It isn't caused by man. Temperatures are always fluctuating. You really think it stays at a constant? There are ice ages, warming periods. The earth is always moving towards one or the other. Around the Bronze Age temperatures were much higher than they are today for thousands of years and yes the polar bears obviously survived. The boom of the automobile industry should have had temperatures skyrocketing yet from the early 1940s - late 1970s temperatures took a nose dive.
If your boats worked, they would be used already. The reason they are not deployed is because the science is unproven, the consequences unknown, the efficacy uncertain. Such silver bullet fixes are the stuff of dreams for Libertarians and free market advocates. They can fix the world's problems simply by getting rid of laws and allowing the benign hand of the Free market to lead us all to prosperity. Well, it will lead some of us there...
If we wait for the free market to catch up with the decline of oil in the world it will be too late. We need to develop renewable energy now while we still have the petroleum. You imagine the free market as a benign and rational organism that looks out for itself. It is not. It is frauds, con artists, business men, loan sharks, all of whom wnat to make a quick buck then disappear to a tropical paradise. Blind adherence to free market ideology is religion.
Besides. Who will pay for those boats jacob? Privat enterprise? LOL. As soon as they state dont enforce it, they will just say ""fuck this"" to the ENTIRE project and keep polluting.
Wrong. The best possible, and only possible way is to move away from using fossil fuel and instead using renewable energy. Yes, but the boat progrem is not A FINAL sollution you moron. OMG.
Chomsky's comments on Global Warming were spot on.
But Spinney is right about just buying time by cutting carbon, we still develop green technologies because that means less pollution and a cleaner environment, more jobs, and more time, the only people it's going to be extremely costly to are billionaire oil executives just ask the Germans they're way ahead of us on solar tech.
"Reducing the earth's temperature" would require a more concerted effort than just stopping Co2 Emissions.
How about instead of crying about "BUT WE CANT DO THIS WITHOUT STEALING MONEY Q_Q"
How about you start crying about how the government's currently stealing your money on an army bigger than the rest of the world's armies combined, fighting an undefinable enemy?
And 'global warming' - to be precise 'anthropocentric global warming' is yet another undefined elusive so called 'enemy' which govt steals money & wastes scarce economic resources to politicize
It is NEVER legitimite to steal money for whatever reason.
@swu880 You seriously think global warming is an undefined enemy?
The levels of GHG's in the atmosphere spiked right around 1950. The major industrialization of the world began in... about 1950. How is global warming still a question in anyone's mind?
And if you seriously think taxes are "stealing money"- you wanna move to a country with no taxes? That's... not going to work with a population over 1 million.
@bobmuffins Because Oil Companies have front groups put out propaganda that doesn't even have to be peer reviewed as studies to create the illusion that there's a major controversy about whether it's happening. Kind of like creationist front groups who do the same with evolution.
It's amazing how easiiy people like jsaiz are tricked into buying the BS put out to make sure oil & other industry doesn't have to waste $ on research & safety in order to have more $ to line their pockets. Wikipedia is non-partisan & he could discern the truth if he cared to . The references are abundant and impeccable.
From Wikipedia: Based on two independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.[1]
You leave the video saying "why?..." as if your argument is the only reasonable argument. If the governments of the world are not following your solution, they must have a reason to do so, and an argument of their own.
Your video would have been much, MUCH better, had you presented their position and arguments as accurately as possible, THEN explained why their view of the solution wont work, rather than pretend they have no reasonable position.
@KaseyBrownFitness They don't have a reasonable view. There is an irrational fear (fear of the unknown) for trying out climate control strategies. Most people buy into the Christian/Rousseau/Avatar/Al Gore doctrine that humans beings kill the earth and only with SELF SACRIFICE (Kyoto) can we improve the situation. Politicians reflect constituency opinion, so this is their line. Read super-freakonomics... that's where he gets this argument from.
@dmg46664 You lost me at "They dont have a reasonable view". Present their view accurately, or provide links. Let me see both sides of the issue as clearly as possible, then *I'll* decide if it's irrational, instead of letting you decide it for me outright from the beginning.
@KaseyBrownFitness Well I did provide evidence... unfortunately the book Superfreakonomics is not available online as a link. But you are making the assertion that in every case the counterparty HAS a reasonable view! It just needs to be uncovered. If you believe that Hitler, Stalin etc. had a reasonable view. Or even something less overt like the prohibitionists of the 1920s. In the 1920s their view SOUNDED reasonable. So did Hitler's eugenics. Not saying I'm right, just that your premise isn't
@KaseyBrownFitness tinyurl(.)com/3ba8v22 Here you can see some evidence that the issues of geo-engineering are claimed to be treated as a religion. Read Superfreakonomics. Read Krugman's article to see the counter, then put this video into context, hopefully you will be able to decide.
YAWN...You bore me. I want all the the geniuses to tell me which year will bring doomsday, because we have never heard it before! Not in the 70's 80's or 90's right?? Just like the dates that we are getting out of the middle east. Right now, in 6 months, 10 months, a year and a half, next term, 2015, 2020 - 2030, etc............
In order for supply and demand to work efficiently, you have to eliminate the distortions of externalities. (See work of Ronald Coase.) This basically means that you must account for the damage done by global warming. What are the property rights of people damaged by global warming and how do they claim damages against carbon emitters? If you cannot answer that, you cannot have a market solution.
I won't agree with you on letting supply and demand dictate when we should switch to alternative energy. We should feel obligated to create massive artificial incentives towards replacing the oil economy with a sustainable economy. Even in anarcho capitalism there should be massive grants dedicated to improving alternative energy because I am afraid that the cost to our standard of living with just be too high. Our limits of growth will also go way below what we are at now.
@MacabreManifesto You have never heard of the supply and cost principle. What you are saying is that a group of wise men appointed at the top, those of which who are paid off, should be making our decisions for us?? Without our consent?? As the price of a resource rises, there will be an increased demand for alternatives, creating an incentive to respond to those demands. An increase in R+D. What you are really saying is that people DONT want to make money...Which is absurd.
The U.S. Senate Commission on Environment & Public Works
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
Kiminori Itoh is an industrial chemist. He has never published a single piece of peer-reviewed research on climate science, and therefore, is not a climate scientist in any capacity.
The stated opinion of one scientist means little when it's contrary to virtually every climate expert on this planet, and it means even less when it comes from someone who isn't even a climate scientist.
Itoh's statement is little more than a bare assertion fallacy ("I'm right because I say so")
@Catamount1412 "virtually every climate expert on this planet" HAHAHA like the ones who said the observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa were caused by global warming. FRAUD
So when you can't debate the science you fall back on red herrings again? One would think you'd give some consideration to the fact that your best objections were handily addressed and shown insubstantive, but I guess one would be wrong.
Perhaps it's too much to expect reason from someone who thinks the work of thousands of scientists is fraud, without a shred of evidence? Exactly how do you consider yourself qualified to judge science you clearly don't even remotely understand?
@Catamount1412 The debate is over, you lose. 90% of those 'scientists' were merely deferring to the expertise of the experts in the field. They simply understood the CO2 mechanism and were fooled by the rest. The good news is that these scientists are smartening up at a rapid pace, and many are withdrawing the blind endorsements they previous gave. They don’t want to have egg on their faces, too.
I like how you continually make assertions about a science you clearly have no understanding of, without a hint of citation.
Can you provide a single credible source for a single thing you've said just now?
You can't even come up with a single argument against climate science that isn't a worn out urban myth, so exactly what has the scientific community "lost", and exactly what are people being fooled by? You've yet to come up with a single problem with the science!
Just for fun though, can you cite a source that shows that global glacier retreat is not caused by climate change? Since even most or all of the "skeptics" agree on this point (I was actually just reading an article by noted skeptic Anthony Watts on the subject), I'd be fascinated to see who's actually claiming this.
Black soot has been cited as a contributing factor, but I've never head anyone say that climate change doesn't cause retreating glaciers.
@Catamount1412 IPCC said that the glaciers would be gone by 2035. Although the head of the panel Dr. Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research. Since the 2007 report, the new study included almost 290 glaciers. It showed that global warming isn’t the reason a glacier melts, but terrain and how much debris covers the glacier’s surface.There's a reason that global warming is a “green” science", and it has nothing to do with the environment!
What report? The 2007 IPCC report is AR4, and there IS NO new report that has been released since then. AR5 is presently in preparation; it hasn't been written, let alone released.
and don't give me something vague; I want the title of a published paper, or similarly credible specific study (by name) that says what you're claiming.
Alright, I have a three sources that link to PDF files, and one that links to a long series of studies, and none of it appears to support what you're saying in any capacity. I see no abstracts with any thesis that would back anything you're saying.
Precisely which claim of yours are you alleging is supported by which specific source?
@Catamount1412 I don't have time to sit here and do your fucking homework. I'm not clipping arguments and posting multiple comments here to try and win some youtube argument which will do nothing for me. Look up the works of Joe Bastardi. John Christy, Roy Spencer There is so much out there I could give you a mountain if you want.
I guess you don't understand how citations work, so let me explain this to you: the burden of proof is on YOU.
When you make a claim, it is your job to back it up, not mine. It's not *my* "homework", because they're not my claims. This is your job.
If you can't come up with a specific argument, and then give a specific citation (which does NOT mean pointing to an entire database and saying "it's in there somewhere"), then you have nothing to stand on.
In fact, your links seem to have nothing to do with the topic. The first is about USGS/AASG data-sharing.The second is just a faculty page outlining the background and work of an individual at UCSB (and makes no claim that backs you up). The third is a list of publications by said faculty; that is NOT a citation. If he has a specific paper that backs a specific claim, then list it, otherwise you've presented nothing. The fourth appears to offer nothing of particular relevance either
Oh, hey, looks I found your alleged paper. It's a pretty massive fail on your part, academically, when I have to find your own sources for you. The paper is "Hillslope-glacier coupling: the interplay of totpgraphy and glacial dynamics in High Asia" by Scherler et al and it says NOTHING like what you claim.
