enough food, the natural Co2 cylces are enough for all the plants. it is our additionally aded CO2 that is NOT used by plants wich is demonstrated by the rising levels of CO2, that is causing troubles, it is reradiating warmth wich leads to a warming up of our atmosphere.
@greenman3610 yeah its sad, i bet that would we start debating about soil depletion and how we could improve the soils he would not take the side of , lets have more plantfood for plants :D
Nope, wouldn't have to do that. Ever hear of hydroponics? NO soil there, just water, & the plants get ALL their carbon to make their FOOD(sugars) from CO2.
In the big picture of earth's history, we now live in a CO2 starved world. The few% extra CO2 humans are adding to the planet are helping GREEN the world. The satellites have proved it too. I'm glad to be a good 'back-to-nature' environmentalist & add all the CO2 that I can!
In PART b/c we are helping the biosphere by adding CO2, but MOSTLY from NATURAL warming. Remember, we only add ~3% of the CO2 that is added to the environment each year. ~97% comes from NATURE!
"it would not if it were used by plants"
Yes, it would if NATURE was adding it faster that it could be consumed by the biosphere.
"mass estinctions[sic]" Really?!? Uhh, who is it that's "knowledge and intellegence[sic] starved" ?!?!
@RealOldOne2 adding? no way. yes Nature produces alot of CO2, far more than we do indeed, but Nature also uses alot more, it uses what it produces, and the additional CO² wich leads to a rise in the CO2 levels are actually mainly do to human activity.
and yes i made a few typos in a for me foreign language. big deal. Yes mass extinction. read about it in many scinetific papers in geology journals
Uhh, is that why CO2 has been CONSTANT throughout earth's history? Oh, wait, it HASN'T been constant. It was 7000PPM in the Cambrian period. You know, when the "Cambrian explosion" occurred. And guess what? That "explosion" didn't destroy life & cause mass extinctions! It was an explosion OF life ONTO the planet, not OFF of the planet.
Yes CO2 IS the breath of LIFE! Below ~150ppm most plant life would be unsustainable.
@RealOldOne2 you know there was also mass extinctions during the cambrian period and even then, i want a slimate that is suitable for humans , not for some other animals or plants.
Well, true to form, you've already lowered yourself to name-calling.
"plants have enough food"
Uhh, then why do commercial greenhouses spend MONEY to add MORE CO2 if plants have ENOUGH food?
Also, perhaps you could educate the US Dept of Agriculture who says: "Extra CO2 by itself will stimulate some growth because plants have more "FOOD" for photosynthesis" 1(dot)usa(dot)gov/zQjZLJ
if you take core samples, you will see that there is a cycle of co2 on the planit. that gos back millions of years, and that this is the start of the cycle to peek agin. carbon tax is what government has want'ed for a long time so they can make you pay to breath air... you sit in front of a tv and git lied to all day long about the real truth. it's important to have an open mind, but not so open that your bran falls out of your head.
heat wave then flood and storms you lot of alarmists really make me sick you lot blame everything on this bullshit theory of mmgw noah had a flood i pretty shore there were storms before and yet all of a sudden ah global warming its just bullshit complete fucken crap
@vmgqie Noah did not have a flood or ark because the bible is nothing more than fairy tales. Its the biggest retard story of the bible, debunked on every level, and anyone who believes that shit is the true dumbass. You religious people cant even spell, and yet you think you are smarter than highly educated scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff. Time to grow up and face reality.
@JabberCT these highly educated scientist are corrupt, global warming is a scam a new way to fund the united nations and for people like al gore to make billions and for gullible fuck wits like you something to be worried about oh my were all going to die oh dear oh my . as for knocking my belief in Jesus Christ you can fuck yourself cross ways dick head but i forgive you my son
@vmgqie I dont worry about man-made warming and neither should anyone else. Its real, but not world ending stuff. Human advancement in solar technology is booming. The world only has between 10-20 years left to use fossil fuels before the oil wells run dry. We cannot destroy the world in that short of a time. All throughout history, it has been science that has shaped our lives, not the bible. And it will be science that once again saves the day, not God. If he exists, he is useless.
@vmgqie Please explain how AGW is a "scam" way of funding the UN. I'm actually dumber now from reading your post. Please take your meds. Also, I can't find any passage in the Bible where Jesus asks his followers to be trolling d-bags.
@SourdoughMusk Typical alarmist nazi keep, your head in the sand with your blinkers on . You lot are the ones on meds thinking people go around giving each other flowers and being nice, to each other. Wake up its about business making loads of money, scientists getting that grant, get the idea global warming is all about money. The united nations are going to get there cut from carbon taxes in each country and then go around pretending to help developing countries mitigate the effects of gw
@vmgqie Can you post a link or reference to something that can substantiate your conspiracy theory? If AGW research was truly "all about the money" then why is there no solid scientific evidence from the skeptics that can counter AGW theory? Solid science stands on it's own. The fact is that oil and coal companies stand to lose money if we reduce fossil fuel usage. So in effect, it's AGW denial that is truly "all about the money".
@SourdoughMusk You really are a naive fool, the oil and coal companies are laughing at you, they know with the tech we have they have a long future ahead. Because the only thing that produces energy without carbon is nuclear and that's dirty and dangerous. If anything we should be throwing everything into research and development but no we make people like al gore rich by putting up inefficient crap like solar and wind
@vmgqie I fail to see what point you are making. You really didn't refute my claim that oil and coal companies stand to lose profits if fossil fuel usage is reduced, thus AGW denial is "all about the money" for them. They have a future ahead if we just go about business as usual. That is assuming the most conservative estimates of the impact of AGW on society. Yes, we should be putting more money into developing alternative enery. No argument there. But again, what is your point?
@SourdoughMusk the point is the technology we have can't produce electricity and run our car's. Solar and wind are to expensive and inefficient. Get it mate do you wont black outs, no transport, no air travel, no factories, no computer, no tv, no nothing. Back to the stone age is that what alarmist nazi wont, throwing us back to the stone well that's the only way to prevent man made global warming
@vmgqie So you don't have a point. You have economic alarmist babble. Your absolutist argument is ridiculous. Neither myself nor the others I know, who are concerned about AGW, say the only solution is to go "back to the stone age". In fact clean energy will create a new economic and technological paradigm. I recommend you watch some of greenman's vids on renewable energy. Your comment that wind and solar are too expensive and inefficient is simply incorrect.
@SourdoughMusk all you alarmist are absolutely off your fucken rockers, your a bunch of impractical lunatics living in fantasy land. Your a whole pack of raving psychopaths who need to be rounded up and stuck in a psychiatric ward for your own good, until you see reason like normal people
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some SCARY SCENARIOS, make simplified DRAMATIC statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the RIGHT balance between being effective, and BEING HONEST” Schneider 1989
“Unless we announce disaster, no one will listen”-Sir John Houghton- 1st Chairman of the IPCC
@RealOldOne2 Nice quote mining there. I'm not sure you're aware that the IPCC's projections were conservative to avoid appearing alarmist. It's not alarmist to warn people about AGW. It's a real problem that exists in the real world. The concern is backed by science. It is alarmist, however, to rant about economic destruction caused by policies to reduce AGW when there is no economic study that supports that idea.
The quotes are accurate. Your beef is w/them, not me.
The IPCC is alarmist to the core BECAUSE ~30% of the cited refs come from GRAY literature ADVOCACY sources, NOT peer-reviewed science & b/c it dismisses things counter to its predetermined conclusions. It's NEVER been about the science. The fact that they started full-bore on WG2(adaptation) & WG3(mitigation) from the inception PROVES that. They didn't wait to see if they were needed. Assumed so!
@RealOldOne2 Please inform us which of those references are not peer reviewed and what contribution they made to the IPCC. Please tell us all of the things dismissd because they were "counter to its predetermined conclusions". I'll be waiting...
@SourdoughMusk "Please inform us which of those references are not peer reviewed and what contribution they made to the IPCC"
bit(dot)ly/yqHi0e
There you go. EVERY ref. in IPCC AR4 & which ones are peer reviewed & which ones that aren't.
You can cross reference to the AR4 to see all the things that should be dismissed b/c it's non-peer reviewed, since Pachauri claims it's ALL peer reviewed!
@RealOldOne2 The MCA report is also a propaganda piece. There is no mention of inputs. No mention of cost/benefit. As I said before it is basically MCA running an economic model (without giving the inputs) and asking us to just trust their results. Sorry, that does not cut it.
@RealOldOne2 Sorry, but neither paper gives FACTS. No modelling gives facts Modelling gives possible outcomes. That is why there should be an upper and lower range. It appears you misunderstand the purpose of economic and scientific modelling.
Wow, why am I not surprised at just another DODGE! There are many facts there in the assumptions & economic modelling. You haven't disputed a SINGLE one of them. So pitiful! But so typical.
You have NO arguments.
Science admits its errors & moves on. Religion doesn't. You are demonstrating which one you hold.
@RealOldOne2 Please give me the facts from the MCA paper! Your hyperbole is wearing thin. No economic or scientific modelling outcome can be viewed as a "FACT" unless it happens in the real world. How is that an error?
They're in the conclusions that you fail to rebut. Even the Australian gov't analysis shows that there are high costs. The MCA paper just finds that they are HIGHER.
Why do you drone on criticizing these economic analyses, but FAIL to admit that you were WRONG when you said that NO economic analyses existed.
Your failure to admit your ERROR shows that you aren't interested in the TRUTH. You're just promoting your RELIGION!
@RealOldOne2 How can I rebut the MCA paper!?!?! They don't give any data on inputs or calculations. Why do you keep bringing that paper up? It is a propaganda piece pure and simple. It is meant to promote a political agenda!
@RealOldOne2 Sorry...I should have removed the odd formatting from when I CnP'd the line from p36 of the NRTEE doc, it should read: "Nor do we compare the costs and benefits of mitigation with the costs and benefits of adaptation. Climate change is real and requires concerted international action involving both mitigation — here and elsewhere — to reduce future emissions and adaptation to live with the climate impact results of past emissions." Still shows that you misread the doc.
I have NEVER said it's not real. The climate has changed throughout the history of the planet, w/o ANY help from mankind, AND that's what is presently happening. It's NATURE doing its thing. Any 'human caused' change is lost in the overwhelming natural variability of the climate.
