How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

^ ....that's one of the most curious things...there is practically a consensus here on RI about the corrupt nature of the pervasive power of the PTB....finance, military industrial complex, invasion of privacy, war mongering, etc.,....yet when it comes to the PTB's UN organization, whose IPCC panel first reported in 1990 that humans were contributing to global warming, and whose later reports saw humans as the predominant cause......wherein AGW became settled science according to the PTB and their well funded climate science organizations, well before normal due process of time for real free flowing scientific discussion and debate among all scientists interested in climate took place....resulting in AGW climate science skeptics being locked out of climate science grants, being labeled deniers, accused of being shills of big oil, etc......many RI members accept unquestioningly the announcements of the PTB's funded UN IPCC and of global AGW climate science organizations that the science is settled.

Due to the complexity of the issue, there will be no conclusive results. That's why those in power have not agreed on cutting emissions. There is simply to much money involved in ensuring that business continues as normal.

However, there is also peak oil, which is why more are now forced to look at other sources of energy. It will not matter, though, as the effects of AGW will continue.

Of course it will be business as usual...easy money making at consumers and taxpayers expense is the name of the game many of the PTB play.

But you do not know that AGW will continue, though I interpret that as GW, or maybe even GC...or would that then be called AGC and a new UN IPCC money making mitigation scheme evolve. Climate change though imho is predominately a result of natural causes, though humanity may contribute a portion, and as present climate science is unaware of all the workings of the natural causes and effects in play, no climate scientist at this time can say with a straight face they know what the global temperature will be 20 years from now, not alone 85 years. But that doesn't stop the well remunerated actors marketing the deceitful AGW scheme from doing so....

[Luther Blissett]

This whole carbon tax thing is hilarious.

[Monk]

^ Well monk, I am not an expert in derivatives but as I understand. it is a form of gambling....there will be winners and losers when a particular bubble bursts, but the game as a whole goes on...and the insiders mosty win on average. AGW is a good example...if as the article above about the pause lasting another 10 years is on the money, or if a cooling trend develops, AGW climate science will be totally debunked and all the scientists who staked their professional future on it will be put out to pasture (btw, they already know this which is why they are making up so many excuses, over 30 on present count, as to the present pause,...their financial and professional future is at stake...they gambled)...and the winners will laugh all the way to the bank, hundreds of billions, perhaps a trillion has already been spent and much much more in the pipeline, it is their pockets as long as they can keep it going....the losers are the taxpayers who are coughing up this money to combat an human caused increase in global warming that isn't happening...and the rich get richer!

What is clear is that the rich aren't losing because they get bailed out by government. That's how the rich got richer. The losers are citizens who are saddled with public debt. In any event, this proves that the rich don't care about global warming or peak oil, and the main source of taxpayers losses are bailouts needed to fuel more financial activity.

AGW is not a good example of gambling because even studies conducted by skeptics confirm it:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... pollution/

Finally, governments are barely dealing with this issue, as they've come up with mostly watered-down policies (e.g., make slight cuts in emission increases), which is not surprising as they work for the rich.

[Monk]

[quote="[url=http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?p=550670#p550670]
Monk..we know the global atmospheric temperature because it has been measured...but we don't know how much heat the oceans have absorbed because it can't be measured. It is only claimed as a theoretical possibility that unmeasured heat went into the ocean......
[/quote]

The data is found in the references in the link just shared.

Did you hear the one about the AGW scientist explaining the reason for the pause to the skeptic...."The ocean ate my global warming"!

Only recently. Apparently, skeptics are right about the point that the issue hasn't been studied carefully. All the while only surface temps were studied.

Sorry Monk...this is nonsense " Computer models cannot predict pauses because they use math formulas. Even then, the long-term trend shows increased heat".

No, it's not. Models do not measure "noise."

Monk..all climate computer models use math formulas, that is their basis!

Exactly. That's why they cannot predict pauses. What you want is the trend line. See the chart linked to earlier for details.

Monk.. your "Even then, the long-term trend shows increased heat" is a computer derived mathematical projection of future heat...it is not real heat as observed in reality!

