There is no doubt you may be correct, but as others have said...using worst case scenarios 1. We act, and this action causes worldwide recession/ depression 2. We dont act earth beats the shit out of human race..
We have recovered from global depressions before..Im not sure we could recover from a global climate disaster
Not to change the topic - but since when has there ever been a "global depression"? There hasn't been ANY depression of this magnitutude in such a case where all the major countries depended on eachother.
There wasn't global trading.
There wasn't internet sales.
There wasn't outsourcing.
There wasn't a world market.
Cheer up! The earth has been beating the shit out of mankind for a couple million years....but somehow we've managed to adapt and survive.There is no doubt you may be correct, but as others have said...using worst case scenarios 1. We act, and this action causes worldwide recession/ depression…2. We don’t act earth beats the shit out of human race..
We have recovered from global depressions before..I’m not sure we could recover from a global climate disaster…
Ah, for Christ sakes would you look the f at this shit! We get some astoundingly good news and some donkey has to try to spoil the elation by turning it into a brain dead screed about me. Why don't you go somewhere and choke on your self hate. I hope you die if your Mother isn't swept away by a melting glacier. Try to understand that the liberal mind just looks at the data and what the scientists say is their consensus with reason and logic and goes along with whatever that consensus is. We don't attach our own opinions like butt patches to our assholes like conservatives do and whine and cry when somebody changes the game. If global warming isn't a disaster about to happen, it's good news you stupid moron. Only a gosh darn sponge would find here a reason to gloat. Try to go drain the puss.
Good point. I think a huge amount of the hype of global warming is because Mann et al took the end of the Little Ice Age as a baseline and then projected a dishonest hockey stick temperature graph, which predictably scared the sheep.
Cheer up! The earth has been beating the shit out of mankind for a couple million years....but somehow we've managed to adapt and survive.
If your into doomsday scenarios....here's 13 ways the world could end today. Enjoy. :biggrin:Hope you enjoy living under your bridge...
Not too long ago a spokesman for a government agency was asked (more or less) if there was evidence for 'x' and the response was that there was not.... taking this a bit further the questioner asked what effort was made to determine this and the response was that no effort was made... perplexed the questioner asked how then can you proclaim there is no evidence for 'X'... the response was that to look for evidence of what you already know does not exist is a waste of time and the tax payer's dollars....
This logic seems to be the same or similar to the logic employed by folks in this topic. But with a twist.
For whatever reason the Earth seems to be warming up or cooling down in some form of transition with some magnitude maybe even in some areas and not in others.
Who among our elite group of forum thinkers has the expertise to independently gather evidence and produce the answer to this question?
I think we are all left at the mercy of the folks who can gather and assess the data.
So... it further seems to me that what we are doing is accepting as truth that which satisfies some individually held belief. But, that belief as in a court room where we are charged to assume innocent until the preponderance or some other required standard convinces us to change that charged belief is not founded on anything but a very limited and biased input.
Is it not possible to cause folks to accept as reasonable evidence the production of the vast majority of scientists? That is... to act as if it was factual what the vast majority of scientists proclaim? In court we are charged to accept a witness as an expert... usually because we are not and we are usually faced with competing expert witnesses and with out individual expertise on the subject ourselves determine who is right...
Such is the case here.... So... it seems prudent to embark on an analysis that we can reasonably produce... One that simply asks what can we do and what are the benefits and costs of a variety of 'can do' scenarios based on a variety of points along the curve of assumed reality.
Economically, it would be a wonderful stimulus and one that a majority of folks wouldn't balk at as the debt climbs ostensibly to insure our survival.... :hmm:
If your into doomsday scenarios....here's 13 ways the world could end today. Enjoy. :biggrin:
http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/phenomena/doomsday-scenarios/gallery.html
Not too long ago a spokesman for a government agency was asked (more or less) if there was evidence for 'x' and the response was that there was not.... taking this a bit further the questioner asked what effort was made to determine this and the response was that no effort was made... perplexed the questioner asked how then can you proclaim there is no evidence for 'X'... the response was that to look for evidence of what you already know does not exist is a waste of time and the tax payer's dollars....
This logic seems to be the same or similar to the logic employed by folks in this topic. But with a twist.
For whatever reason the Earth seems to be warming up or cooling down in some form of transition with some magnitude maybe even in some areas and not in others.
Who among our elite group of forum thinkers has the expertise to independently gather evidence and produce the answer to this question?
I think we are all left at the mercy of the folks who can gather and assess the data.
So... it further seems to me that what we are doing is accepting as truth that which satisfies some individually held belief. But, that belief as in a court room where we are charged to assume innocent until the preponderance or some other required standard convinces us to change that charged belief is not founded on anything but a very limited and biased input.
Is it not possible to cause folks to accept as reasonable evidence the production of the vast majority of scientists? That is... to act as if it was factual what the vast majority of scientists proclaim? In court we are charged to accept a witness as an expert... usually because we are not and we are usually faced with competing expert witnesses and with out individual expertise on the subject ourselves determine who is right...
Such is the case here.... So... it seems prudent to embark on an analysis that we can reasonably produce... One that simply asks what can we do and what are the benefits and costs of a variety of 'can do' scenarios based on a variety of points along the curve of assumed reality.
