Global Warming: Overestimated

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -esld.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

[_Droopy]

You are full it BC. I know the difference. I also know that until recently, you wingnuts were denying any kind of significant climate change.

Some were, and there are the "lukewarmers" as well. The general consensus among educated conservatives can, I think be boiled down to the distinguished Fred Singer's approach, which is that the planet probably has warmed due to the large quantities of CO2 put into it over the last century, but that the warming generated is so vanishingly small as to be lost amidst the vast quantity of natural background emissions, which utterly dwarf human generated CO2.

Beyond this, there is no question that the entire dangerous, or catastrophic warming scenario has been exactly and precisely a quite venal scientific fraud, and that its perpetrators knew what they were doing when they fudged, manipulated, and massaged their data and ran it though the IPCC political machine.

Step 1. There is no global warming.

1. CFR. Who, of any stature among the conservative/libertarian movements has made this claim?

2. Global warming ceased nearly two decades ago, and the planet has been cooling continuously since at least 2002.

The whole thing is a hoax.

DAGW/CAGW is, we have long understood, from both the polemical, unscientific manner in which its major proponents have defended it, and from primary sources, is, yes, essentially a dog and pony show.

There is global warming but it is not influenced by human beings. AGW is a socialist hoax.

Anyone who has studied the Green/environmental movement at any depth understands quite well the massive migration from utopian socialism into environmentalism after the crumbling of the great Soviet experiment. This was a major groundswell of such people into the green movement (which, since the early seventies, had already become essentially a thoroughly counter-cultural movement ), but not the first (Barry Commoner, etc.).

No scientifically literate skeptics, and no climate realists within the scientific community, to my knowledge, believe that there is no human impact on climate. On a regional scale, there most certainly is (land usage, agriculture, deforestation, etc.). There is no evidence, however, that CO2 drives climate change, or that its effects are anything but what we know at this point they are (unmeasurable).

Step 3. There is global warming and maybe it is influenced significantly by human activity but there is nothing we can do about it anyway since India and China will not cooperate. It's too late so we may as well live it up while we can (i.e. can us John Galts get back to our main purpose: profit at any cost?)

Aside from the Ed Asnerish anti-capitalist spittle here, some, like Roger Pielke, think that its likely to have more of an effect, but only over very long periods of time, leaving plenty of time for mitigation and adaptation. They do not buy into the catastrophic scenario.

I snipped the rest of the infantile, Grahamish, Darthesque verbal bowl moving for obvious reasons.

[_Droopy]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/silent_spring_turns_50_biographer_william_souder_clears_up_myths_about_rachel_carson_.single.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -esld.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

Show us some peer-reviewed science from a broad swath of earth sciences related to climate, Brad. Don't' send us to climate alarmist front sites like Realclimate or Skeptical Science.

[_Droopy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -esld.html

Sea level is rising at roughly same rate its been rising for centuries, and the most likely rate of increase over the next century is approximately 10.16 to 15.14 cm over the next century - 4 -6 inches.

Sea level has been rising continuously for the last 14,000 years, since the end of the last major glacial period, and is going to continue to do so as the earth continues to recover from that last glacial age.

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/silent_spring_turns_50_biographer_william_souder_clears_up_myths_about_rachel_carson_.single.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -esld.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

Show us some peer-reviewed science from a broad swath of earth sciences related to climate, Brad. Don't' send us to climate alarmist front sites like Realclimate or Skeptical Science.

LOL. Skeptical Science simply aggregates information. You can follow the links yourself to the peer reviewed science. By your description, I can only assume you've never read much at Realclimate. You know, the blog written by actual climate scientists.

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... -esld.html

Sea level is rising at roughly same rate its been rising for centuries, and the most likely rate of increase over the next century is approximately 10.16 to 15.14 cm over the next century - 4 -6 inches.

Sea level has been rising continuously for the last 14,000 years, since the end of the last major glacial period, and is going to continue to do so as the earth continues to recover from that last glacial age.

Source?

What does it mean to "recover" from an ice age? Given all the natural drivers of climate change, should we expect warming or cooling as time goes on?

ETA: while you're at it, source for global warming stopped a couple of decades ago. Or did you run the stats yourself?

[_Droopy]

LOL. Skeptical Science simply aggregates information. You can follow the links yourself to the peer reviewed science. By your description, I can only assume you've never read much at Realclimate. You know, the blog written by actual climate scientists.

Realclimate is a front site for Michael Mann, where he ran after his hockey stick game was exposed for what it was by McIntyre et al, and manned (no pun intended) by some of the major henhouse foxes (Gavin Schmidt etc.) on the "Team" gravy train.

Realclimate is notorious for its aggressive moderation policies against skeptics (equally as qualified as Realclimate's essayists) and ostentatious political activism. It can only be considered a serious science site given the lowest possible bar of definition.

There are lots of other blogs and websites out there, also by real climate scientists (whatever that is) with credentials equal to or well in excess of the AGW groupies at RealClimate.

[_Res Ipsa]

i'm perfectly happy posting links to information in response to your delusional spittle-laden blather.

ETA: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[_bcspace]

i'm perfectly happy posting links to information in response to your delusional spittle-laden blather.

ETA: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Some interesting comments to the article on that page. AGW continues to be well refuted......

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm perfectly happy posting links to information in response to your delusional spittle-laden blather.

ETA: http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

Some interesting comments to the article on that page. AGW continues to be well refuted......

Yeah, because comments from random internet people always Trump science.