Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
The title question is rarely, if ever, asked of people who are skeptical of human-induced global warming and climate change…for obvious reasons. If persons are skeptical of a future filled with climate catastrophes, regardless of whether they are caused by nature or by emissions of manmade greenhouse gases, then there should be few reasons for them to be fearful of future climate.
For example: some persons may most fear the future possible rise in sea levels, understanding that surface temperatures are above the threshold at which the seasonal mass losses from glaciers and ice shelves exceed those of seasonal mass gains and that those temperatures have been above that threshold since the end of the last ice age; but they temper that concern with an understanding that even the UN’s political report-writing entity, the IPCC, acknowledges the oceans will continue their inland march regardless of whether or not we limit the emissions of manmade greenhouse gases…that it’s just a matter of time. (See Figure 13.27 on page 68 of 80 of Chapter 13 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report. The blue curve is for the “optimistic” RCP2.6 emissions scenario and the red curve is for the worst-case RCP8.5 scenario.)
What scares me?
My fears are that:
- activist climate scientists and agenda-driven politicians who fund climate science have tainted all related fields with unjustifiable certainty of a future filled with pain and suffering,
- to manufacture those predictions of gloom and doom, the sole focus of climate science has been and continues to be on human-induced, not naturally occurring, global warming and climate change,
- the climate science community will come no closer to understanding the natural contributions to global warming and climate change until there is a total change of mindset, and
- it will take decades of that completely new mindset to overcome the present groupthink.
With that said, what are your fears about global warming and climate change?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
My fear is that it will forever taint environmentalism. With rabid green pronouncements of doom time again being proven false, eventually people will no longer pay heed to the cries of “WOLF!”. Then, when a genuine environmental problem arises, no one will listen. Why should they? They’ve always been wrong before.
warrenlb, you say “Usually one begins with an examination of the scientific evidence, ..”. Provide evidence that we are heading towards human produced CO2 induced CAGW because that is what this is all about. No indirect references to authority, no deflections, no twisted logic. Evidence only. Just a few facts, no opinions. You say elsewhere in this discussion that science and technology is your profession so put up some evidence that human produced CO2 is leading us towards CAGW. Do you understand this simple request? Evidence. I am an engineer too and my 4 years of thermodynamics, 3 years of applied maths and 35 years in the workforce won’t let me conclude from the evidence that has been presented so far by those on the gravy train that CAGW is an issue for mankind.
The evidence is to be found in the 5th Assessment of the IPCC — a summarization of 10,000 peer-reviewed papers by independent researchers from around the world. If that not enough for you, go to climate.nasa.gov.
The evidence is overwhelming –global temperatures rising at a rate unprecedented in millennia, 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 since the 1800s, rising sea levels, migration of species, global ice volumes in precipitous decline for decades, intensification of precipitation patterns, diminishing differences between daytime high temperatures and nighttime lows, warming of the oceans, decreasing alkalinity of the oceans, and others. And these changes occurring at rates far faster than natural cycles which require many 10s of thousands of years to unfold. And as long as man continues to add CO2 to the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels, global temperatures will continue to rise.
The impacts of the ongoing changes are assessed in the IPCC reports. Have you not read them?
… as long as man continues to add CO2 to the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels, global temperatures will continue to rise.
Wrong.
I just noticed this:
The evidence is to be found in the 5th Assessment of the IPCC
That made me snicker. Some folks sure have a wacky idea of what constitutes “evidence”.
My fear is that Judith Curry’s prediction of another ten flat years of temperature will prove correct, allowing warmists to tip-toe away from their alarmism without being held to account. They’ll be able to smoothly transition to making acidification their main justification.
The results are in and 2014 didn’t help Curry out
David, rubbish. According to NOAA, 38% spells “uncertainty”…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/25/what-does-gavin-schmidts-warmest-year-tell-us-about-climate-sensitivity-to-co2/
Newsel,
Yes, that’s merely another baseless opinion.
Curry made that prediction less than a month ago. She was aware of where 2014 would be.
@ur momisugly Warrenlb:
See my reply to you upthread about Powell at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/what-are-your-fears-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1849143
about scientific organizations’ endorsements:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/what-are-your-fears-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1849132
Your links go to previous postings on this website – and are just conspiracy theories –whining about peer review being unfair. Hardly a winning analysis.
This is from 2013….Mark Steyn in good form..:-)
Oops:
“are just conspiracy theories –whining about peer review being unfair”
My first comment had nothing to do with either of those matters: It just quoted a failed prediction of Powell’s. My second comment critiqued Powell’s methodology. Only one of its five or so points had to do with the editorial bias against contrarian papers–which is true, regardless of your characterization of that truth as a conspiracy theory.
If that was true, which of course it isn’t, then I would wonder why some folks are so interested in reading conspiracy theories. Their time would be better spent reading up on science…
…oh, wait. This is the internet’s Best Science site. Three years running.
Hey! What happened to realclimate?? Maybe that’s why their tiny handful of refugees have migrated here.
its Bardarbunger volcano we all should be worried about it is spewing out 30000- 40000 tons of So2 per dayhttp://weerstationlangerak.nl/bardarbunga/webcams.html http://www.jonfr.com/volcano/?p=5448
My fear is that between the obvious tripe that environmental science has been putting out for years and the clearly worthless and self-contradictory results coming out of medical science (especially in the areas of nutrition), people will stop trusting any scientific data.
You see this every time you try to convince a die-hard environmentalist that pollution has decreased over the past several decades. You give them a graph from the EPA itself and they don’t believe it. This has also propped up in the anti-vaccine movement, where people don’t trust researchers even on stupidly clear decisions.
And why should they? To the uneducated who cannot sift for themselves between good science and bad, they must ignore it all. Get a Mammogram annually/mammograms are more harmful than helpful. Don’t eat fats/carbs/trans fats / anything Looking at research for childrearing advice is like asking Oz’s scarecrow for directions. I could go on, but for the research that directly affects the the public, science is no longer trustworthy in the least.
That, scares more more than anything else.
Apparently, you haven’t realized that the lack of trust doesn’t just stop at scientists or medical research but extends all the way up to the government. Because, in fact, the “government” is simply a political representation of big corporate interests such as those of the orthodox medical business. The FDA, as an example, is little more than a willing participating pawn and policeforce of the medical industry, the GMO industry, the junk food industry, etc (read thru this: http://www.supplements-and-health.com/supplement-regulation.html ).
So, the government routinely puts out junk data and disinformation, just like medical “science.”
In corporatist nations, such as the US, the “government” equals big business.
warrenlb January 31, 2015 at 6:00 am
What does your post have to do with the validity of the science of AGW? Policies, rightly or wrongly conceived, may flow from many sources, including Science. Do you think it’s logical to conclude AGW is invalid because you see bad results from a policy, whether its based on the science, or not?