It is the math in the computer model that didn't predict the pause that predicted the long term trend of increased heat that is not happening....the pause continues unabated...

Exactly. Are you assuming that the current pause will not be the same as previous ones?

Monk, if you are seriously interested in climate science...don't ever take anything from SkS at face value...think about it....my explanations to you are logically sound. If you think not..please in your own words, not links, try and debunk it.

Actually, I should, as the sources used by the site are scientific studies.

[Monk]

Of course it will be business as usual...easy money making at consumers and taxpayers expense is the name of the game many of the PTB play.

Exactly. That's why watered-down results are the norm:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/ipcc-report ... zqugm.html

But you do not know that AGW will continue, though I interpret that as GW, or maybe even GC...or would that then be called AGC and a new UN IPCC money making mitigation scheme evolve. Climate change though imho is predominately a result of natural causes, though humanity may contribute a portion, and as present climate science is unaware of all the workings of the natural causes and effects in play, no climate scientist at this time can say with a straight face they know what the global temperature will be 20 years from now, not alone 85 years. But that doesn't stop the well remunerated actors marketing the deceitful AGW scheme from doing so....

It will continue for obvious reasons, which is why pauses in the past were all temporary. The red line still moves upward:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Climate change is primarily driven by natural causes. The problem is the forcing factor of CO2 ppm on multiple feedbacks:

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatecho ... al-report/

And confirmed by an independent study funded by skeptics:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... pollution/

Finally, given the fact that much of the economy is dependent on oil, then count on the rich to market the "business as usual" scheme rather than AGW.

[Monk]

This whole carbon tax thing is hilarious.

Definitely, as tax revenues will ultimately be invested in more economic activity which requires more oil consumption.

The catch is peak oil, which is the twin hammer of global warming.

[Sounder]

This whole carbon tax thing is hilarious.

Yeah, maybe I need to work more on my sense of humor.


I realize clearly now why it is that ‘God’ calls me a twit so often. ‘God’ seems to feel that one overarching authority is needed to control the variables involved with life. I think the opposite, that is; Consciousness evolves and its refinement lessens and may change the very basis of authority structures.

So thank you ‘God’ for revealing to us what was previously only the subliminal import of your screen name. (Ha, ha, that’s funny, -screen name)


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28601&start=225

The book adds, however, that global governance can only occur if there is an accompanying change in the philosophy that underpins international relations. Professor Boyle describes sovereign nation-states as a "20th century experiment that failed" but warns that they are also in many ways an American invention which the US needs to accept as out-dated and no longer fit for purpose.

With the exception of the 20th century, Boyle contends that the model which has guided world progress throughout history has been that of Empire. Similarly, the book argues that in the 21st century, it is a network of global organisations - from multinationals to the still only partly-acknowledged "Empire" of America - that determine many aspects of our lives.

"It is a profoundly hopeful sign that we begin the 21st century with very many more international and intergovernmental organisations than we had at the start of the 20th," Boyle says. What longer history suggests, he adds, is the need for a system of "imperial of global regulation, if the 21st century is to be one of relative peace.

"The only conceivably peaceful route to that goal is through a continuation of the pax Americana," he writes. "But both the world's understanding of America, and America's understanding of itself, will have to change fundamentally for that goal to be achieved."

Ah yes, the nostalgia for empire and pax Americana. One would not be faulted for thinking that this material is satire, but no, not in this world. In this world something like this can be posted and cause nary any reflection at all about the pedigree, motivations, implications or intentions of folk that write and/or pass along such opinion.

[Luther Blissett]

This whole carbon tax thing is hilarious.

Yeah, maybe I need to work more on my sense of humor.

I just mean that for those of us who oppose environmental rape and destruction of nature, carbon tax is functionally business as usual.

I understand why it's a part of the conversation, but I'm more interested in radical forms of resistance.

[DrEvil]

I understand why it's a part of the conversation, but I'm more interested in radical forms of resistance.

I mostly agree with this, but under the right circumstances it might work. Say, if solar and carbon cost the same to produce, but carbon is taxed more, then people might migrate to solar.

