Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[Bootstoots]

Your first error is your assumption that I could care anything about these people who have spent many years of their lives learning how to lie. It takes long training but eventually they bought the candy. After all, their careers depend on supporting the official lie. So, In short, I really don't care how many degrees they have and, in fact, I hold it against them.

Okay, there's this thing you don't seem to understand about science. Scientists get a visceral pleasure out of proving other scientists wrong. If there were some sort of "official lie," someone would attack it with meticulously collected data and undermine the whole thing. Science is self-correcting that way.

Tiresome. Really tiresome statist nonsense. Warmer is wetter. Wetter is better. CO2 is plant food. Plant food is good. Yes it is possible that in a warmer wetter richer world, there might the odd loser.

But that it is NOT where the warmists come from at all. They assume, against all evidence and against common sense, that warmer is worser.

Statist? That doesn't even make sense in the context of what we're talking about.

The argument is that warmer climates are better for some people and worse for others, and that because we've adapted to our present environment, major climate change will cause problems we don't currently know how to deal with. It's not an insurmountable problem that will doom us all or anything like that, but it is worth thinking about so we can figure out how best to mitigate the problems that might show up.

 

[Tee Kay]

Tiresome. Really tiresome statist nonsense. Warmer is wetter. Wetter is better. CO2 is plant food. Plant food is good.

No U.

A global map of rainfall is enough to show that the above statements are grossly overly simplistic and misleading.

By the way, we in this part of the world gets most of our rainfall in the winter.

Yes it is possible that in a warmer wetter richer world, there might the odd loser.

Yes, the odd loser.



But of course everyone lies right?

 

[ParkCungHee]

You know, if you really think warmer and wetter is better in all cases, we might be able to interest you in a trip to Venus.

 

[choxorn]

I was thinking right next to a Supernova might be a better location.

 

[Berzerker]

warmer and wetter is better, if ya'll dont think so, do some research into what happened during the little ice age and compare it to the preceding medieval warm period

from the plague to massive crop failures and starvation, it was hell for people and life in general

those who survived easier were living closer to the tropics where it was.... warmer and wetter

 

[El_Machinae]

Warmists simply have no clue about basic physics.

Doesn't that strike you as being completely unreasonable? That you have a grasp of simple physics that allows you to see the error ignored by hundreds of specialised scientists? That your "basic physics" unravels the entire concern?

Isn't this akin to the supposition that Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and that biologists have no clue about 'basic physics'?
While you're correct that warmer air holds more water, obviously warmer was can be less humid. That doesn't matter, because best estimates do predict increased precipitation from AGW. However, the story is more complicated than that. Much more complicated.

Given that you assume that the 'warmists don't know basic physics' (which I read as 'they don't know there will be more precipitation'), and given that you're wrong about this teeny assumption, I don't think you know anything about the issue.

Which means, of course, you don't know if it's pollution. You don't care if it is, either. A political activist who's not motivated to self-modulate is, in effect, a fundamental opponent of the libertarian movement.

Your conception of AGW concerns is a strawman. It's very easy to defeat strawmen.
With regards to "plant food", I suggest looking up concerns regarding C3 and C4 crops and CO2 ppm. And while there, I suggest looking up CO2's effect on mussels.

 

[Dragonlord]

But that it is NOT where the warmists come from at all. They assume, against all evidence and against common sense, that warmer is worser.

No, no - and again, NO! What we are concerned about is a rapid change in global average temperatures, not the resulting temperature in itself. ANY rapid change, whether to warmer or colder temperatures, will necessitate that life on Earth adapts to it. Would you dispute that?
Life has adapted to other temperature changes in geological history, we all know that. But now we are facing temperature changes in decades that formerly took centuries and millenia. Why does it seem so unreasonable to you that this will mean hardship, extinctions and human deaths?

We have had much smaller temperature shifts in historical times which led to "little problems" like mass migrations, wars, plagues, starvation.... climate change has been linked to the end of the Mycenaen civilization, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death etc. etc. Whether it actually caused all these is open to discussion, but virtually no one disputes that climate changes have greatly influenced history.

So now we are looking at unprecedented rapid change which we are causing - which makes us responsible for it. If we can mitigate the damage, we darned well should!