99% of peer reviewed papers conclude AGW. All the worlds major research Universities conclude AGW. Do you blame the poverty in Africa on these Scientists for publishing their research?
I posted that in a relevant thread asking what we as skeptics are afraid of from Global Warming, because the QUESTION of the initial topic was to post our fears, and I wanted to understand the audience better with regards to who actually empathized and had compassion for the poor. Which apparently, Climate Skeptics like you totally and utterly fail at. In addition, I answered your response regarding Climate Change policy above with this in another post.
SABicyclist January 30, 2015 at 10:31 am
The question is not “is CAGW is happening.” The question is, “can we actually determine if CAGW is catastrophic, or even dangerous?” This is the point of contention I have with many climate activists, which is does inconclusive science justify pushing socio-economically detrimental policy? If you can’t determine if this is actually a bad thing 100 years from now, or even 50 years from now, then is pushing even worse things that have effects months from now justified?
And then I point out the results of 7 years of the IPCC’s Food to Biofuel policiy recommendations. Do you have any freaking clue how many poor people starved to death from that? How many poor people became even more impoverished? How many middle class folks got hammered from that? That’s seven years of goddamn hell. I got to see this crap with my own eyes in Latin America.
Does inconclusive science justify socio-economic policy that is deliberately designed to hamper the socio-economics of society? Does inconclusive science justify the starvation of millions of people? Does inconclusive science justify the destabilization of societies, from the Bread riots of the Arab Spring of 2011, to the riots all across Africa and South America? Does inconclusive science justify denying poor people a chance to live a decent life? Does inconclusive science justify destroying the lives of the middle class? Does inconclusive science justify denying recently decolonized world the right to live a prosperous Western world life, especially after the West got a 200 year FREE RIDE on Carbon AND took resources from the decolonized world to do so?!?
And then you said this.
warrenlb January 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm
The IPCC, a Scientific Body, set national policies that starved millions?? Really?? I thought national governments set national policy.
You must have forgotten.
Wow, Warrenlb. You fit the the stereotype of every Climate Activist I’ve ever met, in terms of their astonishing contempt towards the poor (which we saw publicly with the Greenpeace Nazca stunt), a complete ignorance of cause and consequence of “climate science” supported policy (which we saw with seven long hellish years, with millions of lives lost, of the UN IPCC food to biofuel policy), and a complete disregard for human life in general.
You really are a weasel. You’re trying to weasel out of the culpability that you and other Climate Activists and Scientists have in the death, starvation, and impoverishment of millions world wide from the UN IPCC’s policy recommendations from the last seven years.
You can’t weasel out of this one. NONE OF YOU CAN WEASEL OUT OF THIS. There is NO F–KING way I’m letting you weasel out of this one.
Let’s start with the food to biofuels policy. As I’ve stated above, you CANNOT separate the UN IPCC “science” body from policy when they are WRITING The policy guidelines for governments around the world! You’re attempting to deny the clear cut evidence of the influence of their work on governments worldwide! That’s like saying Henry Kissinger isn’t responsible for the death of all those poor Cambodians when the US Airforce bombed them. He just “recommended” it in documents that policy makers then enacted. But he can’t be culpable, oh no, he’s just an advisor who writes that $#it down. /sarcasm.
Which everybody decides to FOLLOW because of HIS INFLUENCE.
Are you seriously that compartmentalized? Are you that incapable of thinking?!
Again, here’s the UN IPCC POLICY RECOMMENDATION in their own words from their own documents!
5.4.2.3 Biofuels
“Transport: Mandatory fuel economy, biofuel blending and CO2 standards for road transport”
E. Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change
Even the title to that part of the UN IPCC document is freaking titled with “Policies”!!!!!!!!!! Warrenlb, learn to f–king READ!
Tell me, Warrenlb, why is a purported “scientific” body (according to you), the UN IPCC, WRITING PUBLIC POLICY?!! If they are JUST a science organization, tell me then, why are they enduring so much criticism for “green lighting” biofuels? As shown here?
Controversy over Biofuels and Land Cut from IPCC Summary
and here?
“Its previous assessment on climate change, in 2007, was widely condemned by environmentalists for giving the green light to large-scale biofuel production.”
Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns
Growing crops to make “green” biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices, admits the United Nations
And yet, despite the evidence in your face that they are writing public policy, which is getting criticized in mainstream press from warmist publications, you still INSIST that they are only about science? The moment those IPCC @ur momisugly$$#oles started writing socio-economic policy, THEY WERE NO LONGER JUST ABOUT SCIENCE. It became Politics and Policy!
warrenlb January 31, 2015 at 1:49 pm
1) “I have a moral issue with using the world’s poorest peoples’ food for biodiesel”
I’ve read that biodiesel doesn’t command the price for the crop that food use does. Do you have evidence that the world’s poorest are being hurt today by biodiesel policy, rather than their own country’s corrupt governance? If you do, I join you in your outrage.
Your ignorance and disregard for human life is breathtaking. And I see this consistently in almost every Climate Activist.
HERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR BIOFUELS STARVING AND IMPOVERISHING POOR PEOPLE.
The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world
Are biofuels starving the world’s poor?
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
And here’s how biofuels starve poor people. BY ESCALATING FOOD PRICES.
The other global crisis: rush to biofuels is driving up price of food
Here are some of the statistics for how many people suffer from starvation world wide. This was in 2009, just two years after the implementation worldwide of the UN IPCC Food to biofuel policy recommendations. JUST TWO YEARS.
Oxfam: global food crisis will worsen – 1bn hungry people need help now
I saw the effects of the policy just a few months after the USA followed the UN IPCC policy, when I was in Brazil!
And this is what you Climate Activists look like to the rest of the world.
You and your Climate Activists and Scientists have an unbelievable amount of blood on your hands that will be answered for.
[quote]warrenlb January 31, 2015 at 6:00 am
What does your post have to do with the validity of the science of AGW? Policies, rightly or wrongly conceived, may flow from many sources, including Science. Do you think it’s logical to conclude AGW is invalid because you see bad results from a policy, whether its based on the science, or not?
99% of peer reviewed papers conclude AGW. All the worlds major research Universities conclude AGW. Do you blame the poverty in Africa on these Scientists for publishing their research?[/quote]
I posted that in a relevant thread asking what we as skeptics are afraid of from Global Warming, because the QUESTION of the initial topic was to post our fears, and I wanted to understand the audience better with regards to who actually empathized and had compassion for the poor. Which apparently, Climate Activists like you totally and utterly fail at. In addition, I answered your response regarding Climate Change policy above with this in another post.