It was a study of 287 glaciers, as you said, but never said that warming didn't cause retreat, explicitly or implicitly. Any other sources, or can we lay your claim to rest?
"Look up the works of Joe Bastardi". I just did, and he's entirely unscientific. By definition, science is an exercise in probabilities, not absolutes, so his no-probabilities approach as unscientific. He also hasn't published a single paper to back his claims, and so you get a man with no credibility.
"Christy...Spencer". Roy Spencer can't even explain interglacial periods with his model, and Christy's tropospheric "hot-spot" was found eons ago. Got anyone more credible?
Note, of course, that Spencer HAS published credible work in climate science.
Believe me, I have no intention of relying on ad hominem attacks. If you want to present a SPECIFIC CLAIM by these people, and cite a source of some kind, then by all means, but if all you're going to do is list names...
Why don't you read Real Climate's article, "Tropical tropospheric trends". It compares the Christy paper to the updated RABOCORE data (they used old data), and basically tears it apart.
@Catamount1412 BLA BLA BLA I am not reading paragraphs of your babble. Green energy is a fucking scam, and global warming has been blown out of proportion and is the biggest fraud known to man. Calm down. You're not going to change the world. Get a job or something
Well I don't know what your arbitrary definition of "scam" and "fraud" is, but whatever you feel like calling things, anthropogenic global warming is a principle based in sound science that pretty much everyone who has any understanding accepts, and you clearly don't offer a scientific reason for that fact to change.
It's clear that your objections are purely non-scientific, and the same is probably true for your stance on whatever you consider to be "green energy".
Most probably not, and certainly not in this field, as my area of study is ecology and conservation biology, but actually bothering to go out and get a scientific education on something before I try commenting on it is certainly not a bad start.
If you ever feel like doing the same, I'm always here to help; so are countless actual experts, though they may not show my perseverance in dealing with your obstinance ;) Good day.
@Catamount1412 If by experts you mean activists yea, there are. If by scientists you mean people who are in bed with business and politicians and are funded basically just to find CERTAIN results. "find me evidence that links man to global warming". Anything else, nahh get rid of that.
Again, you seem very talented at coming up with political cliches, but naturally, you don't have a shred of evidence for anything you're claiming.
Anyone with any experience with the topic would also point out that skeptics are funded AND published (Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Chen, Avery, Singer, Evans, Friis-Christensen, etc), and yet still come up with absolutely no scientifically valid objection. If it were that easy to poke holes in, why to do they fail so miserably?
Basically, we're right back where we started. You know absolutely nothing about the science, you lack a single valid objection, and so you're basically offering nothing but a useless, politically biased opinion. At least I can offer sources and evidence for anything I claim.
="find me evidence that links man to global warming"=
Sure thing; we'll save time just by doing it this way: You tell me what premise of AGW theory you want evidence for, and I'll provide it.
It's worth mentioning that you clearly know nothing about science itself. Science is very bad at confirmation bias, because it works by reciprocal accountability. Any scientist gets credit, and reputation, by pointing out the problems of any other scientist.
It's why science has a history of accepting societally inconvenient truths, and breaking long-held conventions (evolution, relativity, heliocentrism, quantum physics).
@Catamount1412 The oceans contain something like 37 billion tons of suspended carbon, land biomass has something like 3000. The atmosphere contains 800 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously, so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce. Man made Gore-Bull warming is nonsensical
It's funny how you make this argument, and then defeat it immediately yourself. One wonders why you need me to explain it.
Nature doesn't just emit and soak up random amounts of carbon, it cycles the SAME carbon in a closed system. Humans are the only source of NET carbon release, as we insert new carbon into the otherwise closed system.
We increase the carbon quantity by roughly 3% per year, so after a mere 10 years, that would be a 30% increase in the system.
We know humans are responsible for the Co2 increases in the carbon cycle, for two reasons. First, human carbon emissions are chemically unique. Our carbon is carbon-13 and carbon-14 depleted compared to natural sources. The fact that our emissions coincide with dropping levels of these isotopes confirms our influence.
As a note, my 3% figure is a vast oversimplification. Natural emissions have actually been taking in a good bit of our additions (explained by the aforementioned RC article), in oceanic and terrestrial systems (slowing down our influence), and our emissions have also only very recently reached the magnitude of present levels.
There's a second method for confirming that humans cause the observed CO2 rise. Rather than explain it here (it's longer), I'll just turn you to Corinne Le Quéré's Real Climate article, "How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?"
These arguments of yours are so basic in their flaws, and so old, they aren't even worth bringing up.
So do you actually have a REAL argument against this science here to underlay your hostile attitude towards it, or don't you?
@Catamount1412 Age old arguments? HAHA none of which you have refuted, and have admitted to not even bring them up?? I have told you the science, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA. Global warming, like past ice ages, are a natural occurence in the life of the earth. Only the man who invented the internet and his minions believe that they have the power to alter or stop the life cycle of the planet.
Humans are the only known net source of significant carbon emissions in industrial history, and your "lag" only appears during a tiny period of interglacials, after which there is plenty of CO2 rise leading the temperature increase.
If you chose to ignore these refutations, then you are free, by all means, to bury your head in the sand.
You will not, however, ever be able to offer me, or anyone else, a single claim made by AGW theory that your claims preclude.
So now that we've established that you can't offer a single premise of AGW theory that you can preclude as being true with any statement you make, and are only able to run around screaming "OMG Al Gore!!1!" (exactly what does Gore have to do with this? He's no scientist, and I've NEVER cited or endorsed him), can we move on...
Or do you actually have something of substance to say?
How do YOU explain the isotope concentration changes if humans are not at least a primary contributor to net increases of carbon in the carbon cycle? How do YOU explain Professor Le Quéré's quantification?
How do YOU explain the highest observed atmospheric Co2 concentration in 650,000 years (and by no small margin)?
Finally, can you offer a single argument that precludes the CO2 rise from, say, ~345,000 years ago from causing the temp rise afterward?
@Catamount1412 increased warmth cause an increase growth in life which caused an increase in co2 levels. This explains why there is an 800 year lag of co2 when compared to temperatures. co2 levels continue to increase when temperature levels start to decline.ALL periods of global warming resulted in an INCREASE in plant life and caused more of the planet to be capable of sustaining crop growth.Look at you writing novels. Get a life man. I can make you dance just by typing. Dance bitch dance.
You're correct that temperature drove Co2 increases, but you're wrong about the cause. The reason the Co2 levels increase is because the oceans are not capable of holding as much dissolved gas, as is true of all liquids when heated.
This is basic high school science; you should know this.
"ALL periods of global warming..."
You have no idea what happened during ALL periods of global warming; furthermore, Lobel et al 2011 has shown crop decreases from global warming; read it.
Now, can you answer the basic questions I've asked you about your so-called evidence, or do you concede those points?
"Get a life man. I can make you dance just by typing. Dance bitch dance."
Statements like this are what show that you don't actually have real arguments to rest on, and so need to run around making immature and off-topic statements. Perhaps it would help if you stopped responding like a pre-teen?
Now, can you answer those questions, or do you concede your points?
@Catamount1412 I don't have time to teach you how the world works. Go find some more evidence and give it to Washington ASAP so they can take a little more control over our lives. Make sure the evidence supports man made global warming or they won't pay you for it. In fact, they'll link your name with the support of it after they kick you off the panel. Just like they have done before. They have their own agenda kid, quit trying to support their bias claims.
You can't answer the most basic scientific questions about even your OWN so-called talking points, to say nothing for the science in general, hence everything you say is just a bunch of opinion statements with no basis in any verifiable fact or science of any kind.
Thanks, that's all the information that was needed.
@Catamount1412 Asked and answered. Move on kid. The science that doesnt exist, is your man-made global warming BULLSHIT. It has been and is being debunked EVERYDAY. People have been caught up on lies and have admitted their fallacies. So many exposed as frauds. What a disgrace.
Nope, you never said anything about isotopes, so clearly you didn't answer that question. You never addressed Le Quere's article. You never addressed my particular question about paleoclimate temperatures. You never addressed the question about historical CO2 concentration.
So now, not only can you not even answer basic questions, but you actually have to lie about it.
Either you can answer them or you can't, and clearly you can't, hence you have nothing to base your claims on.
and since you're obviously incapable of answering the most basic questions about the science, and clearly haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about, that pretty much concludes this discussion.
It's too bad you were so incapable of civility this whole time. Being wrong is bad enough, but wrong and juvenile?
In any case, have fun ranting and raving about conspiracies that you can't demonstrate; I'll respond when you say something of substance (in other words, never?).
@Catamount1412 Your junk science has been debunked, better switch sides now before you look like an even bigger fool. Have fun in your little YouTube debates LMAO.
Oh it's been debated by companies with a vested interest in oil and coal consumption? Those experts?.. Those people that hire dishonest people to say it's not real?
Like the tobacco companies did with ...hmmmm what was that illness that is related to cigarette smoke... OH cancer...
You forget how much money the oil and coal companies have to "Buy" a dishonest answer. It's not been debunked kid.... It's a very real threat.
It's probably just an age thing; his use of language suggests that he's very young. With time, perhaps he'll learn how to carry on a civil debate, and how to present his arguments with evidence, instead of insults and lies.
Hopefully, when that time comes, he'll either accept climate science, or have a real argument against it. AGW theory could very well be completely wrong, but if so, it's not going to shown by arguments like the ones he's offered here ;)
@AroundSun Thank your for so eloquently proving my point. You're just another one of those ideological zealots (much like religious zealots) who put their idealogy above all else - above history, above science, above common sense, etc. When any of those things contridict your ideology you either distort it or flat out lie in order to make it fit.