"and requires concerted international action"
WRONG! That's just the baseless allegations & hype of your alarmist religion.
@RealOldOne2 And the Monckton paper is also useless. Where do you get this idea that the costs are 100x the benefits from the Canadian regulations? Monckton's paper cannot be used to judge true cost/benefit because he purposefully omits any other benefits besides CO2 mitigation. If he is going to attempt to scale up the costs he would need to scale up the other benefits as well. There are other problems with it as well. You can't hold that paper up as a true CBA.
@RealOldOne2 So far you have not provided any economic analysis that refutes what I said originally. The cognitive dissonance lies within you. You have been shown that the works you cited are very poor examples (if you could call them that) of the economic impact of climate change (or even of the regulations assailed). Yet you cling to them.
@RealOldOne2 Yes...you have not provided any real economic impact analysis that shows mitigation is useless. The MCA paper is trying to show the impact of ONE piece of legislature in ONE country. Except, as I have stated previously, it does not really give any analysis beyond projections for increases of consumer pricing. IN NO WAY is it an assessment of mitigation in general. It is also in no way a real cost/benefit analysis.
@RealOldOne2 I never stated no economic analyses existed. I said there weren't any that economic analyses that showed doing nothing is better than mitigation. I'll be honest and say that may have been a grandiose claim. Perhaps there is an analysis that refutes my claim. However, you have not presented one so far.
@SourdoughMusk “I never stated no economic analyses existed. I said there weren't any that economic analyses that showed doing nothing is better than mitigation”
Nice try at changing the goal line, but no dice. THIS is what you said: “It is alarmist, however, to rant about economic destruction caused by policies to reduce AGW when there is no economic study that supports that idea”.
NOTHING there about “doing nothing”. It was about AGW reducing policies' "economic destruction".
I merely pointed you to 2 studies that DO show the astronomical cost/°C of some different policies that attempt to prevent warming. If you can’t comprehend that spending HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of $ to “reduce AGW” would cause economic destruction, then you are delusional & have no grasp of reality. Especially when you consider that those TRILLIONS even assume that the wildly exaggerated effect of CO2 are correct. If not, the costs are even HIGHER/°C!
@RealOldOne2 Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that idea. The evidence shows that the climate is changing due to man's activities. Even Monckton admits this even if he attempts to downplay the effects. Yes, it's clearly me who suffers from the cognitive dissonance here.
@SourdoughMusk "Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that idea"
WOW, you are seriously displaying an abundance of ignorance now!
No solid scientific evidence? Really? How about 4 billion years of earth's climate history? Back & forth b/t hot house to ice ages w/CO2 being lower & 18 TIMES higher than present w/o ANY help from man!
But you believe MAN'S recent 30 yrs are unprecedented!
@RealOldOne2 Displaying an abundance of ignorance? I find that ironic coming from you. You misunderstand me. I did not say all climate change is manmade. I did not dispute that the climate has changed in the past or that CO2 and temp have been higher in the past. That was never in dispute. However, the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years is certainly in large part to man's activities. That is not in dispute in the peer reviewed science literature.
@RealOldOne2 Displaying an abundance of ignorance? I find that ironic coming from you. You misunderstand me. I did not say all climate change is manmade. I did not dispute that the climate has changed in the past or that CO2 and temp have been higher in the past. That was never in dispute. However, the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years is certainly in large part to man's activities. This is supported in the peer reviewed science literature.
@SourdoughMusk "I did not say that all climate change is man-made"
While you didn’t use the word “all”(& I never claimed you did), you certainly IMPLIED that nature had ALMOST nothing to do w/it & it was ALMOST entirely due to man.
HERE is what you said: “you are COMPLETELY incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle.” Get that? You DIDN’T say that I was PARTLY incorrect b/c nature only had a small part in it. No, you said that I was COMPLETELY incorrect.
@SourdoughMusk (man made cont 1) That certainly implies that nature had ALMOST nothing to do w/it.
Then you went on to say: “There is NO solid scientific evidence to support that idea” Get that? You DIDN’T say that there was LITTLE scientific evidence to support the change was natural. You said that there was NO solid scientific evidence to support that the change was caused by natural causes. That certainly implies that nature had ALMOST nothing to do w/it.
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 2) After essentially eliminating natural causes, COMPLETELY incorrect & NO solid scientific evidence, you went on to say:“The evidence shows that the climate is changing due to MAN’S activities”
Get that? You DIDN’T say MOST or A GOOD DEAL of the change is due to man. No, you essentially ruled out nature & then state that the evidence shows that the climate is changing due to MAN’S activities. That certainly implies that it was ALMOST entirely due to man.
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 3) So what’s up w/the Monckton bit? I’ve never denied that man’s CO2 has AN effect. I’ve just said that it’s a MINOR effect.
My exact words were: “Any 'human caused' change is lost in the overwhelming natural variability of the climate”
“However, the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years is certainly in large part to man's activities. This is supported in the peer reviewed science literature.”
100 years? No, not even the alarmist IPCC claims that
@SourdoughMusk(m-m cont 4) You’re all by yourself on that claim. Show me ANY empirical scientific evidence saying the warming that occurred between ≈1910 & ≈1940 (which was just as rapid as the warming between ≈1970 & ≈2000) was “in large part” due to man’s activities. There's NONE
The ONLY peer reviewed science that supports even the recent warming is based on MODELS, NOT empirical measured data. Models are NOT evidence. Their output is merely a result of how they were programmed
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 5) The climate models are programmed w/an ASSUMED high climate sensitivity due to GHG, & they are NOT programmed to accurately model natural climate variables such as clouds, etc., so they are NOT evidence proving that the recent warming is man-made. Just taking a single example of clouds, the IPCC admits that the LOSU(Level of Scientific Understanding) for cloud radiative forcing is LOW!
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 6) If your LOSU is low, there is NO WAY you can accurately program the models to handle them, & if they aren’t programmed accurately, then there is NO WAY that you can rule them out as a cause of changes in the climate.
Now, add in THESE natural climate variables: sunspots; geomagnetic field changes; AO; NAO; PDO; SOI; El Niño; La Niña; cosmic rays; oceanic circulations; volcanos; simultaneous solution of atmos convections(heat transport) AND radiation.
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 7) Now, add the VARIABILITY(periodicity & intensity) in each of those natural climate variables; AND add the simultaneous interactions of ALL those. These natural variables, along w/clouds are also NOT accurately modeled.
Next consider that there are most certainly other unknown natural variables that we haven't even discovered yet.
THAT'S why climate MODELS can NOT be evidence ruling out natural causes of warming. We just don't know enough to do that now.
@SourdoughMusk “If even the last 30 years warming is natural then please explain what is the natural forcing causing it?”
No, you can’t change the null hypothesis. You’ve admitted that climate change before the last 100 years was due to natural causes, so THAT’S the null hypothesis.
If you're claiming that climate change is NOW due to man’s activities, instead of nature, YOU must prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have to prove nothing. And remember, MODELS are NOT proof.
@SourdoughMusk “If even the last 30 years warming is natural then please explain what is the natural forcing causing it?”
No, you can’t change the null hypothesis. You’ve admitted that climate change before the last 100 years was due to natural causes, so THAT’S the null hypothesis.
If you're claiming that climate change is NOW due to man’s activities, instead of nature, YOU must prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have to prove nothing. And remember, MODELS are NOT proof.
We are still in the infancy stage in the understanding of our vastly complex climate system. A few decades ago some scientists were suggesting that we should spread black soot over the polar ice to prevent the then ongoing 3 decades of global cooling. Aren’t you glad they didn’t do that?
Now some scientists are suggesting that we spread aerosols in the upper atmosphere or we sequester CO2 underground to prevent continued warming.
BOTH of those 'climate action' suggestions are analogous to past ‘blood-letting’ of the medical professionals to rid the human body of disease. Medical science was in its infancy & the so-called ‘cure’ did more harm than good.
As a scientist, it's good that we're learning more, but we ARE still in the infancy stage of understanding the complexity & workings of our climate system.
Claiming that we KNOW anthro CO2 is driving climate is hubris.
@RealOldOne2 LOL! Your claiming to know more than the scientists who have studied AGW for 30 years is hubris. The fact is there is an energy imbalance at TOA. The amount of energy coming in from the sun and the amount radiating back into space is not balanced. The imbalance is due to the GH effect and feedbacks related to he increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your attempt to "sell the controversy" is not backed by the scientific research.
@SourdoughMusk "no economic study that supports that idea"
As is typical of CAGW zealots, you are just parroting the lies you've been gullible enough to swallow.
Here's one showing the cost to Australia: bit(dot)ly/A3VCS4
By 2020: reduction of GDP by $180B(~2%); reduction of investment by ~3.4%; reduction of real wages ~2%; reduction of cumulative household earning of >$11,000; 30% INCREASE in electricity prices; etc.
@RealOldOne2 And you cite an economic modelling paper by an Australian mining industry association. That's a big grain of salt right there. Models create many different outcomes yet this paper cites only one of those projections and shows no supporting data or graphs. This paper is also highly suspect.
@SourdoughMusk The Minerals Council only did the study themselves after the Australian Treasury would not allow the Centre for Economic Analysis to analyze the Treasury modelling on the carbon price.
Guess they learned that from Jones & Co. at UEA. Why should I give you my stinkin' data if all you are going to do is show that it's wrong.
REFUTE the study, don't just cast aspersions on who did it. You know, like science is supposed to be done.
@RealOldOne2 That mining concil paper is not a scientific paper. It's them basically saying "well we ran some numbers through our model and here's what we got". They give no graphs or statistical figures. They treat one outcome like it is the whole truth. Next time, post a peer-reviewed paper from an economics journal.
Nope, that's not how it's done in the business/economic world. CBO (Congressional Budget Office) reports aren't peer-reviewed either, but economic decisions affecting the whole nation are based on them.
What a pathetic excuse & dodge.
Refute the ANALYSIS, don't just whine about peer-review.
@RealOldOne2 You said "REFUTE the study, don't just cast aspersions on who did it. You know, like science is supposed to be done." So, in essence you did say it was a scientific paper. And, in fact, economics is considered a social science. However, that paper would not pass a peer review process because it is very limited in scope and conclusions. Models create a range of outcomes so why do they not show this range? LIkely because they want to give the reader a carefully limited view.