[quote]SABicyclist January 30, 2015 at 10:31 am
The question is not “is CAGW is happening.” The question is, “can we actually determine if CAGW is catastrophic, or even dangerous?” This is the point of contention I have with many climate activists, which is does inconclusive science justify pushing socio-economically detrimental policy? If you can’t determine if this is actually a bad thing 100 years from now, or even 50 years from now, then is pushing even worse things that have effects months from now justified?
And then I point out the results of 7 years of the IPCC’s Food to Biofuel policiy recommendations. Do you have any freaking clue how many poor people starved to death from that? How many poor people became even more impoverished? How many middle class folks got hammered from that? That’s seven years of goddamn hell. I got to see this crap with my own eyes in Latin America.
Does inconclusive science justify socio-economic policy that is deliberately designed to hamper the socio-economics of society? Does inconclusive science justify the starvation of millions of people? Does inconclusive science justify the destabilization of societies, from the Bread riots of the Arab Spring of 2011, to the riots all across Africa and South America? Does inconclusive science justify denying poor people a chance to live a decent life? Does inconclusive science justify destroying the lives of the middle class? Does inconclusive science justify the denying recently decolonized world the right to live a prosperous Western world life?[/quote]
And then you said this.
[quote]warrenlb January 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm
The IPCC, a Scientific Body, set national policies that starved millions?? Really?? I thought national governments set national policy.
You must have forgotten.[/quote]
Wow, Warrenlb. You pretty much fit the the stereotype I’ve been able to form of pretty much every Climate Activist I’ve ever met, in terms of their astonishing contempt towards the poor (which we saw publicly with the Greenpeace Nazca stunt), a complete ignorance of cause and consequence of “climate science” supported policy (which we saw with seven long hellish years, with millions of lives lost, of the UN IPCC food to biofuel policy), and a complete disregard for human life in general.
You really are a weasel. You’re trying to weasel out of the culpability that you and other Climate Activists and Scientists have in the death and starvation of millions world wide from the UN IPCC’s policy recommendations from the last seven years.
You can’t weasel out of this one. NONE OF YOU CAN WEASEL OUT OF THIS. There is NO F–KING way I’m letting you weasel out of this one.
Let’s start with the food to biofuels policy. As I’ve stated above, you CANNOT separate the UN IPCC “science” body from policy when they are WRITING The policy guidelines for governments around the world! You’re attempting to deny the clear cut evidence of the influence of their work on governments worldwide! That’s like saying Henry Kissinger isn’t responsible for the death of all those poor Cambodians when the US Airforce bombed them. He just “recommended” it in documents that policy makers then enacted. But he can’t be culpable, oh no, he’s just an advisor who writes that $#it down. /sarcasm.
Which everybody decides to FOLLOW because of HIS INFLUENCE.
Are you seriously that compartmentalized? Are you that incapable of thinking?!
Again, here’s the UN IPCC POLICY RECOMMENDATION in their own words from their own documents!
5.4.2.3 Biofuels
“Transport: Mandatory fuel economy, biofuel blending and CO2 standards for road transport”
E. Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change
Even the title to that part of the UN IPCC document is freaking titled with “Policies”!!!!!!!!!! Warrenlb, learn to f–king READ!
Tell me, Warrenlb, why is a purported “scientific” body (according to you), the UN IPCC, WRITING PUBLIC POLICY?!! If they are JUST a science organization, tell me then, why are they enduring so much criticism for “green lighting” biofuels? As shown here?
Controversy over Biofuels and Land Cut from IPCC Summary
and here?
“Its previous assessment on climate change, in 2007, was widely condemned by environmentalists for giving the green light to large-scale biofuel production.”
Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns
Growing crops to make “green” biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices, admits the United Nations
And yet, despite the evidence in your face that they are writing public policy, which is getting criticized in mainstream press from warmist publications, you still INSIST that they are only about science? The moment those IPCC @ur momisugly$$#oles started writing socio-economic policy, THEY WERE NO LONGER JUST ABOUT SCIENCE. It became Politics and Policy!
warrenlb January 31, 2015 at 1:49 pm
1) “I have a moral issue with using the world’s poorest peoples’ food for biodiesel”
I’ve read that biodiesel doesn’t command the price for the crop that food use does. Do you have evidence that the world’s poorest are being hurt today by biodiesel policy, rather than their own country’s corrupt governance? If you do, I join you in your outrage.
Your ignorance and disregard for human life is breathtaking. And I see this consistently in almost every Climate Activist.
HERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR BIOFUELS STARVING AND IMPOVERISHING POOR PEOPLE.
The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world
Are biofuels starving the world’s poor?
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
And here’s how biofuels starve poor people. BY ESCALATING FOOD PRICES.
The other global crisis: rush to biofuels is driving up price of food
Here are some of the statistics for how many people suffer from starvation world wide. This was in 2009, just two years after the implementation worldwide of the UN IPCC Food to biofuel policy recommendations. JUST TWO YEARS.
Oxfam: global food crisis will worsen – 1bn hungry people need help now
I saw the effects of the policy just a few months after the USA followed the UN IPCC policy, when I was in Brazil!
And this is what you Climate Activists look like to the rest of the world.
[image]http://ladylibertytoday.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biofuels-cartoon.jpg”[/image]
You and your Climate Activists and Scientists have an unbelievable amount of blood on your hands that will be answered for.
(For the mods, this is the corrected version. Please use this instead of the first one. Thank you)
Use angle brackets and “blockquote” (without the quotes) for quotes. For jpeg png and gif files just use the URL to the image, don’t try to include embed tags or html tags.
See the Test page menu at the top for more “rules”.
Thanks Gary.
Here is the above cartoon:
http://ladylibertytoday.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biofuels-cartoon.jpg
@SABicyclist.
You have a reading problem.
1) After I asked “Do you blame the poverty in Africa on these Scientists for publishing their research?” You said: “Nobody does”. And then proceeded with a long winded tirade against Scientists.
2) Then I asked: “I’ve read that biodiesel doesn’t command the price for the crop that food use does. Do you have evidence that the world’s poorest are being hurt today by biodiesel policy, rather than their own country’s corrupt governance? If you do, I JOIN YOU IN YOUR OUTRAGE.” (Caps added)
You replied: “Your ignorance and disregard for human life is breathtaking. And I see this consistently in almost every Climate Activist.”
I am not an activist.. My questions are all about the science. Yet you lambast me for being an activist, And when I ask about the biodiesel issue, you lambast again.
Want to try again, or just continue with tirades?