@xexixk Its ok, you are just an economic illiterate. Considering what I think of you fucking gullible morons, I don't care what you try and say about me. You will always be wrong
@AroundSun 1) You are the illiterate moron - historical examples prove you wrong again and again 2) All you do is resort to cheap insults of those who disagree with you, which indicates how shallow your knowledge is and your own insecurities
@xexixk Still trying to save face I see. So tell me, when is the world going to end? LMAO. You better get out quick before you are the one wiping the egg off of your face too, like all of these fucking global warming idiots.
@AroundSun I'm not speaking solely of global warming when I say you ignore, lie or distort history - that also applies to all of your comments I've seen elsewhere you bend & twist anything & everything to fit your ideology - b/c of course your ideology can never be wrong and has all of the answers to all of life's problems - just like a religious fanatic. As for global warming, I'll listen to scientists, not smug know nothings such as yourself - next you will defend dumping waste in waterways.
@xexixk Your a tool to science ha ha instead of using it to prove and measure whats really going on and what we can really do to calm global warming or the new term "climate change" you use it to promote your religious fallacies of, " I know science cause iv read some books on my view and ideas, so it has to be right." Fucking tool. I cant even stop thinking of how much a tool you are. GODDAMN your a tool. TOOL! Wow, hey YOUTUBE the user xexixk is a TOOL! o and RON PAUL 2012!
@jsaiz187505 LOL and you're an idiot. Unlike you I am not so arrogant and smug that I pretend to know everything about everything. I also recognize there are people out there who are experts in their fields and spend years studing their specific specialties - they are much more qualified to speak on those spcialties than am I. You on the other hand are just an arrogant know nothing who thinks they know it all.
@xexixk You say that your scientists are totally right on global warming and everyone else is just wrong and don't want to listen to the experts. What the hell are you talking about me saying i know everything? Do you know anything about science? What do you do all day? Go around reading global warming articles on the net that fit your point of view? We don't know much about climate change nor should we say this guy or that guy has the answers tool. This just proves your tool like mind. TOOl!
@jsaiz187505 No I don't spend all day online. You are the tool - a tool for the big polluters, a tool for the anti-science crowd. If people like you had your way you would gut all environmental regulations - go visit China's and India's industrial areas and mining areas and see what that looks like when industry is completely free to do as it wishes.
Good to see you xex! I guess these 'global warming is a hoax' may be getting an idea about weather extremes. Within days of each other we have an unheard of weather pattern bringing hurricanes to places they've never been, (Bloomberg told New Yorkers to leave) following an earthquake where they are rare (WhiteHouse and Pentagon evacuated).
I guess they won't believe it until they see the kind of devastation in "2012" with John Cusack? By then it will be too late.
fool. Carbon alone is not the ONLY source for global warming, but it is a FACTOR... but it is a factor we can CONTROL.
You think we'll be able to control solar output which is due to increase? No we can't... now it may only be a few degrees that are shifted, but those few degrees make the difference between forest and desert, between global flooding and localized flooding.
Yes there IS carbon existing. NO that dosn't mean it has no affect in the long run. It's a factor in tandam
@Catamount1412 I already told you that Carbon levels rise AFTER the temperature increases. I told you that if other countries don't follow suit, there is no real benefit. The amount of CO2 humans emit is minimal. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance. You sound like you are going to cry with all of your bullshit junk science. You will be the one wiping egg off your face. It's a ridiculous notion that weather is created by man made global warming.
Carbon lags temperature by 800 years in interglacials lasting 5000-10000 years. That only precludes it causing the first 800 years of rise, and scientists don't claim that it does (milankovich cycles do). After those 800 years, the first years of carbon increases can very easily cause the latter years of temperature rise until the feedback levels off.
As such your argument creates no problem for AGW, and is easily addressed.
I already explained this; clearly you didn't read.
Yeah you are not going to read paragraphs of babble... why, because ignorance is bliss. I gaurantee your cohorts just pick up a slogan that says "it's a fraud"... cuz it's one sentance, actual fecking research though, too long didn't read...right?
@stewie1974 Aren't these people great? It's like they think they are Alice in Wonderland and it's true because they say it's true. Have to love the way Mr. AroundSun resorts to insults and childish name calling when he doesn't get his way. He should seek psychiatric help for his narcissistic personality disorder.
Itoh is also not necessarily an "IPCC" scientist in any capacity, either. Anyone scientist who requests a draft copy of an IPCC Assessment Report is considered an "expert reviewer". That does not mean that he was involved directly with the IPCC in any way.
To my knowledge, he published no part of AR4, though feel free to correct me there if I'm wrong.
Again, he is not a climate scientist, and has done no known scientific research on the subject.
Zogby research surveyed 5,000 American's and found that the self identified liberals or Democrats failed to understand even the simplest concepts, like how restrictions increased costs. Even really obvious things, like that rent control decreased availability for people not in television sitcoms, or that licensing fees drove up costs of services, nothing despite the evidence. Even college-educated liberals did no better. This is why they are strangling our production and our economy.
Money AND unintended consequences. Sure, we can get Chinese Needle Snakes to eat our Bolivian Tree Lizard. But will we be able to find snake-eating gorillas to get rid of those snakes?
The reason politicians make these stupid laws is because they make money off it. And it further lets them prove to themselves that the government can get away with stupid stuff.
given the fact that there is finite limited supply of fossil fuel. and given the risk of cataclysmic harm to civilization from further use of fossil fuels. what is the cost of saving our reserves of fossil fuels for some later date. We could wait some decades and see whether climate change predictions come true (they already have). if they don't, we could then proceed to burn up all the rest if we wish. as fossil fuel use will end sooner or later, why not sooner. save reserves 4 next ice age.
This is not to say that you're wrong in any overall sense, but I think at least two things are worth considering:
1) Carbon pollution is not just about warming e.g. a large amount of CO2 finds its way into the ocean
2) Setting targets for carbon dioxide reduction doesn't just achieve those targets, it also encourages technology and innovation that can exceed those targets, especially after those targets have expired.
Now, I'm no climatologist, but I'm not gonna let that stop me from interpreting climatological data, making arguments about how to best fight climate change, and going against what the vast vast majority of people who know what they're talking about think.
@Vaishino vast vast majority? several scientist getting millions of dollars from GE and the federal government are the vast vast majority? that majority admitted that global warming DOESNT EXIST(climatgate.) good one...
@teddyd2009 You clearly have no understanding of the non-scandal that is "Climategate". watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo isn't as quick a watch as the short opinion piece we're leaving comments on, but then that's the nature of actual scientific pieces.
Also, when did the majority of climate scientists admit that global warming doesn't exist? Was there a memo passed around that they all signed, or are you just friends with thousands of scientists and therefore privy to information the rest of us aren't?
@Vaishino I'm not exactly saying that either of you are right, but you were the one who first threw down the "vast, vast majority" phrase, so your response to his use of it could be just as easily used in regard to your first comment.
@KingPiccolOwned I said the vast majority because I didn't think anyone would be fool enough to make the claim that it isn't supported by the vast majority of folks who know what they're talking about. Climatologists who've been published in peer reviewed science journals for instance, all believe in global warming. Some disagree with the main cause, but there's been no good science that doesn't show an increase in temperatures.
@Vaishino Okay, but I'm not entirely sure that's what Mr. Spinney is arguing here (going back to your first post). It's the method to solving it that he seems to be critical of.
@KingPiccolOwned It's been a while since I actually watched the original video, but teddyd2009 was the one who contested the near consensus in the scientific community, so that's the only reason I was on about it.
Also, if Spinney's solution of spraying sea water into the air was actually tenable, there'd be widespread support for it. Just think about it, you wouldn't get a cloud from that.
@KingPiccolOwned emphasis on vapor. Simply throwing water around doesn't cause it to evaporate any faster. All that water's just going to fall back into the ocean a few seconds after they launch it into the air.
@Vaishino Mmmm... I suppose, but it would be worth a try at least. After all if it did work it would save veritable ass-loads of dollars (or whatever currency is being spent), of course if it didn't it would just end up costing more... Though from a purely subjective standpoint, if the price tag is already at least $150 bil. per year I don't think that another 900 mil. would really be that consequential.
@KingPiccolOwned The university of Leeds did a study on Marine Cloud Whitening and found that it would actually interfere with cloud formation in coastal regions, and "the efficiency of artificial sea spray generation decreases as the wind speed drops, so you can't emit much spray where you really need it".
There's also the fact that the study he cites was unreviewed, and totally glosses over any costs for the program aside from the boats themselves, ignoring possible side-effects.
@Vaishino It does - because then it has a bigger surface...... You can try it at home - take a bucket and fill it with lets say 1 gallon watter and then take some huge bowl (maybe swimming pool) and put the same amount of water into it. And after few days come back and tell me which evaporated faster :)
@Jigssaw1989 Wait, you can't just come in and say "it does". I'm gonna want some context there before I tackle this. Like, the point you're responding to is when I said that there's a study saying this is more likely to interfere with cloud formation, and that you can't use it where you want it. Is that "It does" agreeing with the study saying this technology is useless at best, and possibly harmful?
@Vaishino i was replying to this comment "emphasis on vapor. Simply throwing water around doesn't cause it to evaporate any faster. All that water's just going to fall back into the ocean a few seconds after they launch it into the air."
About the other things you said, i can't answer to that because i don't know details of this project (i only heard about it just now in the video.) I just meant that throwing water around causes it to evaporate faster because it has bigger surface :)
@Jigssaw1989 It wouldn't really be an appreciable difference considering the water's only very briefly in the air, and considering the surface area it's already got is literally the size of the ocean.