Economically, it would be a wonderful stimulus and one that a majority of folks wouldn't balk at as the debt climbs ostensibly to insure our survival.... :hmm:
I've always been interested in this subject. I think you've misunderstood where I'm coming from based on your inane questions. Just curious....what exactly disturbs you about what I'm saying?So Doc, what other science do you pick apart? When you have cancer do you tell your oncologist your going the herbal remedy route? Do you tell your dentist its just whacky to think i need to brush my teeth each day?
just curious as you seem to be a expert in just about every field
There are no doubt lots of attempts to get something under the guise of CAGW. As far as stimulus, yes and no. Spending always has some stimulus effect, but money spent on one thing cannot be spent on another, so if we spend a lot of money fighting global warming our economy and our standard of living must needs decline as those man-hours and resources consumed in this fight are not available to be used to produce goods and services we otherwise want.I'll have to respond to the rest of the quoted post later but for now...
The key word in that para is 'ostensibly'.... In my world it is a word that seems to suggest that the motive stated might not be the actual one. So... Assuming actions suggested to be taken would include infrastructure improvements like a new electric grid to better enable... oh... solar, wind and whatever atmospheric friendly endeavors the political folks would want to garner population/Congressional support and what better way to do that than providing a doom day scenario.... IOW, an economic stimulus couched in a 'Save the Planet' argument. It becomes a numbers game. Our 1000 scientists versus your 25... The truth is not the objective perhaps... maybe it is in part but the real objective is creating jobs regardless of the truth of the underlying argument. Economically, that would be a wonderful thing to see happen.
I've always been interested in this subject. I think you've misunderstood where I'm coming from based on your inane questions. Just curious....what exactly disturbs you about what I'm saying?
Frankly, you sound like you are minimizing the issue so Judith Curry holds more weight to you than the IPCC sound like you are cherry picking to validate your beliefs
Please clarify. Am I "minimizing the issue" by posting a study which indicates the possibility of a significantly lower forcing factor for CO2...a forcing factor that essentially falls within the lower boundary of the IPCC estimate? Or are you actually disturbed by my "minimizing the issue" by not buying into your "living under your bridge" doomsday scenario? Which is it?Frankly, you sound like you are minimizing the issue so Judith Curry holds more weight to you than the IPCC sound like you are cherry picking to validate your beliefs
Please clarify. Am I "minimizing the issue" by posting a study which indicates the possibility of a significantly lower forcing factor for CO2...a forcing factor that essentially falls within the lower boundary of the IPCC estimate? Or are you actually disturbed by my "minimizing the issue" by not buying into your "living under your bridge" doomsday scenario? Which is it?
I posted the links to IPCC SREX and the newest iteration the IPCC AR5 in this thread and they agree with Dr. Judith Curry. I think you need to do some more reading.
Please clarify. Am I "minimizing the issue" by posting a study which indicates the possibility of a significantly lower forcing factor for CO2...a forcing factor that essentially falls within the lower boundary of the IPCC estimate? Or are you actually disturbed by my "minimizing the issue" by not buying into your "living under your bridge" doomsday scenario? Which is it?
I'm trying to make sense of your words and simply asked for clarification. You accused me of minimizing the issue and I'm doing my best to figure out what you meant by that.You are quite the debater but your intellectual dishonesty shines through on these forums...
Huh, from the authors..
'There's little change in the conclusion since AR4. Although only a small fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by human activity, and only half of that isn't absorbed, this remaining component is the dominant factor in determining the climate, say IPCC authors.'
The big question, in my opinion, is what motivates how we see and does that relate to our life experiences. I ask myself questions like this:
Does a child that grows up securely with all of his emotional needs met, a fate that can happen in poverty and also not in a rich family, perhaps have a less fatalistic outlook on life than an abused person. Does how we react to threatening predictions like ice cap melting that we could be causing ourselves create guilt issues that get linked and associated with unconscious guilt. Do some face their fears head on for old reasons and some run away, or go into denial and hostile reactions? The issue I see is again unconscious motivation and who knows anything about themselves. How do we know if our truth meter works on the reality that exists or one that existed in our past. It is my experience that most people have not only never considered these things, but won't and can't. They do not want to know they have unconscious motivations. They have not had the experience of having their mind blown apart at the discovery of what they are feeling, connecting some major psychological issue to some terrible event in their past, an event so terrible for the person as a child, they would laugh and cry about if they remembered by reliving it.
Because self knowledge is rare we are forced to navigate in a world full of people who know everything because they were taught to be ashamed of ignorance.
So what would change about your attitude toward climate warming if you didn't know anything?
I am at peace with the issue. I don't know anything. I live in a world of sleeping people, robots and automatons who drift along on a program that was installed in them as children, unable to change one wit of it. I ride an ameba that oozes along here and there responding without consciousness to chemicals in the water, a flowing mass of blind protoplasm. It may be thousands of years, if we survive, and it's not looking that good, since our poop is so toxic, before a few brain cells evolve to help the ameba along.
I'll have to respond to the rest of the quoted post later but for now...
The key word in that para is 'ostensibly'.... In my world it is a word that seems to suggest that the motive stated might not be the actual one. So... Assuming actions suggested to be taken would include infrastructure improvements like a new electric grid to better enable... oh... solar, wind and whatever atmospheric friendly endeavors the political folks would want to garner population/Congressional support and what better way to do that than providing a doom day scenario.... IOW, an economic stimulus couched in a 'Save the Planet' argument. It becomes a numbers game. Our 1000 scientists versus your 25... The truth is not the objective perhaps... maybe it is in part but the real objective is creating jobs regardless of the truth of the underlying argument. Economically, that would be a wonderful thing to see happen.