A Catastrophic New Climate Report

[Leftfield 2,617]

23 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

None of my arguments are based on the premise that nothing is happening. That's a typical red herring argument from your lot. 

Well, gee, when you say things like "spending trillions to accomplish nothing," forgive me for thinking that your stance is there is no need for it.

So you believe temperature are rising and the environment is rapidly changing, but don't believe that an increase CO2 levels are contributing to a significant degree? What would be your theory or explanation for the changes we're seeing? 

What evidence would it take to convince you that humans are a large factor in what is happening? 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

What evidence would it take to convince you that humans are a large factor in what is happening? 

Proof, not speculation based on assumptions and computer models.  Your question above is why this is often compared to cult worship. You sound like a cross between a car salesman and a televangelist. 

Yes, we have added UHI effects, pollution and deforestation.  Those aren't driving the climate either. 

[Leftfield 2,617]

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Proof, not speculation based on assumptions and computer models.  Your question above is why this is often compared to cult worship. You sound like a cross between a car salesman and a televangelist. 

Yes, we have added UHI effects, pollution and deforestation.  Those aren't driving the climate either. 

Unfortunately, to get the proof you seek, all this will have to happen and it will be too late. Which is the point.

You also haven't addressed what you believe is currently driving the rising temperatures.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Unfortunately, to get the proof you seek, all this will have to happen and it will be too late. Which is the point.

Spending trillions of $$$ to completely alter infrastructure, economics, energy production and availability should be based on more than assumptions, speculation and hyperbolic long term predictions. "Maybe", "might", "could possibly", aren't good enough.  The forces influencing Earth's climate are complex and chaotic. Humans have an impact on the environment certainly, and perhaps somewhat with the climate. The magnitude of just how much effect a molecule that exists in 4.2 parts/10,000 in the atmosphere (only about 1.4 parts/10,000 possibly attributed by humans) has on the climate is questionable. Conveniently it's the only factor that's taxable, which explains much of the sensationalism. 

[homersapien 11,393]

17 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Spending trillions of $$$ to completely alter infrastructure, economics, energy production and availability should be based on more than assumptions, speculation and hyperbolic long term predictions. "Maybe", "might", "could possibly", aren't good enough.  The forces influencing Earth's climate are complex and chaotic. Humans have an impact on the environment certainly, and perhaps somewhat with the climate. The magnitude of just how much effect a molecule that exists in 4.2 parts/10,000 in the atmosphere (only about 1.4 parts/10,000 possibly attributed by humans) has on the climate is questionable. Conveniently it's the only factor that's taxable, which explains much of the sensationalism. 

But we're not talking "assumptions, speculation and hyperbolic long term predictions". Such statements are exactly why I say you don't understand the science.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

https://skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-consensus-denial.html

Edited August 14, 2021 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,634]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But we're not talking "assumptions, speculation and hyperbolic long term predictions". Such statements are exactly why I say you don't understand the science.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home

https://skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-consensus-denial.html

None of that is actual proof, which is why I say you don't understand the "science".

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

None of that is actual proof, which is why I say you don't understand the "science".

But assumption, speculation, and predictions are entirely part of, and are actually the very reason for, experimentation. Unfortunately, we have no way other than computers to effectively model what's happening, unless you know of a planet-sized laboratory we can use.

We use computer models almost everywhere now. Did you cheer when Perseverance touched down on Mars? That was largely due to computer models. Nobody knew for sure it would work until it landed. Designing buildings to withstand earthquakes and hurricanes, evolution of stars and the universe, all areas of medicine (including vaccine development), fluid dynamics, etc. etc. All of these use extensive computer modeling, and prove out far more often than not. Of course something could be wrong with assumptions made, and there could be unknowns that aren't being factored in the current models, but while there were certainly errors made early on, for decades the models have constantly been updated and fine-tuned, and they have never strayed from showing that human activity is a factor. 

Can you point to a computer model that shows man does not contribute to global warming? Surely if there are reputable scientists out there that disagree with the majority, they would have built their own models and run simulations as a counterpoint.

Doing something will have negative effects, surely, but at least if the prevailing science is wrong we get some positives out of it. If the science is correct, which the overwhelming majority of the climate science community believes, the negative effects are an end game.

 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

 

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

We use computer models almost everywhere now.

Verifiable models. Huge difference. 

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Can you point to a computer model that shows man does not contribute to global warming?

Again, nobody said man does not contribute. You continue to try and paint that picture. The issue is the extent of that contribution. 

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If the science is correct, which the overwhelming majority of the climate science community believes, the negative effects are an end game.

More examples of nothing more than speculation and appeal to consensus. Belief isn't good enough. 

[Leftfield 2,617]

2 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

 

Verifiable models. Huge difference. 

Again, nobody said man does not contribute. You continue to try and paint that picture. The issue is the extent of that contribution. 

More examples of nothing more than speculation and appeal to consensus. Belief isn't good enough. 

First off, I already said computer models are mainly what we have. There is simply no way to verify it through planet-sized experimentation. If that's what it would take to convince you, then obviously there is no reason to continue the conversation.