@SourdoughMusk "So, in essence you did say it was a scientific paper"
Hahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHA
No, "do the science" means replicate the study & prove it wrong if you can.
All you're doing is dodging the issue by your whining. You're a clueless blowhard, just like greenman because you NEVER back your allegations! Because you CAN'T.
Quit your whining & show us that you can actually do something!
@RealOldOne2 You are just trolling now. Monckton's previous claims have been roundly refuted. I think it's understandable that I would be suspicious of any of his assertions. The Australian mining industry has a vested interest in exaggerating the negative economic impact of a carbon tax. That makes me suspicious of their modelling outcomes. This is compounded by the lack of a range of outcomes in the paper.
@RealOldOne2 Also, you stated in an earlier comment that the Australian economic paper showed a decrease in GDP with no measurable reduction in global temp. However, that paper you cited never mentions global temp. They only give a limited scope of the possible economic impact from a carbon tax. Were you confusing it with Monckton's assumptions?
You think Australia's carbon tax is going to have a measurable effect on global temp?
All it will do is move the industry to another country like China or India who aren't so stupid! And they will probably emit MORE CO2 b/c they have poorer technologies than Australia.
Quit dodging & refute the economic analysis!
WOW, 1st you claim that there are NO economic analyses, then when you're shown WRONG, all you can do is whine!
Hold everything! This whole thing started w/your dogmatic claim:“there is NO economic study that supports that idea”. And NOW you're pointing ME to an economic study! Guess you’ve been busy googling, huh? Well, now that you've found one you can admit that you were wrong!
Go ahead, repeat after me, "I was wrong, there ARE economic studies showing the high costs trying to abate AGW."
Or will you REFUSE to admit a mistake, like gm & most CAGW alarmists?
@SourdoughMusk & WOW, a Canadian study that does NOT refute Monckton. In fact it REINFORCES the point I was making. The report (p.17) finds that ADAPTATION is 9 to 38 TIMES more cost effective than ABATING!
& hold the phones! You said b/c Monckton used “ASSUMPTIONS?!?!?!” “said it all”. Did you read p.28? It says:“to our ASSUMPTIONS of global CLIMATE futures, we overlay a distinct set of ASSUMPTIONS about Canada’s future population and ECONOMIC growth”, EXACTLY what Monckton did!
@RealOldOne2 RWR also tries to show the amount of GHG being mitigated is tiny in comparison to global emissions. That may be true, but Monckton purposefully excludes the co-benefits so as to make the regulations appear useless. He also frames this against the assumption that no other countries will be reducing their GHG emissions between 2015-2030. This makes RWR more of a propaganda piece than a real economic impact analysis.
That's the BEST you can do? He excluded them b/c they were INSIGNIFICANT compared to the 2 to 4 ORDERS-OF-MAGNITUDE costlier mitigation schemes! That's 100+X!
But rather than just finding a LAME excuse for disregarding Monckton's entire report, TELL US how INCLUDING co-benefits would alter Monckton's conclusions!
Come on, DO THE WORK of showing his analysis is flawed. You CAN'T, which is why you obfuscate w/ SILLY arguments!
@RealOldOne2 Nowhere on p17 of the doc I posted does it say adaptation is 9 to 38 more times cost effective than mitigation! That is adaptation vs inaction. "Nor do we compare the costs and benefits of mitigation
with the costs and benefits of adaptation. Climate change is real and requires concerted international action
involving both mitigation — here and elsewhere — to reduce future emissions and adaptation to live with
the climate impact results of past emissions." - p36
OK, I'll give you that. BUT, it's still bogus because the report FAILS to show a single $ of economic LOSS due to the ALREADY 1°C of warming that has ALREADY occurred!
You conveniently overlooked the simple math: $0 X 3 = 0! Their economic cost of inaction is TOTALLY bogus. They needed NO assumptions to measure the "costs" of the warming that has already occured. Why didn't they do it? Obviously because they COULDN'T show ANY costs!
@SourdoughMusk p.35 states: "Canada has ALREADY warmed MORE than the global average with warming to date estimated at OVER 1°C".
On p.18 they state that a 2°C warming would cost Canada $21-43B/yr.
But they conveniently FAIL to look at HISTORY & see how much that 1°C warming HAS ALREADY cost Canada! They don't need to make ANY assumptions for that. They can do it w/FACTS & DATA. Perhaps b/c that 1°C warming cost Canada NOTHING! In fact they probably benefited from it.
@RealOldOne2 Also, Monckton's paper attempts to show that EC's regulations are not a cost effective global method for reducing GHG emissions. Well no duh! The regulations never claim them to be a global solution. One cost effective method of mitigation for one country does not neccessarily equate to be the same for another country. Monckton appears to be creating a straw man.
@SourdoughMusk "One cost effective method of mitigation for one country does not necessarily equate to be the same for another country"
FAIL! You can NOT point to a SINGLE cost effective method of reducing GHG for ANY country!
"Monckton APPEARS"
Of course, to you true-believers in CAGW. You've got NOTHING except to attack the person. It's called the logical fallacy of "ad hominum", 'against the person'. It TOTALLY fails to address the issue. It's just a diversion.
1st "cost" from report is timber. Has timber industry suffered from 1°C? Remember Mann's hokey stick reconstruction? Warmer means BIGGER tree rings, MORE lumber, BETTER economics!
2nd "cost" is damage/relocation from sea level rise. How much has that 1°C cost for THAT? Nothing!
3rd "cost" is healthcare/death. How much has that 1°C cost for THAT? Nothing!
@RealOldOne2 And on his "Regulation Without Reason"... "Co-benefits external to mitigation of CO2 forcing are also excluded from this analysis." That says it all. That paper is not an economic analysis if it excludes co-benefits. Monckton claims this is to clarify if CO2 mitigation is itself in the public good. It is actually cherry picking because he is not giving the full picture of the cost/benefit scenario.
Hold the phones, I thought "assumptions" says it all?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Make up your mind. Oh yeah, you're conflicted. It's called cognitive dissonance. A condition that afflicts all CAGW believers. It how they deal w/the FACTS and REALITY of the world NOT warming as their RELIGION predicted.
So sad. Get some professional help before you experience a JoeRomm brain explosion as has happened to some other of your fellow-believers posting on YT.
@SourdoughMusk 4th "cost" is ecosystems, The negative example on p.17 they give for that is:"reduced availability of lake trout COULD lead to loss of recreational fishing expenditures" Yep, that would CRIPPLE the nation. Oh, maybe not since the give NO $ figure. Hmm, & NO reference to peer-reviewed study there, NOR even a reference to any advocacy gray literature! How much has that 1°C cost for THAT? Nada!
Now do some simple math. $0X3=how much? No wonder they didn't report that!
@SourdoughMusk So you can see from these excerpts from the summary portion of the report, that it has little substance. It's all about what "COULD" happen. There are ~200 "COULD"s in the ~100p. report body!
& again, the report says NOTHING about what already HAS happened. That would poke a hole in this balloon & let all the alarmist air out of it!
Now, why don't YOU "do the science" for Monckton's, IPCC quote audit & Min. council reports & point out THEIR flaws
@RealOldOne2 Spam much? Geez, I'm gone for a few days and you go to town. First off, Monckton HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A LIAR....repeatedly...GM's videos and potholer54's document this. Realclimate(dot)org, John Abraham, Bickmore, the list goes on and on. You choosing to dismiss the evidence does not make it go away.
@RealOldOne2 Your apparent arrogance and hand waving is not backed up. The Monckton paper and the MCA paper are not true economic impact analyses. That is a fact. Then you misread the paper I posted as supporting Monkcton when it does not. So you can keep thinking you are "destroying" my posts but really you look rather desperate.
Apparent, NOT actual. I'm correct. That's NOT arrogance. And sorry Charley, I'm not the one doing the hand waving! Look in the mirror & you'll see the one doing the hand waving, ad hominem arguments.
That's all you can do. You CAN'T refute the economic analyses.
And it's past time to admit your error that there are no economic analyses. You even provided one. So be honest & fess up! But I know you won't. It's Against your RELIGION
@RealOldOne2 Oh and the MCA "report" also fails to give any upper or lower range for the outcomes. And how can I "do the science" or the math as it were when MCA fails to give their inputs or calculations. As I said, it's a propaganda piece.
@SourdoughMusk "economic study"(2) Here's one on proposed Canada coal reg: bit(dot)ly/y3wsdm Cost-$6.4B; CO2 reduction by 2030- 0.012ppm; glob temp red.- 0.00007°C. On a global basis, to abate the projected 0.25°C b/t 2015-2030, the cost per °C of various approaches would be:
@RealOldOne2 Crow? LOL! Are you serious? You are citing a Monckton paper from a blog site...with a straight face? He doesn't even list citations throughout. Those figures come without qualification. You'll have to do better than that.
You guys hate him don't you. He makes such a fool of you all!
"figures come without qualification"
The technical annex of his analysis gives all the climatological & economic assumptions to verify his analysis. So instead of pooh poohing it, PROVE IT WRONG. You know, how science is done!
By all means, point out his errors.
If I don't hear back from you, I'll know it was all CORRECT!
@RealOldOne2 Actually, if Monckton's report was as accurate as he claims why didn't he list citations throughout. Anyone can post a list of references at the end of a paper. But not citing which reference the figures come from IN THE PAPER raises eyebrows. He should be clear about where the figures come from. As the reader it's not my responsibility to look through all the references to try and piece together where he gets the figures from. Why don't you do that and get back to me.
Those aren't references at the end, so I have NOTHING to do. They are the supporting assumptions so that ANYONE, well anyone that can do math & has basic reasoning skills, can verify or PROVE HIM WRONG.
But I guess that's above your ability.
Prove Monckton wrong!
BTW, how many of those JUNK references from the IPCC report aren't valid.
@RealOldOne2 Oh! So that is not a list of references at the end of Monckton's paper? You mean the section titled "References"? I'm close to calling your intelligence into question.