And yet you consistently deny the IPCC’s role in the slaughter, and say it’s just about science, in the face of the contrary evidence.
Say that to a poor family’s face who lost a loved one from the last 7 years of the UN IPCC policy from skyrocketing food prices. I F–KING DARE YOU TO.
The “UN IPCC policy” has not been implemented yet.
@SABicyclist:
You’re still having that reading problem.
I said:
Do you have evidence that the world’s poorest are being hurt today by biodiesel policy, rather than their own country’s corrupt governance? If you do, I JOIN YOU IN YOUR OUTRAGE.” (Caps added)
Are you a robot?
Really David Socrates? You don’t think the UN IPCC policy has been implemented yet? Scientific American disagrees with you, for about seven years.
Controversy over Biofuels and Land Cut from IPCC Summary
How much does planting biofuels instead of crops lead to the spread of agricultural fields, cutting down yet more forests?
That article came out in 2014.
And there’s more.
Biofuels do more harm than good, UN warns
Growing crops to make “green” biofuel harms the environment and drives up food prices, admits the United Nations
Can you do math? What’s 2014-2007? In case you can’t do math, that’s 7. SEVEN YEARS.
Try again Mr. Socrates.
I showed you documented evidence. Pages worth of it. I showed you evidence of the UN IPCC writing public policy, which got criticized by pro-warming rags ( who conveniently saved their criticism until after seven years worth of poor people died and got impoverished.)
Where’s your outrage? WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION FOR HUMAN SUFFERING?!
SAB,
They have no compassion for human suffering. None, really, or they would promote the use of cheap fossil fuels, which are the surest, easiest, and proven way to mitigate human suffering. In fact, they would rather see people suffer if it advances their ‘green’ agenda.
Remember the riots during the ‘Arab Spring’? There were mass riots from the Middle East to Mexico.
The media — led by the Administration — blamed the riots on unhappiness with foreign governments. But that simply was not the reason.
The reason was that ethanol raised the price of corn by 100% – 400%. They were food riots by hungry people. [See the cartoon above.]
When the cost of a basic necessity rises by that much, poor people tend to express their unhappiness by rioting. There was no indication that people were rioting over the Mexican government. What people were told was just the usual spin — let no crisis go to waste.
And of course, that is solid evidence that people are still being hurt by the biodeisel craze. None of those laws have been repealed, and the price of staples like corn remains well above where it was, except in countries where more subsidies were added.
With very few exceptions, the same enviro crowd that promotes nonsense like biodeisel is the same crowd that pushes the ‘carbon’ scare and the MMGW nonsense.
Once again: there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening with the climate. What we observe now is what has happened in the past, but in the past it happened to a much greater degree. All the wild eyed arm-waving over CO2 is nothing but governments [including the UN] to re-directing the mindless rabble in the direction they want them to go. And as usual, the mouth-breathers just start nodding their heads, and follow along. Rational analysis has never been their strong point.
Ms SABycycle
…
The IPCC policy has little to do with the price of food. I suggest you examine the effect that the price of oil has upon the price of food. You seem to be confused as to the cause of the price increases.
Furthermore, how many world wide meetings have there been that have been unable to agree on a policy?
Lastly the IPCC report mentions bio-fuels as technically feasible, but nowhere suggests they be used as a matter of policy
The ignoratii are out in full force today. “Socrates” says:
I suggest you examine the effect that the price of oil has upon the price of food.
So, now that the price of oil has dropped precipitously, by that assumption the cost of food will start dropping fast? Wake me when that happens.
When babbling idiots post whatever nonsense occurs to them at the moment, that’s the kind of brainless commentary we see.
David Socrates February 1, 2015 at 11:59 am
Ms SABycycle
…
The IPCC policy has little to do with the price of food. I suggest you examine the effect that the price of oil has upon the price of food. You seem to be confused as to the cause of the price increases.
Furthermore, how many world wide meetings have there been that have been unable to agree on a policy?
Lastly the IPCC report mentions bio-fuels as technically feasible, but nowhere suggests they be used as a matter of policy
Mr. Socrates, you’re contradicted by the UN IPCC report, which is even titled with “Policies.” As shown here.
E. Policies, measures and instruments to mitigate climate change
In section 5,5 title “Transport.”
And even pro-warmist rags, after seven years, criticized the UN IPCC’s role in green lighting biofuel production.
In addition, you’re contradicted regarding biofuels influence on the price of food here
The other global crisis: rush to biofuels is driving up price of food
here
EU report: Brussels biofuels policy hikes food prices by up to 50%
even the United Nations put this report out on biofuels effect on food prices.
Biofuels and Food Security
And there’s too much to even list. Just a google of biofuels and food prices for the sheer weight of it.
” Wake me when that happens.”
….
Here ya go
…
..
1) Corn http://futures.tradingcharts.com/intraday/ZCH15
2) Rice: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/intraday/ZRH15
3) Wheat: http://futures.tradingcharts.com/intraday/ZWH15
Mr SABycycle
…
You don’t get it do you? The IPCC is an advisory board that asses the science and makes recommendations. It does not make policy. The individual governments make the policy.
Mr. Socrates,
You need to look at the price from pre 2007 till now. Those biofuel policies were implemented in 2007 on.
Crop Price Shocker
They still haven’t dropped to pre 2007 levels despite oil prices being at levels we haven’t seen since the 2nd year of George W. Bush’s first administration!
You’re trying to weasel out of their culpability just like Warrenlb.
You CANNOT separate the UN IPCC “science” body from policy when they are WRITING The policy guidelines for governments around the world! You’re attempting to deny the clear cut evidence of the influence of their work on governments worldwide, which even Scientific American addresses! That’s like saying Henry Kissinger isn’t responsible for the death of all those poor Cambodians when the US Airforce bombed them. He just “recommended” it in documents that policy makers then enacted. But he can’t be culpable, oh no, he’s just an advisor who writes that $#it down. /sarcasm.
Or are you one of those types who believes that culpability lays in the hands of only the executioner, not the advisor who oh so diplomatically says, “We think you should really do this. But you’re the one who’ll do it. I just write that crap down for you. I just have the credential for you to say, “you’re right, I’ll do what you tell me to do because I respect your influence.” Just make sure my hands aren’t directly involved.”
You’re not weaseling out of this one.
Oh, you mean like the Cairo speech that set the ME alight….Mr. Teflon? Mrs. (x3) Teflon on Libya…? Light the fuse and then run away ( I mean resign, get transferred to the UN et al) from the results of those totally asinine decisions and the thousands that are dead, injured, homeless or starving as a result? The UN IPCC is not in a class of it’s own in this regard. But your point is well taken. No accountability for bone headed decisions and policy. Unintended consequences or are we being to kind?