@KingPiccolOwned Also his reference to climategate as representing the majority of climatologists admitting that global warming wasn't happening shows a patent disregard for the facts. This "scandal" was a few emails between a few climatologists using science terminology that the layman uses in a completely different context.
Kind of like when people say "evolution's just a theory" as a means of discrediting it, when the scientific use of theory is completely different from the everyday use.
Another point about oil: the day where we develop new energy sources due to supply and demand would, I think, come a lot faster if it weren't for oil subsidies and other forms of government corporatism that distort the price of oil in the market.
And if we could get rid of government barriers to entry that create rolling blackouts, and other shortages (e.g. the ones that Mary Ruwart talked about).
@shanedk Totally agree. If gas wasn't so "cheap", almost $4.00 here in MI right now, more people would be pissed and demand new vehicle technology and so on. People find it hard to grasp the real cost of oil. So much tax money is spent on keeping the prices at the tank low, they think they are getting a good deal.
@TheLukeStein I saw an economist take the price of subsidies, and also included the cost of our mideast foreign policy, and said that when it's all totalled together we're paying something like $10/gal for gas! And that was BEFORE the current unrest!
In any case, have fun with your little video. There's little of use that I can say that the scientific literature hasn't said across countless papers already, and as you're not going to read them even if I point them out, it makes discussion of science with a political ideologue like you a useless exercise.
If nothing else though, perhaps you'll figure out why those of us who actually understand science don't take people like you seriously.
Like I said, I expected to much to figure that you'd be interested in actual furthering of understanding. Perhaps I just expect that when someone is going to open their mouth on a scientific topic, one will either make it a point to know more about said science than you apparently do, or one will make it a point to do fair research, and look at the evidence BEFORE coming to conclusion, rather than selectively examining evidence after the conclusion is already formed.
Then perhaps you'd get perspective on what the *scientists* have to say about the issue, and you'd learn why the *scientists* behind actual research on climate feel that geoengineering is not a demonstrated way to address present climate change, even if it merits further study.
Perhaps before you go on commenting on actual science, you'd do well to do some further reading.
I'd start with Roger Pielke's critique of BL09: "A Perspective Paper on Climate
Engineering", from the very Copenhagen Consensus Center you hold in such high esteem, or perhaps Alan Robock's critique of the same paper on Real Climate: "A biased economic analysis of geoengineering".
Perhaps, "JacobSpinney", the reason that governments are so willing to consider spending large sums of money that you deem unnecessary, is because they're advised by people who know more about science than you do, and because they get their reports from actual climate scientists, not economists.
@JacobSpinney Right, because that wasn't a giant strawman...
Clearly what I meant was that scientists give a better perspective on the tangible effects on climatic systems from any human influence than an economist will. It isn't to say that economists aren't important to the process of deciding how money is to be spent, but a cost benefit analysis must first start with an actual understanding of climate. What a concept, huh?
and yet again you strawman. Clearly you made no effort to actual read the critiques of Bickel and Lane, but then, I'm not sure why I expected any different.
I suppose I expected you to actually be interested in education and the furthering of understanding. Forgive my overestimation of you and your intentions, it won't happen again.
To your credit, you have at least said one useful thing to date: "I'm no climatologist". You make it obvious with saying it, but at least it's one honest statement
Actually you did no such thing, because you glossed over the primary points of the critiques, namely that no cost benefit analysis can be done usefully because of the lack of information on the cost of deployment and actual effects on global climate are unknown (because CO2+S02!=no CO2), and because once started, this solution could never be stopped for any reason, at least not for generations.
Either you're incompetent at reading, or want to hides these facts, so which is it?
Maybe it's because their bloated welfare states are on the brink of collapse and this is the perfect opporunity to raise revenue to delay the day of reckoning.
It's not worth it anyway. Money would be better spent on adaptating to climate change.
If it's nothing but a ploy for the "evil welfare states", then why is it also backed by the scientists, most recently in a report just now published by the US National Academy of Sciences?
As for "adapting" to climate change, I'd appreciate some elaboration. Exactly how can we make biodiversity more robust to climate change? The biggest impacts on us in the long term is going to hinge on that, so exactly how are we supposed to allow life on Earth to pretend climate isn't changing?
The first part is fair; I apologize for the assumption. Nevertheless, you, yourself, still seem to be making nothing but an unbacked assumption.
As for the second part, climate change is a natural process, but that doesn't in any preclude humans also causing significant climate change. The idea that the human contribution is "tiny" is one that is fundamentally disagreed upon by every scientific body on Earth that works in this field.
@Catamount1412 It's unfortunate that many economists are ignorant of climate science. It's also unfortunate that many climate scientists are ignorant of economics. Both have important parts of what should be a more complete whole picture. Government spending is not so much the solution as would be a carbon tax. There are some economists who are aware of importance of climate change.
Climate scientists and economists tend to have different jobs on this (and don't forget us poor biologists; SOMEONE has to tell you what problems it's all going to cause! :) ). The scientists should clearly define the problem, and the probabilities, and then give physical mechanisms to deal with it, and economists should then pick among the viable options (which geoengineering is not, of course). More go-between people, like Roger Pielke Jr, might certainly help that process; thoughts?
Hmm, wow. Your entire post consists of one needless insult, one cliche wrapped up in a baseless assumption (which happens to be wrong; I don't watch Rachel Maddow), one typo, and absolutely zero statements of substance.
I mean, with such a weight of scientific evidence being presented by you, how could I possibly disagree?
It's funny how you seem to make assertions with scant evidence, if any, but sure, whatever you say.
So tell me, do you actually have something of scientific substance to say about sulphate aerosol geoengineering, or the relevant paper that was mentioned by the video on the subject, or the subsequent critique by Roger Pielke Jr during his peer review, or are these topics really just so far beyond you that the limit of your debating ability is calling people morons?
@Catamount1412 "It's funny how you seem to make assertions with scant evidence, if any, but sure, whatever you say." Says the one who believes in green energy LOL.
It isn't caused by man. Temperatures are always fluctuating. You really think it stays at a constant? There are ice ages, warming periods. The earth is always moving towards one or the other. Around the Bronze Age temperatures were much higher than they are today for thousands of years and yes the polar bears obviously survived. The boom of the automobile industry should have had temperatures skyrocketing yet from the early 1940s - late 1970s temperatures took a nose dive.
ahffm93 3 months ago
If your boats worked, they would be used already. The reason they are not deployed is because the science is unproven, the consequences unknown, the efficacy uncertain. Such silver bullet fixes are the stuff of dreams for Libertarians and free market advocates. They can fix the world's problems simply by getting rid of laws and allowing the benign hand of the Free market to lead us all to prosperity. Well, it will lead some of us there...
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
If we wait for the free market to catch up with the decline of oil in the world it will be too late. We need to develop renewable energy now while we still have the petroleum. You imagine the free market as a benign and rational organism that looks out for itself. It is not. It is frauds, con artists, business men, loan sharks, all of whom wnat to make a quick buck then disappear to a tropical paradise. Blind adherence to free market ideology is religion.
ptolemyauletesXII 3 months ago
Besides. Who will pay for those boats jacob? Privat enterprise? LOL. As soon as they state dont enforce it, they will just say ""fuck this"" to the ENTIRE project and keep polluting.
gulbirk 4 months ago
Wrong. The best possible, and only possible way is to move away from using fossil fuel and instead using renewable energy. Yes, but the boat progrem is not A FINAL sollution you moron. OMG.
gulbirk 4 months ago
The Marine Cloud Whitening Program can't solve the problem but it's still a good idea.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
Chomsky's comments on Global Warming were spot on.
But Spinney is right about just buying time by cutting carbon, we still develop green technologies because that means less pollution and a cleaner environment, more jobs, and more time, the only people it's going to be extremely costly to are billionaire oil executives just ask the Germans they're way ahead of us on solar tech.
"Reducing the earth's temperature" would require a more concerted effort than just stopping Co2 Emissions.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
Can you post some links to where you get your information?
SexDrugsFinance 5 months ago
How about instead of crying about "BUT WE CANT DO THIS WITHOUT STEALING MONEY Q_Q"
How about you start crying about how the government's currently stealing your money on an army bigger than the rest of the world's armies combined, fighting an undefinable enemy?
bobmuffins 5 months ago
@bobmuffins
And 'global warming' - to be precise 'anthropocentric global warming' is yet another undefined elusive so called 'enemy' which govt steals money & wastes scarce economic resources to politicize
It is NEVER legitimite to steal money for whatever reason.
swu880 4 months ago
@swu880 You seriously think global warming is an undefined enemy?
The levels of GHG's in the atmosphere spiked right around 1950. The major industrialization of the world began in... about 1950. How is global warming still a question in anyone's mind?
And if you seriously think taxes are "stealing money"- you wanna move to a country with no taxes? That's... not going to work with a population over 1 million.
bobmuffins 4 months ago
@bobmuffins Because Oil Companies have front groups put out propaganda that doesn't even have to be peer reviewed as studies to create the illusion that there's a major controversy about whether it's happening. Kind of like creationist front groups who do the same with evolution.
FreeTheWorker 4 months ago
@FreeTheWorker Oh. Right. I forgot about that.
I thought the average person would only accept studies if peer-reviewed for a moment there, I guess.
bobmuffins 4 months ago
@xexixk
It's amazing how easiiy people like jsaiz are tricked into buying the BS put out to make sure oil & other industry doesn't have to waste $ on research & safety in order to have more $ to line their pockets. Wikipedia is non-partisan & he could discern the truth if he cared to . The references are abundant and impeccable.
From Wikipedia: Based on two independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.[1]
010PeriWinkle 6 months ago
Ok, got an issue here...