@SourdoughMusk You didn't read my first response to you. It’s in the TECHNICAL ANNEX section, get it? He gives all the climatic assumptions & economic assumptions necessary to replicate his cost/benefit analysis. There's no need to cite, b/c he DOES the analysis based on his listed assumptions. You don't need the references to replicate his analysis. That's just a DODGE.
If you think his analysis is flawed, replicate his analysis & SHOW US where he's wrong!
@RealOldOne2 He does the analysis based on his listed ASSUMPTIONS?!?!?! You've said it all right there. No reason to cite sources when he has his assumptions. So no need to show where he got his figures from because he just makes assumptions. That's ludicrous!
@SourdoughMusk "Monckton has been refuted consistently time and time again ... v="
You point me to greenman's CROCKs!?!?
A cartoonist who makes propaganda videos?!?!
Hahahaha
Gm debunked nothing by Monckton. Merely propaganda easily shown to be bogus, as I've done w/each one I've dissected, 'In the 70s', 'Ben Santer', 'Mini ice-age'.
You're just like gm:"watch v=" & points to his own vids. Like saying: If you don't believe me just look at what I said over here. CIRCULAR reasoning!
@RealOldOne2 So how does deleting comments amount to the information on the site being untrustworthy? Poptech's comments were incorrect...climate models do not have to be 100% percent accurate to be useful. Also, his use of "Utter propaganda" shows a level of bias that is not accepted on SkS. Your first three links all discusss this same "commentgate". You could have just posted one of those. And the Pielke response: The graphs he lists that he claims "don't show warming", show warming.
@SourdoughMusk SS=PROPAGANDA SITE! Selectively removes comments to make those who post valid points look foolish b/c he has removed or changed comments. MAJOR DECEIT! UNTRUSTWORTHY! Absolutely NO POINT in going there b/c of that.
Well, you don't seem to get things w/just one reading. Thought it might sink in if you read it 3 times w/some additional info each time.
@RealOldOne2 You, like most deniers, have the whiff of conpiracy theory about you. So because some comments were deleted that means the peer-reviewed sources cited in the articles is false? That's a big leap.
@RealOldOne2 And yes, you quote mined...google the term "quote mining". In fact, the Houghton quote is complete bullshit. independent(dot)co(dot)uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552(dot)html. Talk about parroting the lies you've been told!
Accurate quote is from London Sunday Telegraph of Sept 10, 1995:“If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster”.
Manchester Guardian of July 28, 2003, Houghton luridly ascribed numerous specific natural disasters to “global warming”, which he described as “a weapon of mass destruction” that was “at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism”
Dr James Hansen, Dr Benjamin Santer, Dr Andrew Dessler - they are all experts in this field. They are serious scientists. Trolls like Alex Jones, Monckington, Delingpole, Donald Dump could learn a lot by listening to them.
There is no such thing as a "global warming alarmist". What's that?
There is only people who advocate taking action in proportion to the magnitude of the problem. Since anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been proven a hundred times over to be a serious and to get worse if we stick with Business As Usual (BAU), then we advocate taking swift aggressive action on it, same way militaries go in to countries to stop genocides.
It is a 100% scientifically proven fact that the plants on this plannet are CO2-starved, they evolved in an atmosphere with at least 10 times the CO2 of today, CO2 does not drive global climate, the Sun does. I dare you lying global warming alarmists to say global warming instead of climate change, you darent because you know for a fact its not warming so STFU
@judoyodan Not interested. We live on a plannet who's surface is 2 thirds water, orbiting the Sun. Go do some image searches for "global temperature 2000 to 2011", "atmospheric CO2 2000 to 2011", "Sunspots 2000 to 2011", "solar output 2000 to 2011", "Ocean PDO". Look at some graphs. What you will find is that atmospheric CO2 is almost irrelevant compared to the Sun & the Ocean when it comes to driving global climate.
@judoyodan Yes that's right; my not being interested in religion, or your silly little guessing game, means that I am lazy & willfully ignorant. Of course if on the contrary I was interested in religion then that would also explain my "level of ignorance" as you put it. In conclusion you are just trying to change the subject. Who is the irnorant one, the person who has done the research or the person who has not. You'll found out that CO2 can only possibly account for 10% max. of climate change.
@mphello "is rightwing fundamentalist christian, as all AGW-deniers are"
No. FACTS prove you wrong again:
"I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming. . .I am a research scientist who also served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Navy. I am also a lifelong PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT" - John O'Sullivan
bit(dot)ly/tYxzKz
You must have learned how to use 'ALL' from our imacluelessblowhard3610 host who said- "In the 70s. . .ALL climate scientists BELIEVED", quoting a FICTIONAL character!
@PastafariansWON You've taken my comment out of context. I was talking about Earth-climate & not the whole Earth-atmosphere but only a tiny tiny fraction of that atmosphere which is the CO2 in it & of that tiny fraction of the Earth-atmosphere only a very tiny fraction of the CO2 is man-made. It is almost impossible for man-made carbon emissions to make any significant difference to the overall climate. To compare this difference to the difference in climate between Venus & Mercury is ludicrous.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
The other concern I have is before the 1900s temperature readings were almost non existant, and up until the 1980s sparse at best. To rely on the last 100 years of data and set a trend off of is highly inncaruate, and it is likely skewed only due to the fact that satellite and temperature measuring technology is brand new.
I have a few moot points. First, I think channelization of the rivers has brought more light to flood severity as, in the past, we didn't really care as much about river levels before the rivers were channelized. Second concern I have is the data - in another video you state that the tree ring data from the 60s to now has gone the opposite way of CO2 emissions. What's to say that this didn't happen numerous times in the past and CO2 emissions peaked and dwindled numerous times in the past.
Plant food.........i would laugh if it was not so sad.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur Yes, it IS so sad that greenman denies that CO2 is plant food isn't it?
Kids learn THAT in elementary school science. Mr.Cluelessblowhard3610 must have missed it.
Go ahead & laugh. Greenman's videos are a HOOT!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 are you really that dumb?
yes plants use CO2 for Photosynthesis. but that's not the end of the story. plants have enough food, the natural Co2 cylces are enough for all the plants. it is our additionally aded CO2 that is NOT used by plants wich is demonstrated by the rising levels of CO2, that is causing troubles, it is reradiating warmth wich leads to a warming up of our atmosphere.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur
yes, he's really that dumb.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 yeah its sad, i bet that would we start debating about soil depletion and how we could improve the soils he would not take the side of , lets have more plantfood for plants :D
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur "start debating about soil depletion"
Nope, wouldn't have to do that. Ever hear of hydroponics? NO soil there, just water, & the plants get ALL their carbon to make their FOOD(sugars) from CO2.
In the big picture of earth's history, we now live in a CO2 starved world. The few% extra CO2 humans are adding to the planet are helping GREEN the world. The satellites have proved it too. I'm glad to be a good 'back-to-nature' environmentalist & add all the CO2 that I can!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 so why are the CO2 levels rising? it would not if it were used by plants.
and we are not in a CO2 starved world. actually history shows, CO2 that high and higher has led to mass estinctions.
you sound like you come from a knowledge and intellegence starved enviroment.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur "so why are the CO2 levels rising?"
In PART b/c we are helping the biosphere by adding CO2, but MOSTLY from NATURAL warming. Remember, we only add ~3% of the CO2 that is added to the environment each year. ~97% comes from NATURE!
"it would not if it were used by plants"
Yes, it would if NATURE was adding it faster that it could be consumed by the biosphere.
"mass estinctions[sic]" Really?!? Uhh, who is it that's "knowledge and intellegence[sic] starved" ?!?!
Hahahahahahaha
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 adding? no way. yes Nature produces alot of CO2, far more than we do indeed, but Nature also uses alot more, it uses what it produces, and the additional CO² wich leads to a rise in the CO2 levels are actually mainly do to human activity.
and yes i made a few typos in a for me foreign language. big deal. Yes mass extinction. read about it in many scinetific papers in geology journals
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur "it uses what it produces"
Uhh, is that why CO2 has been CONSTANT throughout earth's history? Oh, wait, it HASN'T been constant. It was 7000PPM in the Cambrian period. You know, when the "Cambrian explosion" occurred. And guess what? That "explosion" didn't destroy life & cause mass extinctions! It was an explosion OF life ONTO the planet, not OFF of the planet.
Yes CO2 IS the breath of LIFE! Below ~150ppm most plant life would be unsustainable.
Plants say 'WE WANT MORE'!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 you know there was also mass extinctions during the cambrian period and even then, i want a slimate that is suitable for humans , not for some other animals or plants.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
@Aanthanur "mass extinctions" There MAY have been, but CO2 isn't thought to have caused them.
"The two most accepted current hypotheses for the Cambrian extinction are:
Glaciation in the early Ordovician
Cooling and depletion of oxygen in marine waters" bit(dot)ly/xmftNS
Yep, GLACIATION (that's ICE!) & COOLING, NOT global warming.
"slimate that is suitable for humans"
Don't lose any sleep over CO2/warming. If you insist on worrying, worry about COOLING or the next ice age.
COLD KILLS!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 i dont worry about a future ice age, i worry that we might end the current ice age. i like the interglacial time we are in.
Aanthanur 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aanthanur "i dont worry about a future ice age, i worry that we might end the current ice age. i like the interglacial time we are in"
WOW, I had to capture that entire quote for posterity!
You say we ARE in a "CURRENT ICE AGE". AND you state that we ARE in an INTERGLACIAL.
"An Interglacial... is a geological interval of warmer global avg temp... that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age"
Dude, an interglacial ends w/another ICE AGE!
Textbook cognitive dissonance!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@greenman3610 "yes, he's really that dumb"
Hahahahaha. Yep, another one of your snide little comments. Too bad you CAN'T answer any of my comments where I DESTROY your propaganda crocks!
Ready to admit your ERRORS on GL ice & BOGUS Ben Santer Myth & BOGUS Mini-ice age myth & FICTIONAL character quote source & on & on?
No, I know you'll just go into FULL DUMMY-UP mode after your silly one-liner. So who's the REAL dummy, Mr.Cluelessblowhard3610?
Hahaha
HAHAHAhahaha
HAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@Aanthanur "are you really that dumb"
Hahahahaha
Well, true to form, you've already lowered yourself to name-calling.
"plants have enough food"
Uhh, then why do commercial greenhouses spend MONEY to add MORE CO2 if plants have ENOUGH food?