Mr SABycycle
?w=595
…
Look at the charts I posted.
Then look at a chart of the prices of crude oil.
…
Now…..here’s a chart for the price of crude “pre 2007”
…
…
So, again, please note that the price of food follows the price of oil, and the real proof is what has happened in the past six months.
Mr SABycycle
..
” policy when they are WRITING”
..
Again, the IPCC is an advisory board. They don’t write policy they make suggestions. It is up to the member governments to implement which ever policies they see fit. In other words, the IPCC has no authority to implement policy
For example….if you were driving an automobile, and I was the passenger, I could suggest you obey the speed limit, but it’s up to you to decide to take my advice or not.
OK then, Mr. Socrates, let’s say that you’re right. They don’t write “policy”, they make “recommendations.”
Maybe you should go and demand that Scientific American, and the UK Telegraph correct themselves, that the UN IPCC didn’t really “greenlight” biofuel production. Maybe you should tell the UN IPCC that they shouldn’t title their biofuel recommendation section with Policies Maybe you should tell all the outraged that all the UN IPCC writes is “recommendations”, but they just happen to title that section with Policies
Maybe you should highly suggest that they retitle it as RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations which every single government uses to determine their climate change policies. Paid for with tax revenues from citizens worldwide.
How about this? Why don’t you tell the people who want Henry Kissinger charged on war crimes for the bombing of Cambodia that all Henry Kissinger did was write “recommendations?”
You can try and twist the words, but the end effect is still the same. Now we’re just arguing semantics.
David, just a thought. What happens when you tie the price of a staple food feedstock (in this case corn) to the price of a barrel of oil? With prices where they are today (less than $45PB) not as big an issue but when $120PB it is a big problem ’cause guess where the staple food feedstock is going and it is not on the third world “table” or even to feed cattle. Point in question: where are beef prices today versus a decade ago? Another case of asinine thinking and unintended consequences. Have to back SAB on this one. We might be able to absorb the impact but not so in the third world; they just starve as their food supply and their ability to farm and harvest is diverted to a more profitable “elsewhere”.
Mr Newsel
…
Here’s a “hint”
…
Crude oil is a feedstock for the fertilizer industry.
Crude oil is a feedstock for the refineries that produce the fuel for irrigation pumps and tractors.
…
So yes, the price of corn is “tied” to the price of crude oil.
..
And if you have a problem with corn being used as fuel instead of feeding people, just note that in a capitalistic economy, the highest bidder gets to buy the product, so if the poor person cannot afford food, that is not the problem of the producer, nor is it the problem of the person offering to buy the corn to make ethanol with, or is it the problem of the cattle rancher that feeds the corn to his herd.
You are missing a very important proviso. The 10% Biofuels additive is mandated by law and has SFA to do with a free market. It is an artificially supported market place that, in the light of what we now know has damaged the costs associated with the food chain, needs to be abandoned. Biofuels was a “Peak Oil” fear fiasco and the only people that profit is not the consumer.
Mr SABycycle
…
The key word in your post is “greenlight” biofuel production.
…
Just think for one minute.
Who did they give the “greenlight” to?
Must have been the folks they were advising……right?
Mr Newsel
..
10% ethanol in gasoline has been around since the late 1970’s It started out as a replacement for MTBE which was contaminating groundwater.
Oh of course. “Greenlight” means they have no responsibility whatsovere.
The Neocons greenlit George W. Bush to invade Iraq. The Neocons only made recommendations.
Henry Kissinger greenlit Nixon to bomb Cambodia. Kissinger only made recommendations.
The Wahabist clerics greenlit extremists to bomb innocent people. The Wahabist clerics only make recommendations.
Isn’t funny how when you type in green light and any chosen political figure, the article always seems to end up putting the responsibility on the one making the green light?
But according to you, Mr. Socrates, those making the green light have no responsibility. Consequences? Please, there’s no such thing! It’s notthe green lighters fault! They just tell you what you should do, backed with the credential of their degree, pedigree, university training, and esteem that my colleagues hold to them. They are infallalible! Blameless! Their position of authority warrants no question! They are the truly perfect, esteemed advisors to the rulers of men, who always, interestingly, ALWAYS have clean hands.
You just follow my recommendation not because you trust, and acknowledge the depth of my counsel, oh no. You just blindly follow it for, who the f— knows.
Let me guess Mr. Socrates, according to you, during the Vietnam war, only the generals and soldiers are responsible. Not the leaders who told them what to do, and not the advisors who highly recommended to the leaders what to do, right? Let’s take Guantanamo Bay. Bush’s administration wasn’t responsible at ALL for the atrocities there. Only those lowly level staffers are. The CIA advisors? They’re advisors. They have nothing to do with the human rights abuses.
Am I right?
“The Wahabist clerics greenlit extremists to bomb innocent people.”
…
Can you provide a citation for that assertion?
“according to you, during the Vietnam war, only the generals and soldiers are responsible. Not the leaders who told them what to do, and not the advisors who highly recommended to the leaders what to do, right?”
…
no, wrong.
..
A soldier doesn’t take “advice” from his commander, he takes “orders”
The “advisers” gave advice, the “leader” listened to the “advice” ….The advice may be good or bad, but it’s the leader who took the advice The leader could have ignored the advice, so it’s the responsibility of the leader not of the adviser.
Socrates’,
As usual you are wrong. The charts you posted are completely worthless. Just for one example, you posted a chart chowing a rapid decline in the price of rice over just a couple weeks. Oil has been declining for a lot longer than that. Your other charts are equally bogus.
All we have to do is wait a while, and the price will rise. Want to bet? Here is a chart showing what happened:
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/figures/Figure8.gif
Rising CO2 is GREENING the planet. Give us more CO2!
Because we need more CO2, and the biosphere needs more, agriculture needs more — and at current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better. It is completely harmless. There is no downside that has ever been identified from adding CO2. NONE.
So, Mr. Socrates,
According to your “Code of Ethics”, advisors have no role or responsibility for the consequences of their advice, correct?
That means according to you, Henry Kissinger is completely innocent of war crimes charges, do I get that right? Or the architects of the recent Iraq War, the neo-cons, are completely absolved of all responsibility for the Bush administrations decision to invade, correct?
SAB:
Do you think socrates served in Vietnam?
I don’t.
dbstealey,
I think Mr. Socrates would make for a lawyer though. I think Henry Kissinger and the Neo-Cons would hire him in a heartbeat to find a way to weasel out of any culpability for all the blood and lives they have on their hands.