You leave the video saying "why?..." as if your argument is the only reasonable argument. If the governments of the world are not following your solution, they must have a reason to do so, and an argument of their own.
Your video would have been much, MUCH better, had you presented their position and arguments as accurately as possible, THEN explained why their view of the solution wont work, rather than pretend they have no reasonable position.
KaseyBrownFitness 6 months ago 2
@KaseyBrownFitness They don't have a reasonable view. There is an irrational fear (fear of the unknown) for trying out climate control strategies. Most people buy into the Christian/Rousseau/Avatar/Al Gore doctrine that humans beings kill the earth and only with SELF SACRIFICE (Kyoto) can we improve the situation. Politicians reflect constituency opinion, so this is their line. Read super-freakonomics... that's where he gets this argument from.
dmg46664 6 months ago
@dmg46664 You lost me at "They dont have a reasonable view". Present their view accurately, or provide links. Let me see both sides of the issue as clearly as possible, then *I'll* decide if it's irrational, instead of letting you decide it for me outright from the beginning.
KaseyBrownFitness 6 months ago
@KaseyBrownFitness Well I did provide evidence... unfortunately the book Superfreakonomics is not available online as a link. But you are making the assertion that in every case the counterparty HAS a reasonable view! It just needs to be uncovered. If you believe that Hitler, Stalin etc. had a reasonable view. Or even something less overt like the prohibitionists of the 1920s. In the 1920s their view SOUNDED reasonable. So did Hitler's eugenics. Not saying I'm right, just that your premise isn't
dmg46664 6 months ago
@KaseyBrownFitness tinyurl(.)com/3ba8v22 Here you can see some evidence that the issues of geo-engineering are claimed to be treated as a religion. Read Superfreakonomics. Read Krugman's article to see the counter, then put this video into context, hopefully you will be able to decide.
dmg46664 6 months ago
Because we don't want more rain?
RoyaleNick 6 months ago
Jacob Spinney, you are a fucking idiot.
xRA1D32x 6 months ago
YAWN...You bore me. I want all the the geniuses to tell me which year will bring doomsday, because we have never heard it before! Not in the 70's 80's or 90's right?? Just like the dates that we are getting out of the middle east. Right now, in 6 months, 10 months, a year and a half, next term, 2015, 2020 - 2030, etc............
AroundSun 6 months ago
In order for supply and demand to work efficiently, you have to eliminate the distortions of externalities. (See work of Ronald Coase.) This basically means that you must account for the damage done by global warming. What are the property rights of people damaged by global warming and how do they claim damages against carbon emitters? If you cannot answer that, you cannot have a market solution.
shishkabobby 7 months ago
I won't agree with you on letting supply and demand dictate when we should switch to alternative energy. We should feel obligated to create massive artificial incentives towards replacing the oil economy with a sustainable economy. Even in anarcho capitalism there should be massive grants dedicated to improving alternative energy because I am afraid that the cost to our standard of living with just be too high. Our limits of growth will also go way below what we are at now.
MacabreManifesto 9 months ago
@MacabreManifesto You have never heard of the supply and cost principle. What you are saying is that a group of wise men appointed at the top, those of which who are paid off, should be making our decisions for us?? Without our consent?? As the price of a resource rises, there will be an increased demand for alternatives, creating an incentive to respond to those demands. An increase in R+D. What you are really saying is that people DONT want to make money...Which is absurd.
AroundSun 6 months ago
The U.S. Senate Commission on Environment & Public Works
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Kiminori Itoh is an industrial chemist. He has never published a single piece of peer-reviewed research on climate science, and therefore, is not a climate scientist in any capacity.
The stated opinion of one scientist means little when it's contrary to virtually every climate expert on this planet, and it means even less when it comes from someone who isn't even a climate scientist.
Itoh's statement is little more than a bare assertion fallacy ("I'm right because I say so")
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 "virtually every climate expert on this planet" HAHAHA like the ones who said the observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa were caused by global warming. FRAUD
GE pays no taxes. I wonder why.........
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
So when you can't debate the science you fall back on red herrings again? One would think you'd give some consideration to the fact that your best objections were handily addressed and shown insubstantive, but I guess one would be wrong.
Perhaps it's too much to expect reason from someone who thinks the work of thousands of scientists is fraud, without a shred of evidence? Exactly how do you consider yourself qualified to judge science you clearly don't even remotely understand?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 The debate is over, you lose. 90% of those 'scientists' were merely deferring to the expertise of the experts in the field. They simply understood the CO2 mechanism and were fooled by the rest. The good news is that these scientists are smartening up at a rapid pace, and many are withdrawing the blind endorsements they previous gave. They don’t want to have egg on their faces, too.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
I like how you continually make assertions about a science you clearly have no understanding of, without a hint of citation.
Can you provide a single credible source for a single thing you've said just now?
You can't even come up with a single argument against climate science that isn't a worn out urban myth, so exactly what has the scientific community "lost", and exactly what are people being fooled by? You've yet to come up with a single problem with the science!
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Just for fun though, can you cite a source that shows that global glacier retreat is not caused by climate change? Since even most or all of the "skeptics" agree on this point (I was actually just reading an article by noted skeptic Anthony Watts on the subject), I'd be fascinated to see who's actually claiming this.
Black soot has been cited as a contributing factor, but I've never head anyone say that climate change doesn't cause retreating glaciers.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 IPCC said that the glaciers would be gone by 2035. Although the head of the panel Dr. Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research. Since the 2007 report, the new study included almost 290 glaciers. It showed that global warming isn’t the reason a glacier melts, but terrain and how much debris covers the glacier’s surface.There's a reason that global warming is a “green” science", and it has nothing to do with the environment!
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
What report? The 2007 IPCC report is AR4, and there IS NO new report that has been released since then. AR5 is presently in preparation; it hasn't been written, let alone released.
What is the name of your source?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
and don't give me something vague; I want the title of a published paper, or similarly credible specific study (by name) that says what you're claiming.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 ok check your mail
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Alright, I have a three sources that link to PDF files, and one that links to a long series of studies, and none of it appears to support what you're saying in any capacity. I see no abstracts with any thesis that would back anything you're saying.
Precisely which claim of yours are you alleging is supported by which specific source?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 Read the damn thing then
AroundSun 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 I don't have time to sit here and do your fucking homework. I'm not clipping arguments and posting multiple comments here to try and win some youtube argument which will do nothing for me. Look up the works of Joe Bastardi. John Christy, Roy Spencer There is so much out there I could give you a mountain if you want.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
I guess you don't understand how citations work, so let me explain this to you: the burden of proof is on YOU.
When you make a claim, it is your job to back it up, not mine. It's not *my* "homework", because they're not my claims. This is your job.
If you can't come up with a specific argument, and then give a specific citation (which does NOT mean pointing to an entire database and saying "it's in there somewhere"), then you have nothing to stand on.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
In fact, your links seem to have nothing to do with the topic. The first is about USGS/AASG data-sharing.The second is just a faculty page outlining the background and work of an individual at UCSB (and makes no claim that backs you up). The third is a list of publications by said faculty; that is NOT a citation. If he has a specific paper that backs a specific claim, then list it, otherwise you've presented nothing. The fourth appears to offer nothing of particular relevance either
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Oh, hey, looks I found your alleged paper. It's a pretty massive fail on your part, academically, when I have to find your own sources for you. The paper is "Hillslope-glacier coupling: the interplay of totpgraphy and glacial dynamics in High Asia" by Scherler et al and it says NOTHING like what you claim.
It was a study of 287 glaciers, as you said, but never said that warming didn't cause retreat, explicitly or implicitly. Any other sources, or can we lay your claim to rest?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
"Look up the works of Joe Bastardi". I just did, and he's entirely unscientific. By definition, science is an exercise in probabilities, not absolutes, so his no-probabilities approach as unscientific. He also hasn't published a single paper to back his claims, and so you get a man with no credibility.
"Christy...Spencer". Roy Spencer can't even explain interglacial periods with his model, and Christy's tropospheric "hot-spot" was found eons ago. Got anyone more credible?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Note, of course, that Spencer HAS published credible work in climate science.
Believe me, I have no intention of relying on ad hominem attacks. If you want to present a SPECIFIC CLAIM by these people, and cite a source of some kind, then by all means, but if all you're going to do is list names...
Why don't you read Real Climate's article, "Tropical tropospheric trends". It compares the Christy paper to the updated RABOCORE data (they used old data), and basically tears it apart.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 BLA BLA BLA I am not reading paragraphs of your babble. Green energy is a fucking scam, and global warming has been blown out of proportion and is the biggest fraud known to man. Calm down. You're not going to change the world. Get a job or something
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Well I don't know what your arbitrary definition of "scam" and "fraud" is, but whatever you feel like calling things, anthropogenic global warming is a principle based in sound science that pretty much everyone who has any understanding accepts, and you clearly don't offer a scientific reason for that fact to change.
It's clear that your objections are purely non-scientific, and the same is probably true for your stance on whatever you consider to be "green energy".
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
=You're not going to change the world=
Most probably not, and certainly not in this field, as my area of study is ecology and conservation biology, but actually bothering to go out and get a scientific education on something before I try commenting on it is certainly not a bad start.
If you ever feel like doing the same, I'm always here to help; so are countless actual experts, though they may not show my perseverance in dealing with your obstinance ;) Good day.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 If by experts you mean activists yea, there are. If by scientists you mean people who are in bed with business and politicians and are funded basically just to find CERTAIN results. "find me evidence that links man to global warming". Anything else, nahh get rid of that.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Again, you seem very talented at coming up with political cliches, but naturally, you don't have a shred of evidence for anything you're claiming.