Also, perhaps you could educate the US Dept of Agriculture who says: "Extra CO2 by itself will stimulate some growth because plants have more "FOOD" for photosynthesis" 1(dot)usa(dot)gov/zQjZLJ
Yes, CO2 IS plant food!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@noneuno53
somehow, I had that mental picture already. must be psychic.
anyhow, don't despair. with your qualifications, you can run for president as a republican.
greenman3610 1 month ago
if you take core samples, you will see that there is a cycle of co2 on the planit. that gos back millions of years, and that this is the start of the cycle to peek agin. carbon tax is what government has want'ed for a long time so they can make you pay to breath air... you sit in front of a tv and git lied to all day long about the real truth. it's important to have an open mind, but not so open that your bran falls out of your head.
noneuno53 3 months ago
@noneuno53
yu bin gittin lahd to till yer bran fell out, feller.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 im sorry i dont speek hillbilly.
noneuno53 1 month ago
heat wave then flood and storms you lot of alarmists really make me sick you lot blame everything on this bullshit theory of mmgw noah had a flood i pretty shore there were storms before and yet all of a sudden ah global warming its just bullshit complete fucken crap
vmgqie 3 months ago
@vmgqie
noah?
greenman3610 3 months ago
@greenman3610 noah with the fucking ark you know 2 animals from each type dumbass
vmgqie 3 months ago
@vmgqie
oh, THAT Noah.
greenman3610 3 months ago
@vmgqie Noah did not have a flood or ark because the bible is nothing more than fairy tales. Its the biggest retard story of the bible, debunked on every level, and anyone who believes that shit is the true dumbass. You religious people cant even spell, and yet you think you are smarter than highly educated scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff. Time to grow up and face reality.
JabberCT 1 month ago
@JabberCT these highly educated scientist are corrupt, global warming is a scam a new way to fund the united nations and for people like al gore to make billions and for gullible fuck wits like you something to be worried about oh my were all going to die oh dear oh my . as for knocking my belief in Jesus Christ you can fuck yourself cross ways dick head but i forgive you my son
vmgqie 1 month ago
Comment removed
JabberCT 1 month ago
@vmgqie I dont worry about man-made warming and neither should anyone else. Its real, but not world ending stuff. Human advancement in solar technology is booming. The world only has between 10-20 years left to use fossil fuels before the oil wells run dry. We cannot destroy the world in that short of a time. All throughout history, it has been science that has shaped our lives, not the bible. And it will be science that once again saves the day, not God. If he exists, he is useless.
JabberCT 1 month ago
@vmgqie Please explain how AGW is a "scam" way of funding the UN. I'm actually dumber now from reading your post. Please take your meds. Also, I can't find any passage in the Bible where Jesus asks his followers to be trolling d-bags.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk Typical alarmist nazi keep, your head in the sand with your blinkers on . You lot are the ones on meds thinking people go around giving each other flowers and being nice, to each other. Wake up its about business making loads of money, scientists getting that grant, get the idea global warming is all about money. The united nations are going to get there cut from carbon taxes in each country and then go around pretending to help developing countries mitigate the effects of gw
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie Can you post a link or reference to something that can substantiate your conspiracy theory? If AGW research was truly "all about the money" then why is there no solid scientific evidence from the skeptics that can counter AGW theory? Solid science stands on it's own. The fact is that oil and coal companies stand to lose money if we reduce fossil fuel usage. So in effect, it's AGW denial that is truly "all about the money".
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk You really are a naive fool, the oil and coal companies are laughing at you, they know with the tech we have they have a long future ahead. Because the only thing that produces energy without carbon is nuclear and that's dirty and dangerous. If anything we should be throwing everything into research and development but no we make people like al gore rich by putting up inefficient crap like solar and wind
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie I fail to see what point you are making. You really didn't refute my claim that oil and coal companies stand to lose profits if fossil fuel usage is reduced, thus AGW denial is "all about the money" for them. They have a future ahead if we just go about business as usual. That is assuming the most conservative estimates of the impact of AGW on society. Yes, we should be putting more money into developing alternative enery. No argument there. But again, what is your point?
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@vmgqie The beginning of my prev post should have read "I fail to see what point you are trying to make".
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk the point is the technology we have can't produce electricity and run our car's. Solar and wind are to expensive and inefficient. Get it mate do you wont black outs, no transport, no air travel, no factories, no computer, no tv, no nothing. Back to the stone age is that what alarmist nazi wont, throwing us back to the stone well that's the only way to prevent man made global warming
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie So you don't have a point. You have economic alarmist babble. Your absolutist argument is ridiculous. Neither myself nor the others I know, who are concerned about AGW, say the only solution is to go "back to the stone age". In fact clean energy will create a new economic and technological paradigm. I recommend you watch some of greenman's vids on renewable energy. Your comment that wind and solar are too expensive and inefficient is simply incorrect.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk all you alarmist are absolutely off your fucken rockers, your a bunch of impractical lunatics living in fantasy land. Your a whole pack of raving psychopaths who need to be rounded up and stuck in a psychiatric ward for your own good, until you see reason like normal people
vmgqie 1 month ago
@vmgqie Yes, you sound SO reasonable. Clearly, I'm the psychopath. Now please take your meds and shut up already.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@vmgqie FYI...the word "want" is not spelled "wont".
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@vmgqie Also, here are two of greenman's videos which discuss the topic of the energy economics
/watch?v=6J-ijPcv1VM
/watch?v=f4yA_kRejp0
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "economic alarmist babble"
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The whole warmist strategy is alarmism:
"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some SCARY SCENARIOS, make simplified DRAMATIC statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the RIGHT balance between being effective, and BEING HONEST” Schneider 1989
“Unless we announce disaster, no one will listen”-Sir John Houghton- 1st Chairman of the IPCC
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Nice quote mining there. I'm not sure you're aware that the IPCC's projections were conservative to avoid appearing alarmist. It's not alarmist to warn people about AGW. It's a real problem that exists in the real world. The concern is backed by science. It is alarmist, however, to rant about economic destruction caused by policies to reduce AGW when there is no economic study that supports that idea.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "quote mining"
The quotes are accurate. Your beef is w/them, not me.
The IPCC is alarmist to the core BECAUSE ~30% of the cited refs come from GRAY literature ADVOCACY sources, NOT peer-reviewed science & b/c it dismisses things counter to its predetermined conclusions. It's NEVER been about the science. The fact that they started full-bore on WG2(adaptation) & WG3(mitigation) from the inception PROVES that. They didn't wait to see if they were needed. Assumed so!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Please inform us which of those references are not peer reviewed and what contribution they made to the IPCC. Please tell us all of the things dismissd because they were "counter to its predetermined conclusions". I'll be waiting...
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "Please inform us which of those references are not peer reviewed and what contribution they made to the IPCC"
bit(dot)ly/yqHi0e
There you go. EVERY ref. in IPCC AR4 & which ones are peer reviewed & which ones that aren't.
You can cross reference to the AR4 to see all the things that should be dismissed b/c it's non-peer reviewed, since Pachauri claims it's ALL peer reviewed!
Didn't have to wait long did you!
Tell us how many they got wrong.
I'll be waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 The MCA report is also a propaganda piece. There is no mention of inputs. No mention of cost/benefit. As I said before it is basically MCA running an economic model (without giving the inputs) and asking us to just trust their results. Sorry, that does not cut it.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "The MCA report is also a propaganda piece"
FAIL! The MCA DIDN'T do it. It was done by the INDEPENDENT Centre for Economic Analysis.
"fails to give any upper or lower range"
FAIL! That's just a lame dodge. Show that the NOMINAL values are wrong. But you haven't even tried. You just fabricate a lame & sorry excuse.
Nope. All your posts & STILL NO rebuttal. All you can do is ATTACK the authors of the reports, NOT the FACTS presented.
Typical!
I'm STILL waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Sorry, but neither paper gives FACTS. No modelling gives facts Modelling gives possible outcomes. That is why there should be an upper and lower range. It appears you misunderstand the purpose of economic and scientific modelling.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "No modelling gives facts"
Wow, why am I not surprised at just another DODGE! There are many facts there in the assumptions & economic modelling. You haven't disputed a SINGLE one of them. So pitiful! But so typical.
You have NO arguments.
Science admits its errors & moves on. Religion doesn't. You are demonstrating which one you hold.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Please give me the facts from the MCA paper! Your hyperbole is wearing thin. No economic or scientific modelling outcome can be viewed as a "FACT" unless it happens in the real world. How is that an error?
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "give me the facts from the MCA paper"
They're in the conclusions that you fail to rebut. Even the Australian gov't analysis shows that there are high costs. The MCA paper just finds that they are HIGHER.
Why do you drone on criticizing these economic analyses, but FAIL to admit that you were WRONG when you said that NO economic analyses existed.
Your failure to admit your ERROR shows that you aren't interested in the TRUTH. You're just promoting your RELIGION!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 How can I rebut the MCA paper!?!?! They don't give any data on inputs or calculations. Why do you keep bringing that paper up? It is a propaganda piece pure and simple. It is meant to promote a political agenda!
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Sorry...I should have removed the odd formatting from when I CnP'd the line from p36 of the NRTEE doc, it should read: "Nor do we compare the costs and benefits of mitigation with the costs and benefits of adaptation. Climate change is real and requires concerted international action involving both mitigation — here and elsewhere — to reduce future emissions and adaptation to live with the climate impact results of past emissions." Still shows that you misread the doc.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "Climate change is real"
I have NEVER said it's not real. The climate has changed throughout the history of the planet, w/o ANY help from mankind, AND that's what is presently happening. It's NATURE doing its thing. Any 'human caused' change is lost in the overwhelming natural variability of the climate.
"and requires concerted international action"
WRONG! That's just the baseless allegations & hype of your alarmist religion.