I don’t have such a legalese, twisted code of ethics that Mr. Socrates has. My code of ethics says that if the advisor is wrong, the advisor accepts responsibility, whether part or all in the consequences. That’s integrity. Maybe it’s because I come from a culture that sees the concept of responsibility and honor differently, being the descendant of refugees. Maybe it’s because I consider ethical conduct as an adult as being able to own up to the results of one’s actions or counsel, and being accountable for them.
Not everyone chooses to live in accordance with that. I don’t know. I do know though that I hold the IPCC responsible for the last seven years of starvation, and I’m not the only one.
I would say the climate change, that has been in part generated by humans, had taken already a big toll. And it also costed alot of money, spent with intention or circumstancially. I’m afraid that people won’t understand that climate change is a fact and that we should adapt and learn from the past mistakes. People should learn more about climate change, and I recommend this article for the “beginners”: http://1ocean-1climate.com/climate-changes-today.php. I’m also afraid that politicians will try to manipulate population, to change legislation and to establish new environmental taxes, but hiding, in the same time, the real reasons of climate change.
What are my fears? Well, to be honest I’ve never really believed and have never been worrying much about a supposed “climate change”, even before finding this blog. And by finding this blog it pretty much confirmed my doubts about so called “AGW” (Or “CAGW”).
Though my brother seems convinced about it. He keeps telling us how the Earth will become hot and fry in the near future and that how everyone and everything will die due to “Global warming”. And in our schools we are being told that AGW is real and that we need to do something about it. All this doom and glooming got really old fast so I just stopped paying attention to it. I have other things to attend to than worrying about “climate change/[insert any other relevant term here]”.
And here we are talking about CENTURIES of warming. What?! Even if it was real I think most people here will be long gone before it even become a thing.
Say something if you:
1.) Witnessed or been in a food riot.
Very nasty, had to use live ammo to disperse crowd, but it was for water not food.
2.) Saw a person stoned to death because they chose to defy a blockade ( or executed for being in a protest)
Very nasty, a woman had petrol poured over her, a tyre pushed over her head and set alight,
if i remember right, she was trying to go to work during a “strike”.
I’ve never seen anyone stoned to death, unless you count the bloke who the crowd kept
stoning after they had hacked him to pieces with pangas.
3.) Volunteered to help the poor in a third world nation
I no longer engage in such futile actions.
4.) Went for at least 3 days without a bath or access to clean water (I’ve done 5).
Three weeks without washing, but ok water to drink.
5.) Treated your water with iodine (or had to boil and crudely filter) from a source that you saw animals defecate in
Check, boiled, filtered etc etc, from a source that I saw people defecate in.
6.) Ate food that made you sick for at least a week in a third world nation
Check.
7.) Went without electricity for days at a time
I grew up without electricity, we used parrafin and gas, but lately, we can rely on the power going off every other day. for 2 or 3 hours.
8.) Went without any kind of energy for days at a time in freezing cold weather in a third world nation
Nope, never done that, my ancestors left Europe > 200 years ago.
9.) As a volunteer, had to make the difficult counsel to someone who had to choose between the environment and feeding his family
Like I said, I never volunteer.
10.) Saw food prices skyrocket, and knew what that would do to the people and society in that third world nation
Food, fuel, rent, transport, you name it, and the poorest people are in debt to their eyebrows,
I live in a third world country that everyone in the “western” world was pleased to see transform
itself from a second world country to just another farkedup piece of garbaige.
I don’t like ‘activists” of any stripe, I keep my mouth shut and my powder dry, war is
coming.
Nature is ruthless, a tornado will not stop and consider, oh there’s young children in this house, I’ll just skip this one. The sea will not calm because a man who stupidly ignored weather warnings went out boating has a family. Nature does what it does mostly to our great benefit, occasionally slapping us up the side of the head in both small and disastrous ways.
So I love, respect and yes fear nature. I fear weather no less or more after the climate fear merchants set up their tents. I fear for a humanity that allows these hustlers to take up shop in its midst and I fear for science that has allowed money and power to gnaw away its integrity.
I thought it was a bad idea to ask this question, and the existence of Warrenlib shows exactly why. In the mind of the alarmist, skeptics are not interested in science, we are only selfish people interested in profits. Since there is nothing in the science to fear, our fears are indeed about the measures that governments will take, stating that makes it look as if we don’t care about the science. When of course we have looked very closely at the science and don’t see where the alarmism is justified.
Tom,
I consider people who promote conjectures that lack any solid evidence as activists. If they’re not activists, they’re paid commenters.
AGW is a fine conjecture. But that’s all it is. AGW has never been capable of making any consistent, accurate predictions. It may exist, but if it cannot predict, it is far from being a hypothesis.
“paid commenters”
…
Got a citation for that?
sox, I am laughing at you again. Yes, I have citations, as always. In fact, I have a citation showing that CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the past. I used to post citations whenever you asked, but in your case you can go pound sand, because…
1. You are never satisfied
2. You never show the slightest bit of appreciation when I go to the trouble, and
3. You incessantly argue, and nitpick, and when my citations are irrefutable — which they are almost all the time — you just deflect, and move on to something else.
So you can find everything I post, online, and google is your friend. Do your own homework, junior. When you start taking into account #1, #2, and #3, then I will reconsider your endless, petulant demands. In the mean time, get lost. The consensus agrees with me, not with you, and that’s good enough.
Are you a paid commentator ?
Are you a paid commentator ?
No.
Is “socrates” a screen name?
[Reply: Yes. His name is… D. C. See, Mr. C.? We know who you are. ~mod.]
The climate advocates and alarmists who call us “deniers” think not only that we care for nothing other than profits, but that we are the ones who don’t care about the future. And yet, the ones who I see grieving for the present day loss of people from starvation, who are the most vociferous that energy prices not be touched because those commodity prices effect the living of the impoverished worldwide, the ones who’ve volunteered their own precious time and energy to work with and understand the poor, are the “deniers.”
I don’t care what a bunch of f–king climate activist/alarmists call me. I will continue to volunteer my time to help the poor, and I will fight tooth and bloody f–king nail against the climate activists/alarmists from hurting more of the impoverished with their goddamn f–king policies.
@Tom Trevor.
You assume far too much by saying: “In the mind of the alarmist, skeptics are not interested in science, we are only selfish people interested in profits.”
My reply:
1) You consider Science ‘alarmist’? Only if you fear its findings.
2) And ‘Profits?’ I said nothing about profits. But I will now: Profits are the lifeblood of free enterprise, and the driver of our initiative as a people. So I assume and hope you endorse profit.
No doubt Tom had in mind the Al Gores of the world and the ~1,700 that flew into Davos on their own private jets so find a way to save us plebs from our destructive tendencies? But if I’m wrong no doubt he will correct me. Mendacious comes to mind as I read your threads. No doubt I’m wrong about that as well.
warrenlb. What would falsify IPCC climate consensus in your opinion? Or can it be?