Anyone with any experience with the topic would also point out that skeptics are funded AND published (Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Chen, Avery, Singer, Evans, Friis-Christensen, etc), and yet still come up with absolutely no scientifically valid objection. If it were that easy to poke holes in, why to do they fail so miserably?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Basically, we're right back where we started. You know absolutely nothing about the science, you lack a single valid objection, and so you're basically offering nothing but a useless, politically biased opinion. At least I can offer sources and evidence for anything I claim.
="find me evidence that links man to global warming"=
Sure thing; we'll save time just by doing it this way: You tell me what premise of AGW theory you want evidence for, and I'll provide it.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
It's worth mentioning that you clearly know nothing about science itself. Science is very bad at confirmation bias, because it works by reciprocal accountability. Any scientist gets credit, and reputation, by pointing out the problems of any other scientist.
It's why science has a history of accepting societally inconvenient truths, and breaking long-held conventions (evolution, relativity, heliocentrism, quantum physics).
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 The oceans contain something like 37 billion tons of suspended carbon, land biomass has something like 3000. The atmosphere contains 800 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously, so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce. Man made Gore-Bull warming is nonsensical
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
=The amount of CO2 humans emit is minimal=
It's funny how you make this argument, and then defeat it immediately yourself. One wonders why you need me to explain it.
Nature doesn't just emit and soak up random amounts of carbon, it cycles the SAME carbon in a closed system. Humans are the only source of NET carbon release, as we insert new carbon into the otherwise closed system.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
We increase the carbon quantity by roughly 3% per year, so after a mere 10 years, that would be a 30% increase in the system.
We know humans are responsible for the Co2 increases in the carbon cycle, for two reasons. First, human carbon emissions are chemically unique. Our carbon is carbon-13 and carbon-14 depleted compared to natural sources. The fact that our emissions coincide with dropping levels of these isotopes confirms our influence.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412
As a note, my 3% figure is a vast oversimplification. Natural emissions have actually been taking in a good bit of our additions (explained by the aforementioned RC article), in oceanic and terrestrial systems (slowing down our influence), and our emissions have also only very recently reached the magnitude of present levels.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
There's a second method for confirming that humans cause the observed CO2 rise. Rather than explain it here (it's longer), I'll just turn you to Corinne Le Quéré's Real Climate article, "How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?"
These arguments of yours are so basic in their flaws, and so old, they aren't even worth bringing up.
So do you actually have a REAL argument against this science here to underlay your hostile attitude towards it, or don't you?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 Age old arguments? HAHA none of which you have refuted, and have admitted to not even bring them up?? I have told you the science, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA. Global warming, like past ice ages, are a natural occurence in the life of the earth. Only the man who invented the internet and his minions believe that they have the power to alter or stop the life cycle of the planet.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Humans are the only known net source of significant carbon emissions in industrial history, and your "lag" only appears during a tiny period of interglacials, after which there is plenty of CO2 rise leading the temperature increase.
If you chose to ignore these refutations, then you are free, by all means, to bury your head in the sand.
You will not, however, ever be able to offer me, or anyone else, a single claim made by AGW theory that your claims preclude.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
So now that we've established that you can't offer a single premise of AGW theory that you can preclude as being true with any statement you make, and are only able to run around screaming "OMG Al Gore!!1!" (exactly what does Gore have to do with this? He's no scientist, and I've NEVER cited or endorsed him), can we move on...
Or do you actually have something of substance to say?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Just for fun though
How do YOU explain the isotope concentration changes if humans are not at least a primary contributor to net increases of carbon in the carbon cycle? How do YOU explain Professor Le Quéré's quantification?
How do YOU explain the highest observed atmospheric Co2 concentration in 650,000 years (and by no small margin)?
Finally, can you offer a single argument that precludes the CO2 rise from, say, ~345,000 years ago from causing the temp rise afterward?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 increased warmth cause an increase growth in life which caused an increase in co2 levels. This explains why there is an 800 year lag of co2 when compared to temperatures. co2 levels continue to increase when temperature levels start to decline.ALL periods of global warming resulted in an INCREASE in plant life and caused more of the planet to be capable of sustaining crop growth.Look at you writing novels. Get a life man. I can make you dance just by typing. Dance bitch dance.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
You're correct that temperature drove Co2 increases, but you're wrong about the cause. The reason the Co2 levels increase is because the oceans are not capable of holding as much dissolved gas, as is true of all liquids when heated.
This is basic high school science; you should know this.
"ALL periods of global warming..."
You have no idea what happened during ALL periods of global warming; furthermore, Lobel et al 2011 has shown crop decreases from global warming; read it.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Now, can you answer the basic questions I've asked you about your so-called evidence, or do you concede those points?
"Get a life man. I can make you dance just by typing. Dance bitch dance."
Statements like this are what show that you don't actually have real arguments to rest on, and so need to run around making immature and off-topic statements. Perhaps it would help if you stopped responding like a pre-teen?
Now, can you answer those questions, or do you concede your points?
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 I don't have time to teach you how the world works. Go find some more evidence and give it to Washington ASAP so they can take a little more control over our lives. Make sure the evidence supports man made global warming or they won't pay you for it. In fact, they'll link your name with the support of it after they kick you off the panel. Just like they have done before. They have their own agenda kid, quit trying to support their bias claims.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
So in other words, the answer is no.
You can't answer the most basic scientific questions about even your OWN so-called talking points, to say nothing for the science in general, hence everything you say is just a bunch of opinion statements with no basis in any verifiable fact or science of any kind.
Thanks, that's all the information that was needed.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 Asked and answered. Move on kid
AroundSun 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 Asked and answered. Move on kid. The science that doesnt exist, is your man-made global warming BULLSHIT. It has been and is being debunked EVERYDAY. People have been caught up on lies and have admitted their fallacies. So many exposed as frauds. What a disgrace.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Nope, you never said anything about isotopes, so clearly you didn't answer that question. You never addressed Le Quere's article. You never addressed my particular question about paleoclimate temperatures. You never addressed the question about historical CO2 concentration.
So now, not only can you not even answer basic questions, but you actually have to lie about it.
Either you can answer them or you can't, and clearly you can't, hence you have nothing to base your claims on.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
and since you're obviously incapable of answering the most basic questions about the science, and clearly haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about, that pretty much concludes this discussion.
It's too bad you were so incapable of civility this whole time. Being wrong is bad enough, but wrong and juvenile?
In any case, have fun ranting and raving about conspiracies that you can't demonstrate; I'll respond when you say something of substance (in other words, never?).
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 Your junk science has been debunked, better switch sides now before you look like an even bigger fool. Have fun in your little YouTube debates LMAO.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Oh it's been debated by companies with a vested interest in oil and coal consumption? Those experts?.. Those people that hire dishonest people to say it's not real?
Like the tobacco companies did with ...hmmmm what was that illness that is related to cigarette smoke... OH cancer...
You forget how much money the oil and coal companies have to "Buy" a dishonest answer. It's not been debunked kid.... It's a very real threat.
stewie1974 6 months ago
@stewie1974 Hey dumb dick, do you realize that the banks, energy, and oil companies that you despise are top investors in "green" technologies??
Stop playing the left and right game moron
You think you are so right, but you are so wrong
AroundSun 6 months ago
Comment removed
stewie1974 6 months ago
@Catamount1412 AroundSun excels in juvenille like behavior.
xexixk 9 months ago
@xexixk
It's probably just an age thing; his use of language suggests that he's very young. With time, perhaps he'll learn how to carry on a civil debate, and how to present his arguments with evidence, instead of insults and lies.
Hopefully, when that time comes, he'll either accept climate science, or have a real argument against it. AGW theory could very well be completely wrong, but if so, it's not going to shown by arguments like the ones he's offered here ;)
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@xexixk wahh
AroundSun 6 months ago
@AroundSun Thank your for so eloquently proving my point. You're just another one of those ideological zealots (much like religious zealots) who put their idealogy above all else - above history, above science, above common sense, etc. When any of those things contridict your ideology you either distort it or flat out lie in order to make it fit.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Its ok, you are just an economic illiterate. Considering what I think of you fucking gullible morons, I don't care what you try and say about me. You will always be wrong
AroundSun 6 months ago
@AroundSun 1) You are the illiterate moron - historical examples prove you wrong again and again 2) All you do is resort to cheap insults of those who disagree with you, which indicates how shallow your knowledge is and your own insecurities
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Still trying to save face I see. So tell me, when is the world going to end? LMAO. You better get out quick before you are the one wiping the egg off of your face too, like all of these fucking global warming idiots.
AroundSun 6 months ago
@AroundSun I'm not speaking solely of global warming when I say you ignore, lie or distort history - that also applies to all of your comments I've seen elsewhere you bend & twist anything & everything to fit your ideology - b/c of course your ideology can never be wrong and has all of the answers to all of life's problems - just like a religious fanatic. As for global warming, I'll listen to scientists, not smug know nothings such as yourself - next you will defend dumping waste in waterways.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Your a tool to science ha ha instead of using it to prove and measure whats really going on and what we can really do to calm global warming or the new term "climate change" you use it to promote your religious fallacies of, " I know science cause iv read some books on my view and ideas, so it has to be right." Fucking tool. I cant even stop thinking of how much a tool you are. GODDAMN your a tool. TOOL! Wow, hey YOUTUBE the user xexixk is a TOOL! o and RON PAUL 2012!
jsaiz187505 6 months ago
@jsaiz187505 LOL and you're an idiot. Unlike you I am not so arrogant and smug that I pretend to know everything about everything. I also recognize there are people out there who are experts in their fields and spend years studing their specific specialties - they are much more qualified to speak on those spcialties than am I. You on the other hand are just an arrogant know nothing who thinks they know it all.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk You say that your scientists are totally right on global warming and everyone else is just wrong and don't want to listen to the experts. What the hell are you talking about me saying i know everything? Do you know anything about science? What do you do all day? Go around reading global warming articles on the net that fit your point of view? We don't know much about climate change nor should we say this guy or that guy has the answers tool. This just proves your tool like mind. TOOl!
jsaiz187505 6 months ago
@jsaiz187505 No I don't spend all day online. You are the tool - a tool for the big polluters, a tool for the anti-science crowd. If people like you had your way you would gut all environmental regulations - go visit China's and India's industrial areas and mining areas and see what that looks like when industry is completely free to do as it wishes.
xexixk 6 months ago
Comment removed
010PeriWinkle 6 months ago
@xexixk
Good to see you xex! I guess these 'global warming is a hoax' may be getting an idea about weather extremes. Within days of each other we have an unheard of weather pattern bringing hurricanes to places they've never been, (Bloomberg told New Yorkers to leave) following an earthquake where they are rare (WhiteHouse and Pentagon evacuated).