Remember $0 X 3 = 0, ZERO, NADA, ZIP!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 And the Monckton paper is also useless. Where do you get this idea that the costs are 100x the benefits from the Canadian regulations? Monckton's paper cannot be used to judge true cost/benefit because he purposefully omits any other benefits besides CO2 mitigation. If he is going to attempt to scale up the costs he would need to scale up the other benefits as well. There are other problems with it as well. You can't hold that paper up as a true CBA.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 So far you have not provided any economic analysis that refutes what I said originally. The cognitive dissonance lies within you. You have been shown that the works you cited are very poor examples (if you could call them that) of the economic impact of climate change (or even of the regulations assailed). Yet you cling to them.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "So far you have not provided any economic analysis that refutes what I said originally"
Uhhh, ORIGINALLY you said that NO economic analyses EXISTED! Then I pointed you to two & YOU pointed me to one yourself!
So the FIRST order of business is for you to admit that you were WRONG!
Quit being a denier of your error. Get honest.
And I see from your recent post that you are a denier of natural climate change..
You are DEEP in denial!
Cognitive dissonance in spades.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Yes...you have not provided any real economic impact analysis that shows mitigation is useless. The MCA paper is trying to show the impact of ONE piece of legislature in ONE country. Except, as I have stated previously, it does not really give any analysis beyond projections for increases of consumer pricing. IN NO WAY is it an assessment of mitigation in general. It is also in no way a real cost/benefit analysis.
SourdoughMusk 4 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 I never stated no economic analyses existed. I said there weren't any that economic analyses that showed doing nothing is better than mitigation. I'll be honest and say that may have been a grandiose claim. Perhaps there is an analysis that refutes my claim. However, you have not presented one so far.
SourdoughMusk 4 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk “I never stated no economic analyses existed. I said there weren't any that economic analyses that showed doing nothing is better than mitigation”
Nice try at changing the goal line, but no dice. THIS is what you said: “It is alarmist, however, to rant about economic destruction caused by policies to reduce AGW when there is no economic study that supports that idea”.
NOTHING there about “doing nothing”. It was about AGW reducing policies' "economic destruction".
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (economic cont1)
I merely pointed you to 2 studies that DO show the astronomical cost/°C of some different policies that attempt to prevent warming. If you can’t comprehend that spending HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of $ to “reduce AGW” would cause economic destruction, then you are delusional & have no grasp of reality. Especially when you consider that those TRILLIONS even assume that the wildly exaggerated effect of CO2 are correct. If not, the costs are even HIGHER/°C!
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that idea. The evidence shows that the climate is changing due to man's activities. Even Monckton admits this even if he attempts to downplay the effects. Yes, it's clearly me who suffers from the cognitive dissonance here.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "Unfortunately, you're completely incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle. There is no solid scientific evidence to support that idea"
WOW, you are seriously displaying an abundance of ignorance now!
No solid scientific evidence? Really? How about 4 billion years of earth's climate history? Back & forth b/t hot house to ice ages w/CO2 being lower & 18 TIMES higher than present w/o ANY help from man!
But you believe MAN'S recent 30 yrs are unprecedented!
Hahaha
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Displaying an abundance of ignorance? I find that ironic coming from you. You misunderstand me. I did not say all climate change is manmade. I did not dispute that the climate has changed in the past or that CO2 and temp have been higher in the past. That was never in dispute. However, the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years is certainly in large part to man's activities. That is not in dispute in the peer reviewed science literature.
SourdoughMusk 4 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 (cont) And I have not found an honest, encompassing economic analysis that supports the idea of Business As Usual vs mitigation.
SourdoughMusk 4 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 Displaying an abundance of ignorance? I find that ironic coming from you. You misunderstand me. I did not say all climate change is manmade. I did not dispute that the climate has changed in the past or that CO2 and temp have been higher in the past. That was never in dispute. However, the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years is certainly in large part to man's activities. This is supported in the peer reviewed science literature.
SourdoughMusk 4 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk "I did not say that all climate change is man-made"
While you didn’t use the word “all”(& I never claimed you did), you certainly IMPLIED that nature had ALMOST nothing to do w/it & it was ALMOST entirely due to man.
HERE is what you said: “you are COMPLETELY incorrect that the warming is a natural cycle.” Get that? You DIDN’T say that I was PARTLY incorrect b/c nature only had a small part in it. No, you said that I was COMPLETELY incorrect.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (man made cont 1) That certainly implies that nature had ALMOST nothing to do w/it.
Then you went on to say: “There is NO solid scientific evidence to support that idea” Get that? You DIDN’T say that there was LITTLE scientific evidence to support the change was natural. You said that there was NO solid scientific evidence to support that the change was caused by natural causes. That certainly implies that nature had ALMOST nothing to do w/it.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 2) After essentially eliminating natural causes, COMPLETELY incorrect & NO solid scientific evidence, you went on to say:“The evidence shows that the climate is changing due to MAN’S activities”
Get that? You DIDN’T say MOST or A GOOD DEAL of the change is due to man. No, you essentially ruled out nature & then state that the evidence shows that the climate is changing due to MAN’S activities. That certainly implies that it was ALMOST entirely due to man.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 3) So what’s up w/the Monckton bit? I’ve never denied that man’s CO2 has AN effect. I’ve just said that it’s a MINOR effect.
My exact words were: “Any 'human caused' change is lost in the overwhelming natural variability of the climate”
“However, the warming that has occurred in the past 100 years is certainly in large part to man's activities. This is supported in the peer reviewed science literature.”
100 years? No, not even the alarmist IPCC claims that
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk(m-m cont 4) You’re all by yourself on that claim. Show me ANY empirical scientific evidence saying the warming that occurred between ≈1910 & ≈1940 (which was just as rapid as the warming between ≈1970 & ≈2000) was “in large part” due to man’s activities. There's NONE
The ONLY peer reviewed science that supports even the recent warming is based on MODELS, NOT empirical measured data. Models are NOT evidence. Their output is merely a result of how they were programmed
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 5) The climate models are programmed w/an ASSUMED high climate sensitivity due to GHG, & they are NOT programmed to accurately model natural climate variables such as clouds, etc., so they are NOT evidence proving that the recent warming is man-made. Just taking a single example of clouds, the IPCC admits that the LOSU(Level of Scientific Understanding) for cloud radiative forcing is LOW!
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 6) If your LOSU is low, there is NO WAY you can accurately program the models to handle them, & if they aren’t programmed accurately, then there is NO WAY that you can rule them out as a cause of changes in the climate.
Now, add in THESE natural climate variables: sunspots; geomagnetic field changes; AO; NAO; PDO; SOI; El Niño; La Niña; cosmic rays; oceanic circulations; volcanos; simultaneous solution of atmos convections(heat transport) AND radiation.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (m-m cont 7) Now, add the VARIABILITY(periodicity & intensity) in each of those natural climate variables; AND add the simultaneous interactions of ALL those. These natural variables, along w/clouds are also NOT accurately modeled.
Next consider that there are most certainly other unknown natural variables that we haven't even discovered yet.
THAT'S why climate MODELS can NOT be evidence ruling out natural causes of warming. We just don't know enough to do that now.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 If even the last 30 years warming is natural then please explain what is the natural forcing causing it?
SourdoughMusk 4 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk “If even the last 30 years warming is natural then please explain what is the natural forcing causing it?”
No, you can’t change the null hypothesis. You’ve admitted that climate change before the last 100 years was due to natural causes, so THAT’S the null hypothesis.
If you're claiming that climate change is NOW due to man’s activities, instead of nature, YOU must prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have to prove nothing. And remember, MODELS are NOT proof.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SourdoughMusk “If even the last 30 years warming is natural then please explain what is the natural forcing causing it?”
No, you can’t change the null hypothesis. You’ve admitted that climate change before the last 100 years was due to natural causes, so THAT’S the null hypothesis.
If you're claiming that climate change is NOW due to man’s activities, instead of nature, YOU must prove it. The burden of proof is on YOU. I have to prove nothing. And remember, MODELS are NOT proof.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (natural forcing cont 1)
We are still in the infancy stage in the understanding of our vastly complex climate system. A few decades ago some scientists were suggesting that we should spread black soot over the polar ice to prevent the then ongoing 3 decades of global cooling. Aren’t you glad they didn’t do that?
Now some scientists are suggesting that we spread aerosols in the upper atmosphere or we sequester CO2 underground to prevent continued warming.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@SourdoughMusk (natural forcing cont 2)
BOTH of those 'climate action' suggestions are analogous to past ‘blood-letting’ of the medical professionals to rid the human body of disease. Medical science was in its infancy & the so-called ‘cure’ did more harm than good.
As a scientist, it's good that we're learning more, but we ARE still in the infancy stage of understanding the complexity & workings of our climate system.
Claiming that we KNOW anthro CO2 is driving climate is hubris.
RealOldOne2 2 weeks ago
@RealOldOne2 LOL! Your claiming to know more than the scientists who have studied AGW for 30 years is hubris. The fact is there is an energy imbalance at TOA. The amount of energy coming in from the sun and the amount radiating back into space is not balanced. The imbalance is due to the GH effect and feedbacks related to he increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Your attempt to "sell the controversy" is not backed by the scientific research.
SourdoughMusk 1 week ago
@SourdoughMusk "no economic study that supports that idea"
As is typical of CAGW zealots, you are just parroting the lies you've been gullible enough to swallow.
Here's one showing the cost to Australia: bit(dot)ly/A3VCS4
By 2020: reduction of GDP by $180B(~2%); reduction of investment by ~3.4%; reduction of real wages ~2%; reduction of cumulative household earning of >$11,000; 30% INCREASE in electricity prices; etc.
To accomplish what?
NO MEASURABLE REDUCTION in global temp!!!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 And you cite an economic modelling paper by an Australian mining industry association. That's a big grain of salt right there. Models create many different outcomes yet this paper cites only one of those projections and shows no supporting data or graphs. This paper is also highly suspect.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk The Minerals Council only did the study themselves after the Australian Treasury would not allow the Centre for Economic Analysis to analyze the Treasury modelling on the carbon price.
Guess they learned that from Jones & Co. at UEA. Why should I give you my stinkin' data if all you are going to do is show that it's wrong.
REFUTE the study, don't just cast aspersions on who did it. You know, like science is supposed to be done.
I'll be waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 That mining concil paper is not a scientific paper. It's them basically saying "well we ran some numbers through our model and here's what we got". They give no graphs or statistical figures. They treat one outcome like it is the whole truth. Next time, post a peer-reviewed paper from an economics journal.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "not a scientific paper"
Hahahah.