You’d need a study or position statement from any of the world’s 200 National Science Academies & Scientific Professional Associations, major universities, NASA, NOAA, or the IPPC, that contradicts my claim that they universally conclude AGW.
LOLOLOLOL!!!
warrenlb don’t need no stinking facts or evidence! All he needs is an appeal to his corrupt authorities. “Studies”. People he fawns over, telling him to open his wallet, because they know things he doesn’t.
warren, you have no idea how incredibly lame you are. No idea.
Run along back to your anti-science blogs, because this is a science site. We need facts and evidence, not the pablum that keeps you happy.
At 1:50 PM on 1 February, jaakkokateenkorva asks:
…to which at 1:58 PM he gets from warrenlb:
Whee! So argument from authority can only be overcome by more argument from authority.
The Ouroboros manifest as the symbol of climate catastrophe quackery.
Well, I guess it beats the half-cocked fylfot with which we should rightly associate them.
How is my post not an answer to jaakkokateenkorva’s question?
Read the comment above yours. You did nothing whatever to answer the question: what would falsify the IPCC’s ‘consensus’?
All you are doing is arguing in circles using logical fallacies. We need facts and evidence here, we don’t need to be referred to bought and paid for opinions.
What stupid non-sequiturs given by Tucci and Stealey to my reply to jaakkokateenkorva’s reasonable question. They’ve now lost their marbles entirely.
Objection mods.
We have a threading system which allows the rabbit warren, Socks, and Gates to post as much as they want.
But “thread domination” is still against policy.
Why don’t these posters stay in the same indentation so that others can scroll by? Why do they start new threads at the bottom? Why don’t they generate their three acres of text in one column, instead of through out the entire conversation? It would be less disruptive and less dominating if these posters had to stay in one area of the comments.
Correct, Zeke. And I see that warrenlb still has zero evidence of anything he asserts.
But I must compliment him: for once, he didn’t post another of his endless ‘appeal to authority’ fallacies in his last post. That’s why his comment was so very short.
I know this video is satire. I know it’s to drive a finely honed dagger. But it’s also how I see the UN IPCC’s arrogance, after the starvation/death/havoc caused by their policies/recommendations/suggestions/guidelines (whatever the f— you call it, their stature and influence means they are responsible, whether partly or wholely). One day, they will pay, because Karma’s a b!tc#.
My fears?
1) That a few will come to believe Science has led to millions of deaths rather than to modern day advances in medicine and technology.
2) That they will act on those beliefs, leading to a failure to vaccinate children, to educate children in Science, and to otherwise undercut the respect for Science and Scientists in our schools and in society.
3) That they will spread their beliefs among other adults, rather than teaching how Science has helped billions of people on the planet lead better lives.
You are delusional…1) false advocate of so called science have done just that. Millions have died as a direct result of false politically driven so called science. 2) who is “they”? 3) What are you talking about? Again who are “they”? Warren, you take reality and make it a falsehood. You really are one sick individual or maybe just a paid troll. And we will be the last man standing. See you next time Dip Shxt.
BTW: I asked you an eon ago to detail what you considered *valid* CAGW data. Yet to hear back from you. Why am I not surprised? [trimmed, misspelled].
‘CAGW’ is not a term used by Scientists. The term used in Science is ‘AGW’.
I consider valid AGW data as the evidence included in peer-reviewed science research papers and summarized in the IPCC Assessments, or cited by NASA and NOAA.
You may look there.
You keep on dodging the request for proof positive of your claims. Warren, you keep failing yet you keep posting your BS. You have to be a paid troll as nobody with half a brain can be this ingenious. Put up or shut up.
AGW is not an issue for policy. AGW is not anymore worthy of funding than any other feature of the environment – like Karst scenery or tree frogs.
But cAGW is very well-funded and there are numerous international conferences to discuss it. Because if it’s catastrophic we need to do something. And if it isn’t, we don’t.
And (important) anyone who has ever used the Precautionary Principle is committed to the concept of cAGW – not AGW. They are committed to the idea that this is disastrous and irreversible.
You’ve seen the comments from scientific institutions, how many advise following the Precautionary Principle in line with the UNFCCC?
Scientists are talking about cAGW not AGW.
Because AGW is trivially true and unimportant.
As usual warrenlb is wrong. M Courtney is correct: catastrophic AGW [CAGW] is the issue. If it was merely AGW, there wouldn’t be a problem because AGW, assuming it exists, is negligible.
And still waitng for that first measurement of AGW. Without that, even AGW is speculation, much less the preposterous CAGW.
Also, I am amused by warrenlb’s “what if” fears. He is afraid for ‘millions of deaths’ that he claimes ‘might’ occur, based on his pseudo-science nonsense — when there are actual, real people starving due to higher prices from stupidities like ethanol.
warrenlb could not care less about poor black Africans or anyone else, because this is all ego-driven politics to him. Science has nothing to do with it. If it did, he would support cheap fossil fuels. He’s just another of an endless line of alarmists.
@dbstealey and M Courtney:
1) You will only find the term ‘AGW’ used in a peer reviewed science publication, or by NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, or by any of the National Science Academies. ‘CAGW’ Is never used in peer-reviewed science —it’s only used by journalists and non-scientist amateurs.
2) And DBS says:
“He [warrenlb] is afraid for ‘millions of deaths’ that he claims ‘might’ occur, based on his pseudo-science nonsense “.
You reversed what I said. I said ” I fear that a few will come to believe Science has led to millions of deaths rather than to modern day advances in medicine and technology. ”
The rest of your posts are personal attacks.
Moderator, are you noting this?
[yes. .mod]
@warrenlb says:
The rest of M. Courtney’s and my posts are “personal attacks”? It’s a good thing you’re not debating Tucci78! ☺
So now, four days after the last comment on this old thread, your comment seems to be mainly about you, and your hurt feelings. Pal, if you were called the things that skeptics have been called, including me personally, you would see that you have been handled with kid gloves here. You don’t seem to be concerned about anyone else’s feelings. Look at Cotton’s blog some time, and count the insults that Anthony is routinely subjected to. That alone should cure you of being such a crybaby… oops, did I do it again? Sorry…☺
When you quit complaining, maybe you will man up and admit it when you’re wrong. [And where have we attacked you personally? Neither of us wrote what someone wrote upghread, at 2/04 at 8:29. You seem very selective in your outrage.] So now you go and cry to the moderator, after 4 days of silence?? The reason is clear: you’ve lost the argument. You are wrong, but you won’t admit it, so you deflect to your feelings. There is nothing happening that is in any way unusual or unprecedented. Admit that fact, and we can start out on the same page. If you can’t admit it, read up on the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Or complain to the moderator. Maybe he will start to censor people for you.