I guess they won't believe it until they see the kind of devastation in "2012" with John Cusack? By then it will be too late.
hollyhockdoll 6 months ago
@hollyhockdoll They are an incredible lot of people - delusion reigns among them.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk
LOL! Nailed him! Good to see you my friend.
010PeriWinkle 6 months ago
@010PeriWinkle Thanks, but it's not a difficult job to do when his pathology is so obvious.
xexixk 6 months ago
@AroundSun
fool. Carbon alone is not the ONLY source for global warming, but it is a FACTOR... but it is a factor we can CONTROL.
You think we'll be able to control solar output which is due to increase? No we can't... now it may only be a few degrees that are shifted, but those few degrees make the difference between forest and desert, between global flooding and localized flooding.
Yes there IS carbon existing. NO that dosn't mean it has no affect in the long run. It's a factor in tandam
stewie1974 6 months ago
@AroundSun
Now you're claiming, without a shred of evidence, that this entire system has magically broken down on the one issue you disagree with.
In short, you have no *actual* argument against the science, so you just throw out wild conspiracy claims.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@Catamount1412 I already told you that Carbon levels rise AFTER the temperature increases. I told you that if other countries don't follow suit, there is no real benefit. The amount of CO2 humans emit is minimal. The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance. You sound like you are going to cry with all of your bullshit junk science. You will be the one wiping egg off your face. It's a ridiculous notion that weather is created by man made global warming.
AroundSun 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Carbon lags temperature by 800 years in interglacials lasting 5000-10000 years. That only precludes it causing the first 800 years of rise, and scientists don't claim that it does (milankovich cycles do). After those 800 years, the first years of carbon increases can very easily cause the latter years of temperature rise until the feedback levels off.
As such your argument creates no problem for AGW, and is easily addressed.
I already explained this; clearly you didn't read.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
@AroundSun
Yeah you are not going to read paragraphs of babble... why, because ignorance is bliss. I gaurantee your cohorts just pick up a slogan that says "it's a fraud"... cuz it's one sentance, actual fecking research though, too long didn't read...right?
Ignorant fucker....no excuse, you are ignorant.
stewie1974 6 months ago
@stewie1974 I just don't have time to sit here and debate unemployed democrats about shit al gore made up and shit that has been debunked
AroundSun 6 months ago
@stewie1974 Aren't these people great? It's like they think they are Alice in Wonderland and it's true because they say it's true. Have to love the way Mr. AroundSun resorts to insults and childish name calling when he doesn't get his way. He should seek psychiatric help for his narcissistic personality disorder.
xexixk 6 months ago
Itoh is also not necessarily an "IPCC" scientist in any capacity, either. Anyone scientist who requests a draft copy of an IPCC Assessment Report is considered an "expert reviewer". That does not mean that he was involved directly with the IPCC in any way.
To my knowledge, he published no part of AR4, though feel free to correct me there if I'm wrong.
Again, he is not a climate scientist, and has done no known scientific research on the subject.
Catamount1412 9 months ago
Zogby research surveyed 5,000 American's and found that the self identified liberals or Democrats failed to understand even the simplest concepts, like how restrictions increased costs. Even really obvious things, like that rent control decreased availability for people not in television sitcoms, or that licensing fees drove up costs of services, nothing despite the evidence. Even college-educated liberals did no better. This is why they are strangling our production and our economy.
AroundSun 10 months ago
Money AND unintended consequences. Sure, we can get Chinese Needle Snakes to eat our Bolivian Tree Lizard. But will we be able to find snake-eating gorillas to get rid of those snakes?
TheLukeStein 10 months ago
@TheLukeStein Reminds me of the last episode of "Dinosaurs."
shanedk 10 months ago
The reason politicians make these stupid laws is because they make money off it. And it further lets them prove to themselves that the government can get away with stupid stuff.
daboodeef179 11 months ago
Global Warming is an opinion. It hasn't been proven.
daboodeef179 11 months ago
daboodeef
Theory is not the same thing as opinion. Nor does it refer to something that is unproven.
Rovinpiper 10 months ago
given the fact that there is finite limited supply of fossil fuel. and given the risk of cataclysmic harm to civilization from further use of fossil fuels. what is the cost of saving our reserves of fossil fuels for some later date. We could wait some decades and see whether climate change predictions come true (they already have). if they don't, we could then proceed to burn up all the rest if we wish. as fossil fuel use will end sooner or later, why not sooner. save reserves 4 next ice age.
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
lolol please learn some god damn economics- supply & demand - supply & demand.
swu880 11 months ago
@swu880
/watch?v=7u6Os0TDR6o
standupeconomist. com/blog/climate/cmon-bill-g-youre-smarter-than-this/
standupeconomist. com/blog/climate/round-two-with-libertarians-on-global-warming/
standupeconomist. com/category/blog/climate/
standupeconomist. com/blog/economics/on-the-story-of-cap-and-trade/
standupeconomist. com/blog/economics/ten-observations-about-conservatives-and-climate-change/
huffingtonpost. com/social/dobermanmacleod/the-venus-syndrome-part-t_b_106325_13705301. html
jffryh 11 months ago
@swu880
/watch?v=7u6Os0TDR6o
standupeconomist. com/blog/climate/cmon-bill-g-youre-smarter-than-this/
standupeconomist. com/blog/climate/round-two-with-libertarians-on-global-warming/
standupeconomist. com/category/blog/climate/
standupeconomist. com/blog/economics/on-the-story-of-cap-and-trade/
standupeconomist. com/blog/economics/ten-observations-about-conservatives-and-climate-change/
huffingtonpost. com/patrick-takahashi/the-venus-syndrome-part-t_b_106325. html
jffryh 11 months ago
Very pleased you didn't just come out with a watered down version of "climate change is a lie!!!" like many minarchists tend to.
TMOvids 1 year ago
Why does no one else know about this?
MrDarknessandDeath 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you fucking stupid?
mtldemon6 1 year ago
This is not to say that you're wrong in any overall sense, but I think at least two things are worth considering:
1) Carbon pollution is not just about warming e.g. a large amount of CO2 finds its way into the ocean
2) Setting targets for carbon dioxide reduction doesn't just achieve those targets, it also encourages technology and innovation that can exceed those targets, especially after those targets have expired.
Mozza314 1 year ago
@Mozza314 Correction:
"doesn't just achieve those targets"
should be
"may not only achieve those targets"
It's certainly not given that targets will be met :-P
Mozza314 1 year ago
you didn't leave it to me to figure out by showing the dollar sign on the left
MirageScience 1 year ago
Now, I'm no climatologist, but I'm not gonna let that stop me from interpreting climatological data, making arguments about how to best fight climate change, and going against what the vast vast majority of people who know what they're talking about think.
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino vast vast majority? several scientist getting millions of dollars from GE and the federal government are the vast vast majority? that majority admitted that global warming DOESNT EXIST(climatgate.) good one...
teddyd2009 1 year ago
@teddyd2009 You clearly have no understanding of the non-scandal that is "Climategate". watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo isn't as quick a watch as the short opinion piece we're leaving comments on, but then that's the nature of actual scientific pieces.
Also, when did the majority of climate scientists admit that global warming doesn't exist? Was there a memo passed around that they all signed, or are you just friends with thousands of scientists and therefore privy to information the rest of us aren't?
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino I'm not exactly saying that either of you are right, but you were the one who first threw down the "vast, vast majority" phrase, so your response to his use of it could be just as easily used in regard to your first comment.
KingPiccolOwned 1 year ago
@KingPiccolOwned I said the vast majority because I didn't think anyone would be fool enough to make the claim that it isn't supported by the vast majority of folks who know what they're talking about. Climatologists who've been published in peer reviewed science journals for instance, all believe in global warming. Some disagree with the main cause, but there's been no good science that doesn't show an increase in temperatures.
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino Okay, but I'm not entirely sure that's what Mr. Spinney is arguing here (going back to your first post). It's the method to solving it that he seems to be critical of.
KingPiccolOwned 1 year ago
@KingPiccolOwned It's been a while since I actually watched the original video, but teddyd2009 was the one who contested the near consensus in the scientific community, so that's the only reason I was on about it.
Also, if Spinney's solution of spraying sea water into the air was actually tenable, there'd be widespread support for it. Just think about it, you wouldn't get a cloud from that.
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino I fail to see why not, clouds are little more than water vapor after all.
KingPiccolOwned 1 year ago
@KingPiccolOwned emphasis on vapor. Simply throwing water around doesn't cause it to evaporate any faster. All that water's just going to fall back into the ocean a few seconds after they launch it into the air.
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino Mmmm... I suppose, but it would be worth a try at least. After all if it did work it would save veritable ass-loads of dollars (or whatever currency is being spent), of course if it didn't it would just end up costing more... Though from a purely subjective standpoint, if the price tag is already at least $150 bil. per year I don't think that another 900 mil. would really be that consequential.