No one said it was. It was an ECONOMIC ANALYSIS!
"peer-reviewed paper"
Ah, hiding behind the peer-reviewed meme, huh?
Nope, that's not how it's done in the business/economic world. CBO (Congressional Budget Office) reports aren't peer-reviewed either, but economic decisions affecting the whole nation are based on them.
What a pathetic excuse & dodge.
Refute the ANALYSIS, don't just whine about peer-review.
I'm still waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 You said "REFUTE the study, don't just cast aspersions on who did it. You know, like science is supposed to be done." So, in essence you did say it was a scientific paper. And, in fact, economics is considered a social science. However, that paper would not pass a peer review process because it is very limited in scope and conclusions. Models create a range of outcomes so why do they not show this range? LIkely because they want to give the reader a carefully limited view.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "So, in essence you did say it was a scientific paper"
Hahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHA
No, "do the science" means replicate the study & prove it wrong if you can.
All you're doing is dodging the issue by your whining. You're a clueless blowhard, just like greenman because you NEVER back your allegations! Because you CAN'T.
Quit your whining & show us that you can actually do something!
I'm waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RealOldOne2 You are just trolling now. Monckton's previous claims have been roundly refuted. I think it's understandable that I would be suspicious of any of his assertions. The Australian mining industry has a vested interest in exaggerating the negative economic impact of a carbon tax. That makes me suspicious of their modelling outcomes. This is compounded by the lack of a range of outcomes in the paper.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Also, you stated in an earlier comment that the Australian economic paper showed a decrease in GDP with no measurable reduction in global temp. However, that paper you cited never mentions global temp. They only give a limited scope of the possible economic impact from a carbon tax. Were you confusing it with Monckton's assumptions?
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "no measurable reduction in global temp"
You think Australia's carbon tax is going to have a measurable effect on global temp?
All it will do is move the industry to another country like China or India who aren't so stupid! And they will probably emit MORE CO2 b/c they have poorer technologies than Australia.
Quit dodging & refute the economic analysis!
WOW, 1st you claim that there are NO economic analyses, then when you're shown WRONG, all you can do is whine!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
Comment removed
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 However, there is this:
nrtee-trnee(dot)ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/paying-the-price.pdf
Very interesting
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "there is this"
Hold everything! This whole thing started w/your dogmatic claim:“there is NO economic study that supports that idea”. And NOW you're pointing ME to an economic study! Guess you’ve been busy googling, huh? Well, now that you've found one you can admit that you were wrong!
Go ahead, repeat after me, "I was wrong, there ARE economic studies showing the high costs trying to abate AGW."
Or will you REFUSE to admit a mistake, like gm & most CAGW alarmists?
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk & WOW, a Canadian study that does NOT refute Monckton. In fact it REINFORCES the point I was making. The report (p.17) finds that ADAPTATION is 9 to 38 TIMES more cost effective than ABATING!
& hold the phones! You said b/c Monckton used “ASSUMPTIONS?!?!?!” “said it all”. Did you read p.28? It says:“to our ASSUMPTIONS of global CLIMATE futures, we overlay a distinct set of ASSUMPTIONS about Canada’s future population and ECONOMIC growth”, EXACTLY what Monckton did!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 RWR also tries to show the amount of GHG being mitigated is tiny in comparison to global emissions. That may be true, but Monckton purposefully excludes the co-benefits so as to make the regulations appear useless. He also frames this against the assumption that no other countries will be reducing their GHG emissions between 2015-2030. This makes RWR more of a propaganda piece than a real economic impact analysis.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "excludes the co-benefits"
Hahahahaha
That's the BEST you can do? He excluded them b/c they were INSIGNIFICANT compared to the 2 to 4 ORDERS-OF-MAGNITUDE costlier mitigation schemes! That's 100+X!
But rather than just finding a LAME excuse for disregarding Monckton's entire report, TELL US how INCLUDING co-benefits would alter Monckton's conclusions!
Come on, DO THE WORK of showing his analysis is flawed. You CAN'T, which is why you obfuscate w/ SILLY arguments!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Nowhere on p17 of the doc I posted does it say adaptation is 9 to 38 more times cost effective than mitigation! That is adaptation vs inaction. "Nor do we compare the costs and benefits of mitigation
with the costs and benefits of adaptation. Climate change is real and requires concerted international action
involving both mitigation — here and elsewhere — to reduce future emissions and adaptation to live with
the climate impact results of past emissions." - p36
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "That is adaptation vs inaction"
OK, I'll give you that. BUT, it's still bogus because the report FAILS to show a single $ of economic LOSS due to the ALREADY 1°C of warming that has ALREADY occurred!
You conveniently overlooked the simple math: $0 X 3 = 0! Their economic cost of inaction is TOTALLY bogus. They needed NO assumptions to measure the "costs" of the warming that has already occured. Why didn't they do it? Obviously because they COULDN'T show ANY costs!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk p.35 states: "Canada has ALREADY warmed MORE than the global average with warming to date estimated at OVER 1°C".
On p.18 they state that a 2°C warming would cost Canada $21-43B/yr.
But they conveniently FAIL to look at HISTORY & see how much that 1°C warming HAS ALREADY cost Canada! They don't need to make ANY assumptions for that. They can do it w/FACTS & DATA. Perhaps b/c that 1°C warming cost Canada NOTHING! In fact they probably benefited from it.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Also, Monckton's paper attempts to show that EC's regulations are not a cost effective global method for reducing GHG emissions. Well no duh! The regulations never claim them to be a global solution. One cost effective method of mitigation for one country does not neccessarily equate to be the same for another country. Monckton appears to be creating a straw man.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "One cost effective method of mitigation for one country does not necessarily equate to be the same for another country"
FAIL! You can NOT point to a SINGLE cost effective method of reducing GHG for ANY country!
"Monckton APPEARS"
Of course, to you true-believers in CAGW. You've got NOTHING except to attack the person. It's called the logical fallacy of "ad hominum", 'against the person'. It TOTALLY fails to address the issue. It's just a diversion.
Nice example!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk Why do I say benefited?
1st "cost" from report is timber. Has timber industry suffered from 1°C? Remember Mann's hokey stick reconstruction? Warmer means BIGGER tree rings, MORE lumber, BETTER economics!
2nd "cost" is damage/relocation from sea level rise. How much has that 1°C cost for THAT? Nothing!
3rd "cost" is healthcare/death. How much has that 1°C cost for THAT? Nothing!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 And on his "Regulation Without Reason"... "Co-benefits external to mitigation of CO2 forcing are also excluded from this analysis." That says it all. That paper is not an economic analysis if it excludes co-benefits. Monckton claims this is to clarify if CO2 mitigation is itself in the public good. It is actually cherry picking because he is not giving the full picture of the cost/benefit scenario.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "That says it all"
Hahaha
Hold the phones, I thought "assumptions" says it all?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Make up your mind. Oh yeah, you're conflicted. It's called cognitive dissonance. A condition that afflicts all CAGW believers. It how they deal w/the FACTS and REALITY of the world NOT warming as their RELIGION predicted.
So sad. Get some professional help before you experience a JoeRomm brain explosion as has happened to some other of your fellow-believers posting on YT.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk 4th "cost" is ecosystems, The negative example on p.17 they give for that is:"reduced availability of lake trout COULD lead to loss of recreational fishing expenditures" Yep, that would CRIPPLE the nation. Oh, maybe not since the give NO $ figure. Hmm, & NO reference to peer-reviewed study there, NOR even a reference to any advocacy gray literature! How much has that 1°C cost for THAT? Nada!
Now do some simple math. $0X3=how much? No wonder they didn't report that!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk So you can see from these excerpts from the summary portion of the report, that it has little substance. It's all about what "COULD" happen. There are ~200 "COULD"s in the ~100p. report body!
& again, the report says NOTHING about what already HAS happened. That would poke a hole in this balloon & let all the alarmist air out of it!
Now, why don't YOU "do the science" for Monckton's, IPCC quote audit & Min. council reports & point out THEIR flaws
I'll be waiting...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Spam much? Geez, I'm gone for a few days and you go to town. First off, Monckton HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A LIAR....repeatedly...GM's videos and potholer54's document this. Realclimate(dot)org, John Abraham, Bickmore, the list goes on and on. You choosing to dismiss the evidence does not make it go away.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "Spam much"
Hahaha
HAHAHAHA
NO "spam" there. ALL to-the-point & DESTROYING your posts.
Out of arguments much?
ALL those posts of yours & NOT a SINGLE rebuttal of ANY of my FACTS on the ridiculous economic analysis you pointed to.
Hahahaha
And come on, it's time for YOU to say: "I was WRONG, there ARE economic analysis of how futile trying to abate anthro CO2 is!
But, like other CAGW worshipers, your WON'T. It's not about science for you, it's your BELIEF system!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Your apparent arrogance and hand waving is not backed up. The Monckton paper and the MCA paper are not true economic impact analyses. That is a fact. Then you misread the paper I posted as supporting Monkcton when it does not. So you can keep thinking you are "destroying" my posts but really you look rather desperate.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "APPARENT arrogance and handwaving"
Apparent, NOT actual. I'm correct. That's NOT arrogance. And sorry Charley, I'm not the one doing the hand waving! Look in the mirror & you'll see the one doing the hand waving, ad hominem arguments.
That's all you can do. You CAN'T refute the economic analyses.
And it's past time to admit your error that there are no economic analyses. You even provided one. So be honest & fess up! But I know you won't. It's Against your RELIGION
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Oh and the MCA "report" also fails to give any upper or lower range for the outcomes. And how can I "do the science" or the math as it were when MCA fails to give their inputs or calculations. As I said, it's a propaganda piece.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
Comment removed
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "economic study"(2) Here's one on proposed Canada coal reg: bit(dot)ly/y3wsdm Cost-$6.4B; CO2 reduction by 2030- 0.012ppm; glob temp red.- 0.00007°C. On a global basis, to abate the projected 0.25°C b/t 2015-2030, the cost per °C of various approaches would be:
US C&T- $57Trillion/°C
Canada coal- 84T/°C
UK CC Act- $113T/°C
EU carbon trading- $558T°C
Thanet(largest wind farm)- $666T/°C
Australia carbon tax- $1.5Quadrillion/°C
INSANE! How does that CROW taste? HAHAHA
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Crow? LOL! Are you serious? You are citing a Monckton paper from a blog site...with a straight face? He doesn't even list citations throughout. Those figures come without qualification. You'll have to do better than that.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "Monckton"
You guys hate him don't you. He makes such a fool of you all!