Regarding catastrophic AGW [CAGW], I remind you that you posted that you are all worried about a 3º temperature rise, which shows no sign of happening. That’s all in your head, because if you look out the window [or at the global T record & trend] you will see that there is no global warming. NONE. Both you and the IPCC are wrong. Can you admit that? Yes? No?
Your 3ºC is a preposterous number. Admit you got it flat wrong. Because everyone else here knows it.
@dbstealey.
Re: Your comment on 3C warming by 2100. From AR5:
” Best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM.3. For example, the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).
It seems Peer-reviewed science is on my side, not yours.
Re: CAGW vs AGW. Have you found anything yet that falsifies my claim that peer-reviewed Science uses ONLY the term AGW, and NEVER the term CAGW?
GOOD LUCK! (searching, that is)
warrenlb,
You did *not* write that the IPCC said there is 3º of global warming occurring. That’s your current spin on it.
What you wrote was this, verbatim:
With 3C+ of warming every 100 years, not much chance of a mile of ice over NYC again. [my bold]
You stated as a matter of fact that global warming is now happening at the rate of 3ºC per century. THAT is the basis of your entire warmist position. But of course, it is flat wrong. What’s more, I think you know it is false.
Next, you wrote:
…your posts are personal attacks.
No doubt it is easy for you to forget your labeling me as a dog, and stating that I have lost my marbles, and other, similar comments. They don’t bother me in the least, because I know exactly why you do it: you do it for the simple reason that scientific facts and empirical obsevations falsify your beliefs.
That’s why you incessantly use the discredited ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy in so many of your comments: you lack credible facts. Your claim that “99.9%” of all peer-reviewed papers dispute AGW is ridiculous. Readers like Poptech have posted more than a thousand examples showing you are wrong, but you disregard those. You promote your logical fallacies in an attempt to hide the fact that you are wrong.
Next, in a recent comment you stated that the following examples are “confirmed by observations”:
Arctic sea ice is in rapid decline.
Antarctic ice shelves have collapsed and disintegrated.
Global sea level is rising, and the rise is accelerating.
Antarctica is deglaciating.
Greenland is deglaciating.
Mountain ice caps and glaciers are melting worldwide.
Climate zones are shifting polewards and uphill.
The atmosphere is becoming more humid.
Extreme heatwaves have increased by more than a factor of 10.
The Arctic is warming 3 times faster than the global mean.
Snow cover is declining.
Ocean heat content is rising.
The tropical belt is widening.
Storm tracks are shifting polewards.
Jet streams are shifting polewards and becoming more erratic.
Permafrost all over the northern hemisphere is warming and thawing.
But when you were called on it, you refused to respond. I tried to make it easy on you by saying, ‘pick one’ of those scares, and try to defend it. Post solid evidence that human emissions are the cause. But you ignored that, too.
So once again: Pick one, or two, or as many of those as you want, and let’s discuss them. Some might be arguable; most are not. Most of them are either wrong, or they are due to other causes rather than human emissions. Saying that “ice shelves have collapsed and disintegrated” means nothing. That has happened naturally throughout geologic history. But you assume that it is caused by human CO2 emissions, so the onus is on you to prove it. Or to at least, post convincing evidence showing that human CO2 is the cause. Do you understand? The onus is on you, not on scientific skeptics, who simply say, “Show us.” You made the conjecture. Therefore, the onus is on you. Got it?
The difference between scientific skeptics — most of the commenters on this site — and climate alarmists, is that if facts emerged that could support the CAGW conjecture, most skeptics would seriously reconsider. We are open to changing our minds if the facts change, or if new facts emerge. But people like you simply disregard inconvenient facts. Your mind is made up. That is made clear in all your comments.
Alarmists never admit it when they are proven to be wrong. The reason is simple: to them, this is not science. It is part politics, and part ego. Planet Earth is busy proving you wrong. So your response is to invoke logical fallacies. Honest folks will admit that they were wrong in their original assessment, if facts emerge contradicting them. But not you.
What would it take for you to admit you are wrong? Really, what would it take? If you are not willing to even say that you *might* be wrong after so many years of no global warming, then your arguments are not rational. Are they? Ego, emotion, and politics rule you. Not facts.
A site for warrenlb….now go argue with this bloggers presentation of the “facts”.
http://climatechangepredictions.org/
Admit it? That would take some moral fortitude and which, in this case, appears to be missing.
@dbstealey. Yes, I now quote the IPCC as MY SOURCE for 3C in 100 years, (Actually, by the end 2100 which is < 100 years away). You ask me to 'admit I'm wrong'? You should admit you are wrong, since you missed this point, and are the one citing raw satellite data instead of surface temperature data which no real Scientists support, claiming climate sensitivity less than 1C and far less than nearly ALL Climate Scientists, no warming, and other frivolous assertions. And most astounding of all, ignoring the mountain of data from the multiple lines of evidence I cited, and which any college student studying Atmospheric Science will know as key evidence for AGW. And then asking for a single measurement as proof of AGW.
Atmospheric Science is not Metrology, DBS.
warrenlb, since I quoted you verbatim and it is obvious that you were wrong, I’m not surprised you now point to others and say that it’s their fault you were wrong.
Next, when you say “no real scientists support…” you sound like a Jehovah’s Witness trying to be convincing. Your appeal to authority fallacy is tedious, particularly since you cherry-pick your ‘experts’. Prof Richard Lindzen is the premier climatologist in the U.S., and probably in the world. But you reject what he says because it debunks your own belief system. Lindzen writes:
That is a recognized expert. But your opinion is that he is wrong. You are such a know-nothing that you should go back and read the WUWT archives from the beginning. But you won’t, so you will remain a know-nothing.
Next, who said atmospheric science is Meteorology? From your comments, you don’t know the difference between Meteorology and Metrology. But as a strawman argument that will do fine.
Next, your ‘mountain of data’ is nothing but a baseless assertion. All data that is limited to land ignores 71% of the planet. That’s why rational folks prefer satellite data. It is far more accurate.
Finally, you comment that “asking for a measurement” is… what? Do you have a problem with that? Obviously you do. Science is nothing but conjectures without measurements. The fact is that you cannot produce any measurements of AGW, as requested. Not even one. So you hang your hat on an unproven conjecture. No wonder no one takes you seriously. Everything you write is a mere assertion. If you don’t have a measurement of AGW, then you have nothing. But then, you never did.
Out of work climate scientists will be competing for jobs held by skeptics.