Members banned from this thread: evince, domer76, archives, Nomad and Micawber |
Phantasmal (09-23-2017)
There is ample evidence that the current episode of worldwide climate change is caused by the advent of the industrial age. Current climate degradation can be pointedly explained to the use of fossil fuels in the last 150 years or so. Other evidence is revealed in the amazing improvements to the atmosphere as fossil fuels and other contributors to climate degradation are systematically removed from specific locations. Argument against such positive proof is folly at best. That said, I encourage the deniers to proclaim their beliefs, in spite of evidence to the contrary, as loudly and as often as possible. Please. Carry on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And the investigations continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I agree pretty much with Matt Ridley, he is a fellow lukewarmer.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/01...limate-change/In general, I would describe a ‘lukewarmer’ as someone who:
Thinks anthropogenic climate change is real but very far from being a planetary emergency.
Takes due notice of the increasing divergence between climate model predictions and observations and the growing body of scientific literature challenging IPCC climate sensitivity estimates.
Regards the usual pastiche of remedies — carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, CO2 performance standards — as either an expensive exercise in futility or a ‘cure’ worse than the alleged disease (depending how aggressively those policies are implemented).
Is impressed by — and thankful for — the immense albeit usually unsung benefits of the CO2 fertilisation effect on global agriculture and green things generally.
Recognizes that poverty remains the world’s leading cause of preventable illness*and premature death.
Understands that plentiful, affordable, scalable energy (most of which comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels) is essential*to poverty eradication and progress towards a healthier, safer, more prosperous world.
As moral philosopher Alex Epstein recently put it, fossil energy companies did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous. They took a dangerous climate and made it vastly safer.
For too long many in the GOP have been hoodwinked by folks like Al Gore, Greenpeace, and the UN climate glitterati into believing the key issue is whether climate change is “real.”
Gore et al would have us believe that if we accept the reality of climate change, we must also agree that global warming “threatens the survival of civilisation and the habitability of the Earth,” hence that our only moral choice is to embrace their agenda of coercive de-carbonisation via centralised eco-energy planning.
Consequently, many GOP politicians and activists assume that to defend the economy and oppose regulatory excess, they must deny, or at least question whether, there is any evidence linking the long-term rise of greenhouse gas concentrations with the (moderate and non-alarming) increase in global temperatures since the 1880s.
That, alas, is exactly what the warming movement wants its opponents to say, not only because it makes them look “anti-science,” but also because it tacitly affirms the alarm narrative. As if all we have to do is assent to the virtual tautology that rising greenhouse gas concentrations have a greenhouse*(warming) effect, and we are compelled to concede every important scientific, economic, and moral point in a very complex debate.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-25-2017 at 10:23 AM.
Cancel 2018.1 (09-25-2017)
Pragmatic.
cancel2 2022 (09-25-2017)
Indeed, all these climate loonies on here ever think of is the worst case RCP 8.5 scenario as described by the IPCC. I have thread banned the worst offenders as they only ever produce heat rather light, waste of space all of them.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/13/a...enario-rcp8-5/
Once I'm anointed King of America I willing to give tax credits for research into renewable energy much like we do for the NIH. Nothing wrong with renewable energy, it's part of advancing technology. But this doomsday, sky is falling , chicken little BS is an excuse for State Central Planning. I'd have more respect for the alarmists if they'd just come out and say they want state central planning of gubmint control.
Great article posted on climate scientist Judith Curry's blog.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/a...ng/#more-23412
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 09-29-2017 at 05:05 AM.
During the panel discussion, Klein was asked: "Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes. Klein responded: 'Yeah.’
Following the panel, Climate Depot asked Klein if she would support all the same climate “solutions" even if the science was wrong.
"Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change. Yes, you caught me Marc,” Klein answered sarcastically as she abruptly ended the interview.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/who...il-dissenters/
Can't remember if I posted this before, but it is worth a repeat. It really does describe much of the 'debate' regarding AGW.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1576946...ebate-illusion
Bookmarks