Special taxes can work if you do it right. Norway is subsidizing electric cars like crazy right now, with the purpose of getting as many as possible on the roads as fast as possible. The four bestselling cars in Q1 were all electric.

But overall, I'm leaning more towards the radical resistance vein of thought too. The vested interests who want to maintain the status quo are too entrenched to dig out with the usual "civilized" tools.

(Hi NSA )

[Ben D]

Monk...consolidating the various posts from which there appears to have been some general agreement about the financial corruption wrt PTB, and almost total disagreement about the present credibility of AGW science...

Concerning AGW, there seems little value in my repeating the salient facts as I understand them concerning the the state of play of climate science, while, instead of engaging me directly in your own words in addressing my points (that address and debunk your claims) like I suggested, you post more AGW propaganda links that merely repeat the same flawed claims.

Now I am not going to waste time attempting to debunk flawed claims on links coming from SkS, thinkprogess, etc., as these blogs have no other purpose to exist than pump out endless AGW propaganda. If otoh you sincerely would be prepared to engage me on these points based on your own personal understanding explicitly....no links or blanket repeating of other's claims....then fine. And that goes for anything I've said that you think is false..challenge me by all means, but do it one on one and we may both learn something...but nothing is learnt by merely posting pro or anti AGW claims at each other...what is important is understanding.

Btw Monk, I do want to say how refreshing it is to be met with the politeness you've exhibited in our exchange, on what is a very contentious issue with most...thank you.

[Monk]

Monk...consolidating the various posts from which there appears to have been some general agreement about the financial corruption wrt PTB, and almost total disagreement about the present credibility of AGW science...

Concerning AGW, there seems little value in my repeating the salient facts as I understand them concerning the the state of play of climate science, while, instead of engaging me directly in your own words in addressing my points (that address and debunk your claims) like I suggested, you post more AGW propaganda links that merely repeat the same flawed claims.

Now I am not going to waste time attempting to debunk flawed claims on links coming from SkS, thinkprogess, etc., as these blogs have no other purpose to exist than pump out endless AGW propaganda. If otoh you sincerely would be prepared to engage me on these points based on your own personal understanding explicitly....no links or blanket repeating of other's claims....then fine. And that goes for anything I've said that you think is false..challenge me by all means, but do it one on one and we may both learn something...but nothing is learnt by merely posting pro or anti AGW claims at each other...what is important is understanding.

Btw Monk, I do want to say how refreshing it is to be met with the politeness you've exhibited in our exchange, on what is a very contentious issue with most...thank you.

The fact is that even if there has been a pause in surface temperature increase, we realize that the pause is temporary, just like many previous pauses. This is validated not just by scientific studies used by SkS and other sites but even by an independent study funded by skeptics. That is one reason why there is no debate about AGW and why skepticism is irrelevant.

Second, we also discover that more of the heat is being absorbed by oceans, and in turn leading to more problems for humanity. If there is a question about that, then the logical view is to study the matter further. But how can this take place if one of the complaints about AGW studies is that too much money has already been spent, and that it's all just "propaganda"?

Third, the world faces peak oil as well, and the logical reaction to that is to use less oil and to focus on renewable energy. But that's also the same response to AGW, which is another reason why skepticism is irrelevant.

Why, then, do we have so much skepticism regarding AGW? I think it's because most people want middle class conveniences, and the PTB can only maintain their wealth (made up mostly of credit) by manufacturing and selling more goods and services to consumers. That's why even governments that rely on PTB for credit and on people for the vote will at best offer watered-down policies to combat AGW and see the issue with a lot of conservatism (which is why the latest IPCC report was censored by them).

Given that, we can only conclude that the actual propaganda regarding this issue is business as usual. That is, the PTB and their government partners do not want to alarm people, which is why they will ignore ignore the issue or come up with "solutions" that will ensure business as usual (such as the carbon tax). PTB agrees to this because they can invest in renewable energy as oil prices rise due to peak oil.

[slimmouse]

Yes Monk, I really want to buy stuff, which is why Im claiming that AGW is BS.

Nothing to do with the data or the facts at all.

