What Do We Think About Climate Change

climate change?

 

You are ridiculous; not in a funny way.

 

I'm not a scientist but I go with the best science I can find and when the majority consensus of climatologists is that co2 is detrimental I have to go with it.

Just like I listen to the doctor

 

Even if it were dramatically true... (most people agree CO2 has an effect on the climate's rate/direction of temperature change, but that it is a second, third or fourth order magnitude compared to other primary factors, CO2 is instead seen as a lagging indicator of temperature and other factors rather than a cause [among other reasons because its concentration is so low])

Why is this bad?

The climate is constantly changing... are you arguing that we should engineer the climate so that it is homeostatic?

orrr...

Are you arguing that we are "Playing God" and trust that what Mother Nature had in plan for us was best?

orrr...

Are you saying that the current climate we live in RIGHT NOW is the BEST ( what of the Holocene Climate Optimum??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_optimum ) or the Eocene, Miocene, Jurassic, Triassic? or other "Warm periods" where the earth was covered in temperate and tropical rain forests and life was abundant in every corner of the globe?

 

Another possible effect of the +/- 60 years warming-cooling cycle.

The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory published a report on Aug 13 [http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/] which states that despite “strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. … the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988). … Our assessment indicates that, owing to the mainly natural cause for this heat wave, it is very unlikely that a similar event will recur next summer or in the immediate future (next decade).”

The heat wave was concentrated in western Russia, while Siberia experienced much cooler than normal temperatures.

Western Russia’s July temperatures exhibit a 60-year pattern with a cooling trend during the 1890s-1920s, followed by warming in the 1930s, then cooling during the 1940s-1980s, followed by warming in the 1990s. It will be interesting to watch whether this cooling pattern will repeat in the coming decades.

 

I just would like to know why you're so set against curbing co2?

 

You know.. that is the best part about Science. It has NOTHING to do with consensus.

From wiki: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."

The whole world can be 100% in accord about something except one person. And that one person can be right, and the world wrong.

More from wiki: Scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historio-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. ~ Karl Popper, father of the Philosophy of Science

 

you're right, scientists don't agree with each other, they agree with the science.

but the consensus seems to be most agree with the science about change

 

Mine, and others on this board, and an increasing number of scientists would argue that there have been a number of logically decisive counterexamples to the presupposition of Anthropogenic CO2 as a dominant factor in climates variability. IE, the links that Guillemo, Marco, Hoyt, and others on this 600 page thread I think have shown that "... the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."

 

What cr@p!

 

what part is crap?

 

Why do you never understand my posts?

 

my post was in two parts, was that in reference to the entire post?

 

You're using an intellectually dishonest debating tactic here; you're moving the target.

The title of this thread is, "What Do We Think About Climate Change?" For 600 pages, it's been clearly understood that the subject at hand is human influence - or lack of it - on the climate, mostly because of CO2 from the fossil fuels we're burning.

Now suddently you're waxing indignant, and pretending that posters who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming stand accused of believing the climate never changes at all, from any cause - natural or human.

 

And 'there you go again,' as Uncle Ronnie used to say. Very clearly, most people do not 'agree CO2 has an effect on the climate's rate/direction of temperature change, but that it is a second, third or fourth order magnitude....'

In fact, most reputable scientists believe that CO2 is the primary factor driving temperature change today - not a 'lagging indicator' of it. If you want to disagree, fine. But don't try to shoehorn your own beliefs onto them and the general populace, and pretend they're universally accepted truisms....