KingPiccolOwned 1 year ago
@KingPiccolOwned The university of Leeds did a study on Marine Cloud Whitening and found that it would actually interfere with cloud formation in coastal regions, and "the efficiency of artificial sea spray generation decreases as the wind speed drops, so you can't emit much spray where you really need it".
There's also the fact that the study he cites was unreviewed, and totally glosses over any costs for the program aside from the boats themselves, ignoring possible side-effects.
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino It does - because then it has a bigger surface...... You can try it at home - take a bucket and fill it with lets say 1 gallon watter and then take some huge bowl (maybe swimming pool) and put the same amount of water into it. And after few days come back and tell me which evaporated faster :)
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 Wait, you can't just come in and say "it does". I'm gonna want some context there before I tackle this. Like, the point you're responding to is when I said that there's a study saying this is more likely to interfere with cloud formation, and that you can't use it where you want it. Is that "It does" agreeing with the study saying this technology is useless at best, and possibly harmful?
Vaishino 1 year ago
@Vaishino i was replying to this comment "emphasis on vapor. Simply throwing water around doesn't cause it to evaporate any faster. All that water's just going to fall back into the ocean a few seconds after they launch it into the air."
About the other things you said, i can't answer to that because i don't know details of this project (i only heard about it just now in the video.) I just meant that throwing water around causes it to evaporate faster because it has bigger surface :)
Jigssaw1989 1 year ago
@Jigssaw1989 It wouldn't really be an appreciable difference considering the water's only very briefly in the air, and considering the surface area it's already got is literally the size of the ocean.
Vaishino 1 year ago
@KingPiccolOwned Also his reference to climategate as representing the majority of climatologists admitting that global warming wasn't happening shows a patent disregard for the facts. This "scandal" was a few emails between a few climatologists using science terminology that the layman uses in a completely different context.
Kind of like when people say "evolution's just a theory" as a means of discrediting it, when the scientific use of theory is completely different from the everyday use.
Vaishino 1 year ago
Another point about oil: the day where we develop new energy sources due to supply and demand would, I think, come a lot faster if it weren't for oil subsidies and other forms of government corporatism that distort the price of oil in the market.
shanedk 1 year ago 8
@shanedk
And if we could get rid of government barriers to entry that create rolling blackouts, and other shortages (e.g. the ones that Mary Ruwart talked about).
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk & JacobSpinney: Also, I think they did a segment on ReasonTV's youtube channel on the marine cloud idea.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk & JacobSpinney:
Here it is: /watch?v=aQlgMSoo5FM ("Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus: What's the best way to live with global warming? " by ReasonTV)
I will also post this on the Bogosity(DOT)TV forum's Global Warming thread.
Also, if we got rid of farm subsidies, we would likely be raising fewer cows, whose farts produce methane that are huge contributors as well.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@shanedk Totally agree. If gas wasn't so "cheap", almost $4.00 here in MI right now, more people would be pissed and demand new vehicle technology and so on. People find it hard to grasp the real cost of oil. So much tax money is spent on keeping the prices at the tank low, they think they are getting a good deal.
TheLukeStein 10 months ago
@TheLukeStein I saw an economist take the price of subsidies, and also included the cost of our mideast foreign policy, and said that when it's all totalled together we're paying something like $10/gal for gas! And that was BEFORE the current unrest!
shanedk 10 months ago
I posted this on ShaneDk's forum topic on Global Warming.
I did this because I thought this video was worth sharing.
Also, knowing him, if there really is something massively wrong with the points being made in this video, we both he'll say so.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
The annotation at the end should be changed from "5 stars" to "thumb up" or something. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
In any case, have fun with your little video. There's little of use that I can say that the scientific literature hasn't said across countless papers already, and as you're not going to read them even if I point them out, it makes discussion of science with a political ideologue like you a useless exercise.
If nothing else though, perhaps you'll figure out why those of us who actually understand science don't take people like you seriously.
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Like I said, I expected to much to figure that you'd be interested in actual furthering of understanding. Perhaps I just expect that when someone is going to open their mouth on a scientific topic, one will either make it a point to know more about said science than you apparently do, or one will make it a point to do fair research, and look at the evidence BEFORE coming to conclusion, rather than selectively examining evidence after the conclusion is already formed.
What radical notions...
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Then perhaps you'd get perspective on what the *scientists* have to say about the issue, and you'd learn why the *scientists* behind actual research on climate feel that geoengineering is not a demonstrated way to address present climate change, even if it merits further study.
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Perhaps before you go on commenting on actual science, you'd do well to do some further reading.
I'd start with Roger Pielke's critique of BL09: "A Perspective Paper on Climate
Engineering", from the very Copenhagen Consensus Center you hold in such high esteem, or perhaps Alan Robock's critique of the same paper on Real Climate: "A biased economic analysis of geoengineering".
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Perhaps, "JacobSpinney", the reason that governments are so willing to consider spending large sums of money that you deem unnecessary, is because they're advised by people who know more about science than you do, and because they get their reports from actual climate scientists, not economists.
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Thanks for letting me know that climatologists know how to spend money more wisely than economists do.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago 8
@JacobSpinney Right, because that wasn't a giant strawman...
Clearly what I meant was that scientists give a better perspective on the tangible effects on climatic systems from any human influence than an economist will. It isn't to say that economists aren't important to the process of deciding how money is to be spent, but a cost benefit analysis must first start with an actual understanding of climate. What a concept, huh?
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Glad to know that marine cloud whitening was an idea pulled out of a hat by economists and not thought up by climatologists.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
and yet again you strawman. Clearly you made no effort to actual read the critiques of Bickel and Lane, but then, I'm not sure why I expected any different.
I suppose I expected you to actually be interested in education and the furthering of understanding. Forgive my overestimation of you and your intentions, it won't happen again.
To your credit, you have at least said one useful thing to date: "I'm no climatologist". You make it obvious with saying it, but at least it's one honest statement
Catamount1412 2 years ago
Or perhaps I already dealt with this in the comments with someone else and I don't care to repeat myself.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago 2
Actually you did no such thing, because you glossed over the primary points of the critiques, namely that no cost benefit analysis can be done usefully because of the lack of information on the cost of deployment and actual effects on global climate are unknown (because CO2+S02!=no CO2), and because once started, this solution could never be stopped for any reason, at least not for generations.
Either you're incompetent at reading, or want to hides these facts, so which is it?
Catamount1412 2 years ago
@Catamount1412
Maybe it's because their bloated welfare states are on the brink of collapse and this is the perfect opporunity to raise revenue to delay the day of reckoning.
It's not worth it anyway. Money would be better spent on adaptating to climate change.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@Guncriminal
If it's nothing but a ploy for the "evil welfare states", then why is it also backed by the scientists, most recently in a report just now published by the US National Academy of Sciences?
As for "adapting" to climate change, I'd appreciate some elaboration. Exactly how can we make biodiversity more robust to climate change? The biggest impacts on us in the long term is going to hinge on that, so exactly how are we supposed to allow life on Earth to pretend climate isn't changing?
Catamount1412 1 year ago
@Catamount1412
I never said it was "nothing but a ploy" - only that it was being used as an excuse.
Climate change is natural. Getting rid of the tiny man made contribution is not only unviable, it's not going stop anything.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@Guncriminal
The first part is fair; I apologize for the assumption. Nevertheless, you, yourself, still seem to be making nothing but an unbacked assumption.
As for the second part, climate change is a natural process, but that doesn't in any preclude humans also causing significant climate change. The idea that the human contribution is "tiny" is one that is fundamentally disagreed upon by every scientific body on Earth that works in this field.
Catamount1412 1 year ago
@Catamount1412 It's unfortunate that many economists are ignorant of climate science. It's also unfortunate that many climate scientists are ignorant of economics. Both have important parts of what should be a more complete whole picture. Government spending is not so much the solution as would be a carbon tax. There are some economists who are aware of importance of climate change.
/watch?v=7u6Os0TDR6o
standupeconomist. com/blog/economics/ten-observations-about-conservatives-and-climate-change
jffryh 11 months ago
@jffryh
Climate scientists and economists tend to have different jobs on this (and don't forget us poor biologists; SOMEONE has to tell you what problems it's all going to cause! :) ). The scientists should clearly define the problem, and the probabilities, and then give physical mechanisms to deal with it, and economists should then pick among the viable options (which geoengineering is not, of course). More go-between people, like Roger Pielke Jr, might certainly help that process; thoughts?
Catamount1412 11 months ago
@Catamount1412 If you think the IGP is made up of all scientists you are a moron. Go to bed kid, turn of Rachel Maddow
AroundSun 10 months ago
@AroundSun
@AroundSun
Hmm, wow. Your entire post consists of one needless insult, one cliche wrapped up in a baseless assumption (which happens to be wrong; I don't watch Rachel Maddow), one typo, and absolutely zero statements of substance.
I mean, with such a weight of scientific evidence being presented by you, how could I possibly disagree?
Catamount1412 10 months ago
@Catamount1412 Because you hear what you want to hear. Same reason you probably like Owe Bama.
AroundSun 10 months ago
@AroundSun
It's funny how you seem to make assertions with scant evidence, if any, but sure, whatever you say.
So tell me, do you actually have something of scientific substance to say about sulphate aerosol geoengineering, or the relevant paper that was mentioned by the video on the subject, or the subsequent critique by Roger Pielke Jr during his peer review, or are these topics really just so far beyond you that the limit of your debating ability is calling people morons?
Catamount1412 10 months ago
@Catamount1412 "It's funny how you seem to make assertions with scant evidence, if any, but sure, whatever you say." Says the one who believes in green energy LOL.
AroundSun 10 months ago