bobjohnsonforthehall

What makes no sense? Not sure that I follow.

Incorrect https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01779

This has to do with what exactly?

Perhaps because those who want to "be on the safe side" want to bring the economies of the western world to a screeching halt? They want to put an end to the single economic system that has done more to bring the world out of poverty than any other? In doing so, they seem to want to lower the population of the earth and recreate it into a utopia that never has existed, and never will exist to their satisfaction? I mean...that could be it. You know?

You said that the "rate of warming is virtually without precedent". This is inaccurate and misleading. The rate of warming is not linear. You're citing it in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be a dinosaur who knows nothing about the subject. That's pretty much the very definition of ageism, but again, you do you. And the only way that these future "costs" ever come to bare is if all of the doomsday projections come to pass. Even the IPCC does not believe that. What's your view on nuclear power? China? India?

No it's not. That's an inaccurate interpretation of ENSO climate pattern. The rate of warming is not linear. But you do you.

That is certainly very ageist of you. Where does that rank on the victimhood hierarchy? I'm guessing it's below misogyny so thus is ok for you to say without fear of retribution. "Denialists" as you call them, seem to be uninterested in engaging in scientific curiosity. I could say the same for many millions on your side of the debate. They hear what they want to hear. Are told over and over by the media what the media wants them to hear. And they spew things that are scientifically garbage but remain popular tropes that are spilled over and over which I suppose somehow makes them true in their minds. Polar bear population being one of the biggies. Go to an event and uninformed people believe the polar bear population is plunging due to global warming. It's not. But what can you do? Can I say that the young and uninformed are too impressionable by people who purport themselves to be experts in a field but are actually activists uninterested in scientific rigor? Or would that be ageist as well? I'm confused. "Imprison the world in an unsustainable status quo". That's an interesting take. I would love to hear you expound on that one. What exactly is "unsustainable" and exactly which "backward policy goals" need to be "suffered through"? I'm quite curious to learn.

It's not that sudden. Relax. Parts of the world have warmed and cooled throughout human history. That shouldn't surprise you. The attempts that we are currently making to rewrite climatic history nothwithstanding of course. The idea of one global temperature is laughable. The idea that we are even now measuring the temperature of the entire earth in an accurate way is, again, laughable. The idea that a trace gas, that has shown to be a lagging indicator and not a leading one, can cause global temperatures to react in the way that you seem to believe, is what it is I suppose. CO2 has been higher during our planet's history, and at times when temperatures were lower. The climate is more complex than today's scientists can possibly understand. Good for them for trying. It is what they should do. But they should not pretend that they know the answer with certainty. They do not. Oh, and the vitriol and attempt to squash debate is unnecessary and pretty much aligns with my previous thoughts regarding something else besides science looking to silence critique.

1. Peer reviewed = that which cannot be questioned. Good to know. 2. Or...and hear me out here...science is itself not something that lends itself to the branding of those who question it. Science itself, and more precisely scientists, should not ever believe that something is "settled". Scientists must constantly be ready to challenge and to be challenged. Unless of course there is something else going on. The reason that those who question the supposed consensus are constantly vilified by people such as yourself. Common scientific belief has changed throughout history. Those who would use current scientific belief to brand those who question it as "heretics" (or in this case "deniers") generally do not hold up to the scrutiny of posterity. Thus there is something beyond science at work here to shut down debate - about the most anti-scientific thing one can imagine.

Misogynistic. Lol. That's rich. It's as if you have never seen a political opponent shown in an unflattering picture before. When it happens to be a female that makes it misogynistic? Just stop. By the way. Deniers = unbelievers correct? Let me know when the stonings begin so that i can prepare. many thanks!

The main pieces of energy have yet to be well sampled. The models are just guessing at this point. I will start noticing trends from 00z overnight to 12z tomorrow and not before. And I'm not rooting for snow. Hoping that it doesn't snow actually. But realistically Miler A setups shouldn't be taken seriously or have white flags waived until you start seeing definitive trends within 72 hours of the storm. Just my opinion anyway.

Fixed the apparent misspelling

Or it's not headed towards disaster.

Oh sweet merciful crap. Yes...we'll all be dead by 2050. Just like every other doomsday prediction that has come true. Oh wait... If my eyes rolled any further to the back of my head I could see Russia from my house. Seriously though. The more people who believe in this that choose not to procreate the better we will all be going forward. So by all means have at it. Or actually don't "have at it" as the case may be.

Wind and solar are not reliable. Energy needs to be reliable. Nuclear is a big win for everyone, and the technology available today makes it very safe.

This is correct. But the way for those countries to move from "developing" to "developed" is through the use of fossil fuels. Something that you seem to want to deny them.

Again "probably". Actually I will give you some credit on this one. I did not realize that plant based milks are getting as popular as they are. I have researched a bit and it seems they are really taking off over the past year or so. So you are correct on this one. Still. Hands off my burger!

Ok that I can certainly agree with. Anyone who closes their mind on either side of this issue is simply a partisan hack and not interested in science. Definitely agree with you there. But that goes for both sides. No? I mean, anyone who closes their mind to the possibility of skeptics being right is guilty of the same thing you are condemning "climate deniers" of. Correct?

Yeah not going to happen. Like the glaciers at Glacier National Park. This arbitrary 2030 deadline for 90% extinction will come and go and everyone who touted will just keep whistling past the graveyard.

Different variation of the same theme that is as incorrect today as it was when Ehrlich first postulated it. Only today it is couched in a "climate change" wrapping. And I suppose if one is gung ho to reduce one's carbon footprint, creating fewer people who would laso have a carbon footprint is a way to go. And hey, that's fine with me. If people I disagree with don't want to procreate more power to you.

That's great for you. Not my thing though. And "probably" doesn't quite cut it as a reason for whatever bankruptcies you are referencing. Research the reasons and I would highly doubt it has anything to do with "plant based milk".

Not more population. The location of said increase in population. Along with poor undergrowth policy. And cyclical weather patterns. And carelessness. Lethal combination no doubt.

Pretty much yes. If they are moving the base it is due to land subsidence and landfill settling. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.

If were an actual thing. Which it isn't. Coral adapts amazingly well. It thrived in oceans far more acidic during much warmer times with far more CO2 than we are currently experiencing.

Paul. Ehrlich. My goodness.