"figures come without qualification"
The technical annex of his analysis gives all the climatological & economic assumptions to verify his analysis. So instead of pooh poohing it, PROVE IT WRONG. You know, how science is done!
By all means, point out his errors.
If I don't hear back from you, I'll know it was all CORRECT!
I'll be waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Actually, if Monckton's report was as accurate as he claims why didn't he list citations throughout. Anyone can post a list of references at the end of a paper. But not citing which reference the figures come from IN THE PAPER raises eyebrows. He should be clear about where the figures come from. As the reader it's not my responsibility to look through all the references to try and piece together where he gets the figures from. Why don't you do that and get back to me.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk
Hahahahahha.
Those aren't references at the end, so I have NOTHING to do. They are the supporting assumptions so that ANYONE, well anyone that can do math & has basic reasoning skills, can verify or PROVE HIM WRONG.
But I guess that's above your ability.
Prove Monckton wrong!
BTW, how many of those JUNK references from the IPCC report aren't valid.
I'm waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
Comment removed
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Oh! So that is not a list of references at the end of Monckton's paper? You mean the section titled "References"? I'm close to calling your intelligence into question.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk You didn't read my first response to you. It’s in the TECHNICAL ANNEX section, get it? He gives all the climatic assumptions & economic assumptions necessary to replicate his cost/benefit analysis. There's no need to cite, b/c he DOES the analysis based on his listed assumptions. You don't need the references to replicate his analysis. That's just a DODGE.
If you think his analysis is flawed, replicate his analysis & SHOW US where he's wrong!
I'll be waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 He does the analysis based on his listed ASSUMPTIONS?!?!?! You've said it all right there. No reason to cite sources when he has his assumptions. So no need to show where he got his figures from because he just makes assumptions. That's ludicrous!
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "That's ludicrous"
Hahaha.
No, it spells out everything so whiners like you have NO BASIS to criticize.
So TELL US which assumptions are incorrect!
You CAN'T, because his assumptions are RIGHT!
You are just DODGING and blowing smoke out your a**!
So put up or shut up & quit your whining. It's LAME and shows that you CAN'T back up your baseless claims.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
Comment removed
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 Monckton has been refuted consistently time and time again.
/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o
/watch?v=XjhTrCgVb5U
You can find more online by googling "debunking monckton".
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "Monckton has been refuted consistently time and time again ... v="
You point me to greenman's CROCKs!?!?
A cartoonist who makes propaganda videos?!?!
Hahahaha
Gm debunked nothing by Monckton. Merely propaganda easily shown to be bogus, as I've done w/each one I've dissected, 'In the 70s', 'Ben Santer', 'Mini ice-age'.
You're just like gm:"watch v=" & points to his own vids. Like saying: If you don't believe me just look at what I said over here. CIRCULAR reasoning!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 skepticalscience(dot)com/co2-limits-economy.htm
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "skepticalscience"
SS is an untrustworthy site!
bit(dot)ly/qnhi4m
bit(dot)ly/AgQux8
bit(dot)ly/pahc21
bit(dot)ly/n9tpeK
And I could go on past the 500 char limit, but this is enough.
Rationalize & refute those for us.
I'll be waiting ...
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 So how does deleting comments amount to the information on the site being untrustworthy? Poptech's comments were incorrect...climate models do not have to be 100% percent accurate to be useful. Also, his use of "Utter propaganda" shows a level of bias that is not accepted on SkS. Your first three links all discusss this same "commentgate". You could have just posted one of those. And the Pielke response: The graphs he lists that he claims "don't show warming", show warming.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk SS=PROPAGANDA SITE! Selectively removes comments to make those who post valid points look foolish b/c he has removed or changed comments. MAJOR DECEIT! UNTRUSTWORTHY! Absolutely NO POINT in going there b/c of that.
Well, you don't seem to get things w/just one reading. Thought it might sink in if you read it 3 times w/some additional info each time.
Just trying to help you out.
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 You, like most deniers, have the whiff of conpiracy theory about you. So because some comments were deleted that means the peer-reviewed sources cited in the articles is false? That's a big leap.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "deniers"
Yep, you've lost the argument, so you begin w/the holocaust mud-slinging.
Typical. Make a baseless claim, then when you're made to look like a FOOL because you were blowing smoke, you AVOID the issue w/endless dodges!
LAME!
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@RealOldOne2 And yes, you quote mined...google the term "quote mining". In fact, the Houghton quote is complete bullshit. independent(dot)co(dot)uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quote-used-to-discredit-climate-scientist-1894552(dot)html. Talk about parroting the lies you've been told!
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk "complete bullshit"
Accurate quote is from London Sunday Telegraph of Sept 10, 1995:“If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster”.
Manchester Guardian of July 28, 2003, Houghton luridly ascribed numerous specific natural disasters to “global warming”, which he described as “a weapon of mass destruction” that was “at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism”
Disaster talk
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@SourdoughMusk You've got some homework to do buddy.
But ... I'll be waiting ...
Hahahahaha
RealOldOne2 1 month ago
@vmgqie Also, you have not posted a link to substantiate your conspiracy theory.
SourdoughMusk 1 month ago
all i know is that when i started using c02 for my indoor plants i seen yeilds increase by 10-15%
looknfortruth 3 months ago
Comment removed
GWfarce 4 months ago
And to think that Pakistan is having another record breaking flood, in two years two record breaking floods.
Zlibservacratican 5 months ago
Dr James Hansen, Dr Benjamin Santer, Dr Andrew Dessler - they are all experts in this field. They are serious scientists. Trolls like Alex Jones, Monckington, Delingpole, Donald Dump could learn a lot by listening to them.
mphello 5 months ago
There is no such thing as a "global warming alarmist". What's that?
There is only people who advocate taking action in proportion to the magnitude of the problem. Since anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been proven a hundred times over to be a serious and to get worse if we stick with Business As Usual (BAU), then we advocate taking swift aggressive action on it, same way militaries go in to countries to stop genocides.
mphello 5 months ago
It is a 100% scientifically proven fact that the plants on this plannet are CO2-starved, they evolved in an atmosphere with at least 10 times the CO2 of today, CO2 does not drive global climate, the Sun does. I dare you lying global warming alarmists to say global warming instead of climate change, you darent because you know for a fact its not warming so STFU
Galv140577 5 months ago
Carbon tax is an absolutely disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 does not drive climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does....
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
@Galv140577
the swindle movie long ago became an embarrassment to all concerned. Obviously you did not get the memo, but I'm here to help.
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 You are so pathetic
Galv140577 6 months ago
@Galv140577, your level of ignorance is usually accomplished by religion. I guessing that you're a Christian. Am I correct?
judoyodan 5 months ago
@judoyodan Not interested. We live on a plannet who's surface is 2 thirds water, orbiting the Sun. Go do some image searches for "global temperature 2000 to 2011", "atmospheric CO2 2000 to 2011", "Sunspots 2000 to 2011", "solar output 2000 to 2011", "Ocean PDO". Look at some graphs. What you will find is that atmospheric CO2 is almost irrelevant compared to the Sun & the Ocean when it comes to driving global climate.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577, you're "not interested" because you are lazy and willfully ignorant.
judoyodan 5 months ago
@judoyodan Yes that's right; my not being interested in religion, or your silly little guessing game, means that I am lazy & willfully ignorant. Of course if on the contrary I was interested in religion then that would also explain my "level of ignorance" as you put it. In conclusion you are just trying to change the subject. Who is the irnorant one, the person who has done the research or the person who has not. You'll found out that CO2 can only possibly account for 10% max. of climate change.
Galv140577 5 months ago
@judoyodan You don't even need to ask the question. This AGW-denying fanatic is rightwing fundamentalist christian, as all AGW-deniers are.
mphello 5 months ago
@mphello "is rightwing fundamentalist christian, as all AGW-deniers are"
No. FACTS prove you wrong again:
"I am a long-time denier of human-caused global warming. . .I am a research scientist who also served as a meteorologist for the U.S. Navy. I am also a lifelong PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT" - John O'Sullivan
bit(dot)ly/tYxzKz
You must have learned how to use 'ALL' from our imacluelessblowhard3610 host who said- "In the 70s. . .ALL climate scientists BELIEVED", quoting a FICTIONAL character!
RealOldOne2 3 months ago
@Galv140577 "CO2 does not drive climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...."
Then how do you explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury?
PastafariansWON 5 months ago
@PastafariansWON You've taken my comment out of context. I was talking about Earth-climate & not the whole Earth-atmosphere but only a tiny tiny fraction of that atmosphere which is the CO2 in it & of that tiny fraction of the Earth-atmosphere only a very tiny fraction of the CO2 is man-made. It is almost impossible for man-made carbon emissions to make any significant difference to the overall climate. To compare this difference to the difference in climate between Venus & Mercury is ludicrous.
Galv140577 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
@RummelsdorfLabs Yeah but why are the plants not eating it all then?
shandcunt 7 months ago
What does weather have to do with the fact that co2 is essential for plant growth?!?
Why don't you all gather your co2 and bottle it and provide it to me for free? With a little sunlight i can produce clean oxygen and biomass.
RummelsdorfLabs 7 months ago
The other concern I have is before the 1900s temperature readings were almost non existant, and up until the 1980s sparse at best. To rely on the last 100 years of data and set a trend off of is highly inncaruate, and it is likely skewed only due to the fact that satellite and temperature measuring technology is brand new.
f00dl3 7 months ago
@f00dl3
the global instrumental temperature record is considered adequate back to about 1880.
google
nasa key indicators
greenman3610 7 months ago
I have a few moot points. First, I think channelization of the rivers has brought more light to flood severity as, in the past, we didn't really care as much about river levels before the rivers were channelized. Second concern I have is the data - in another video you state that the tree ring data from the 60s to now has gone the opposite way of CO2 emissions. What's to say that this didn't happen numerous times in the past and CO2 emissions peaked and dwindled numerous times in the past.
f00dl3 7 months ago