For your second point, since you want to parse words even though you know what I was talking about....please, show me a computer model that shows man does not significantly contribute to global warming.

My belief is based on faith in the scientists working on this. What is yours based on?

 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

My belief is based on faith in the scientists working on this

Again, with the cult referencing. This isn't about belief.  There are scientists and engineers all over the freaking world who do not subscribe to this climate "crisis" alarmism.  If you believe they are all "fossil fuel shills" like the ideologue Homer, then you are correct that there is no reason to continue the conversation. Skepticism and questioning "consensus" drives scientific advancement. Ignoring those scientists (or just the usual ad hom attacks and defamations because they do not toe the line) and trying to force policy of this magnitude isn't "following the science". It's politics.

[Leftfield 2,617]

11 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

 Skepticism and questioning "consensus" drives scientific advancement. Ignoring those scientists (or just the usual ad hom attacks and defamations because they do not toe the line) and trying to force policy of this magnitude isn't "following the science". It's politics.

Which is why I asked you to cite any works that disprove it. I am completely open to being wrong. Are you?

You were the first one to use the word belief ("Belief isn't good enough"). I simply adopted it to make my point. You clearly "believe" otherwise.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

None of that is actual proof, which is why I say you don't understand the "science".

AGW Theory (capital "T") is based on quantitative scientific research, which, in aggregate, most definitely amounts to "proof". 

There is a global consensus of scientists who specialize in this field agreeing that global warming is anthropogenic. 

You are obviously going to believe what you want to believe, but the above is true.  You are way behind the science.  The argument you make sounds like something from 10 to 20 years ago.

Again, what is the mechanism you believe is causing global warming if not man?

Edited August 14, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Again, with the cult referencing. This isn't about belief.  There are scientists and engineers all over the freaking world who do not subscribe to this climate "crisis" alarmism.  If you believe they are all "fossil fuel shills" like the ideologue Homer, then you are correct that there is no reason to continue the conversation. Skepticism and questioning "consensus" drives scientific advancement. Ignoring those scientists (or just the usual ad hom attacks and defamations because they do not toe the line) and trying to force policy of this magnitude isn't "following the science". It's politics.

Don't put words in my mouth. 

If you want to discuss a particular representative who is opposing AGW, put him/her out there and let's vet their position.

And simply listening to and following the science doesn't make me an "ideologue", just the opposite. 

You are the one who is adhering to a position that is not based on the science, but on politics.  Your first objection to AGW was how much money it's going to cost us.  That's a political perspective.

If your argument is really that it's not real, then support that.

Edited August 14, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

None of that is actual proof, which is why I say you don't understand the "science".

Perhaps you didn't notice all the links ascribed to the statements made on that site.  They typically link to the research that supports them. That research, in aggregate, amounts to the "proof" you claim is missing.

Hell, this is not even debated anymore, except on internet forums like this.  Every major scientific organization in the world has accepted AGW as fact. 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So show me the science that disproves AGW.  Something that provides a realistic alternative that hasn't already been debunked.

 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

 

Verifiable models. Huge difference. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

By Alan Buis,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Again, nobody said man does not contribute. You continue to try and paint that picture. The issue is the extent of that contribution. 

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans

 

 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Which is why I asked you to cite any works that disprove it. I am completely open to being wrong. Are you?

You were the first one to use the word belief ("Belief isn't good enough"). I simply adopted it to make my point. You clearly "believe" otherwise.

It can neither be proven nor disproven. Neither can natural variability as the main driver. So, now we end up as always. Appeal to consensus, and ad hom.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That research, in aggregate, amounts to the "proof" you claim is missing.

No, it does not in any way.

[homersapien 11,393]

Just now, johnnyAU said:

No, it does not in any way.

Well, it is for the climate scientists and the organizations that represent the scientific community.

The fact it's not enough to convince you is your problem.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your first objection to AGW was how much money it's going to cost us.

No, that's the current mechanism discussed. I'm much more concerned about long term effects of such an all encompassing move. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well, it is for the climate scientists and the organizations that represent the scientific community.

Especially those who will be receiving much of aforementioned funding, or who would lose funding if they did not sign on.

[homersapien 11,393]

From the "comments" section of the last article I posted:

mkaiser586 Tom Dayton • 4 years ago

No matter how much indisputable science and evidence is presented to these climate doubters, it will have no affect on their continual denial. Their minds are made up and will not change no matter how obvious it made to them. Such is the world we now live in where cold, hard facts are ignored and opinions and "alternative facts" dominate their bias beliefs.

 

Not much has changed in four years.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

Just now, homersapien said:

Their minds are made up and will not change no matter how obvious it made to them. Such is the world we now live in where cold, hard facts are ignored and opinions and "alternative facts" dominate their bias beliefs.

You have not supplied, and cannot supply cold, hard facts. There is not proof that CO2 drives the global climate now, or at any time in the past. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]

All you'll ever have is appeal to consensus and unverifiable claims. 

[homersapien 11,393]

27 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

You have not supplied, and cannot supply cold, hard facts. There is not proof that CO2 drives the global climate now, or at any time in the past. 

Do you claim the globe is not warming?