Just plain old me and 7 billion other selfish humans, who love to fight the war on terror, and the war on drugs and the war on cancer, or the need for austerity,along with all the other faux wars that humanity is apparently currently fighting.

All such wars where the claims of the official consensus, are just about as far removed from the truth as they possibly can be.

no global warming now for how long ? When was the last such study to indicate such a pause? 1850? 1645?, 1252?, 309 bc ?

[Ben D]

The fact is that even if there has been a pause in surface temperature increase, we realize that the pause is temporary, just like many previous pauses. This is validated not just by scientific studies used by SkS and other sites but even by an independent study funded by skeptics. That is one reason why there is no debate about AGW and why skepticism is irrelevant.

Monk, you have made such sweeping statements in your post that I can't possibly address them properly. What I suggest is that we work through the substance of the first paragraph and to the extent we can clear away some of the errors of your present understanding about this extremely interesting subject and find a common ground of understanding based on acceptable scientific methodology, logic, and factual background, we can then move on to the matters raised in the subsequent paragraphs. Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if you are passionate in your AGW beliefs, it's just I'm not interested in them, I'm interested in your actual present understanding of the planet's climate.

Now Monk, there seems to be some misconceptions you have about skeptical climate science that first need clearing up. Skeptics don't deny the observed global warming of the late 20th century, nor do they deny that human caused warming may have contributed, what they indeed do deny is that humans are the predominant cause. Iow, skeptics believe that natural climate variations are predominant, not human.

Secondly you need to know that AGW as a theory, like any scientific theory, can only continue to be considered seriously until it is falsified, and therefore so long as it is not falsified, it stays the accepted science. So how can it be falsified? Well since IPCC AGW science is based on the additional warming caused by human derived atmospheric CO2 GHG emissions, if human CO2 emissions were to grow unabated without a corresponding correlated increase in global temperature, or while there was a relatively steady temperature, or while the temperature actually cooled, after some agreed point in time it will have been falsified. We have had about 17 years of global temperature pause now, during which time human CO2 emissions have been increasing at ever record breaking levels....all that remains is to reach the agreed amount of time....and it is not surprising that many skeptical scientists are already calling it falsified......and for obvious reasons, the AGW team have the inside track and keep raising the bar and saying more time is needed before the falsification alarms go off. As to what length of time of no warming constitutes falsification is on the mind of both sides in this debate....there is a lot at stake!

So there you are Monk...if you feel I am in error in any matter of fact in anything I've posted, or want clarification on any matter that is obscure, please point it out in the spirit of being concise and explicit.

[DrEvil]

Yes Monk, I really want to buy stuff, which is why Im claiming that AGW is BS.

Nothing to do with the data or the facts at all.

Just plain old me and 7 billion other selfish humans, who love to fight the war on terror, and the war on drugs and the war on cancer, or the need for austerity,along with all the other faux wars that humanity is apparently currently fighting.

All such wars where the claims of the official consensus, are just about as far removed from the truth as they possibly can be.

no global warming now for how long ? When was the last such study to indicate such a pause? 1850? 1645?, 1252?, 309 bc ?

Yeah, because no one ever gets cancer.

There is no pause. Surface temperatures are still going up, not just as fast as they did 15 years ago.

There's plenty of research out there that explains where that excess heat went, but hey - keep sticking your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

Maybe we'll all spontaneously evolve our consciousness to a higher plane with unicorns and fucking rainbows.

[brainpanhandler]

Having decided that you are probably not a sock puppet of the thing called benD having a conversation with itself, let me extend my condolences to you monk. It's argument is shot full of holes and if you have the time and the stomache for it you can go round and round and round with it, if you want. More power to you.

A few helpful hints:

1) Ignore it's attempt to insist that you yourself be a world class climate scientist in order to be able to have a valid opinion on AGW and express it on a message board.

2) Ignore it's pathetic attempt to prevent you from providing evidence for your arguments via links to data and studies.

3) Read pages 20 to 23 of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32878&hilit=global+warming+eh&start=285

... to get an idea of it's 'tactics', it's idea of civil discourse, it's idea of valid sources of information on climate science.

4) Ignore it's little toadies.