 

[Berzerker]

speaking of rapid changes - today's newspaper had an interesting "weather history" item. On this date in 1861 New Hampshire went from 37 F to -32 F in 18 hours, and a town in Massachusetts went from 80 F to -32 F.

Thats a 112 F change in less than a day... Now thats an Arctic blast! But I read that and thought the 80 F must be a typo...

 

[Tee Kay]

The inability of some people to distinguish change due to seasonal patterns, abrupt short-term weather changes and abrupt long-term climate changes is really getting on my nerves.

 

[Berzerker]

my post was about a news item in today's paper describing an "abrupt short-term weather change" (18 hours didn't help you make that distinction?)

happy now?

Just go away and take your frazzled nerves with you, I'm tired of your BS strawmen.

 

[Arwon]

 

[Tee Kay]

my post was about a news item in today's paper describing an "abrupt short-term weather change" (18 hours didn't help you make that distinction?)

And there was no reason for you to bring it up at all

 

[Berzerker]

And there was no reason for you to bring it up at all

a 112 degree change in 18 hours is of interest, but certainly no reason for you to respond with the same clueless strawman

 

[Tee Kay]

I think a 112 degree change in 18 hours is of interest, but certainly no reason for you to respond with the same BS strawman.

Considering the post before you talks about "unprecedented rapid change", what am I to infer?

 

[Berzerker]

112 degrees in 18 hours is a rapid change and it is interesting - thats why it was in today's paper and thats why I posted it. You "inferred" that to be a comment about something else, thats your problem.

Thats the 2nd time you pulled that BS out of your behind, please keep your stink to yourself.

 

[Dachs]

We have had much smaller temperature shifts in historical times which led to "little problems" like mass migrations, wars, plagues, starvation.... climate change has been linked to the end of the Mycenaen civilization, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death etc. etc. Whether it actually caused all these is open to discussion,

If the discussion is as follows:

"Yo, climate change caused the fall of the Roman Empire"

"No, it didn't"

"Oh cool"

then yes, these things are open to discussion.

Actually, the whole Mykenai thing is open to a different sort of discussion, namely "we don't know what the cock was going on over there". Climate change is sort of in the "equally unprovable" camp, slightly above "aliens did it" in terms of probability.

 

[Tee Kay]

112 degrees in 18 hours is a rapid change and it is interesting - thats why it was in today's paper and thats why I posted it. You "inferred" that to be a comment about something else, thats your problem.

So you posted it just because it's interesting, so it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, so it really should be in the Weird News thread, right right? So you're spamming, right right?

Or, you posted it because of the "rapid change" comment above you, but that comment doesn't refer to sudden changes in the weather on a particular day. So either you don't know what he's referring to which means you fail at reading comprehension, or you know what he's referring to and you posted that comment just to troll. Right right?

 

[Gustave5436]

warmer and wetter is better, if ya'll dont think so, do some research into what happened during the little ice age and compare it to the preceding medieval warm period

from the plague to massive crop failures and starvation, it was hell for people and life in general

those who survived easier were living closer to the tropics where it was.... warmer and wetter

Which is what you'd expect for a species which evolved in Africa. Take the ice age species Earth has now and put them in the sweltering dry heat of the late Cretaceous and I don't think they'd do very well, either. In fact, even the dinosaurs themselves had trouble with the heat of the Cretaceous, as biodiversity fell significantly compared to the relatively cooler Jurassic. Rapidly turning up the heat may sound good if you're thinking of turning Siberia into a breadbasket, but if you actually look at the effects on the biosphere, rather than just the immediate effects on H. sapiens, it becomes a lot more troubling.

 

[Berzerker]

So you posted it just because it's interesting, so it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, so it really should be in the Weird News thread, right right? So you're spamming, right right?

Or, you posted it because of the "rapid change" comment above you, but that comment doesn't refer to sudden changes in the weather on a particular day. So either you don't know what he's referring to which means you fail at reading comprehension, or you know what he's referring to and you posted that comment just to troll. Right right?

Yes, I posted it because it was interesting. Instead of reading my post you "inferred" what you wanted for your strawman. Thats why I stopped responding to you the last time., plenty of honest and sincere people to debate without wasting my time on the likes of you - sorry - and cya.

 

[Dragonlord]

If the discussion is as follows:

"Yo, climate change caused the fall of the Roman Empire"

"No, it didn't"

"Oh cool"

then yes, these things are open to discussion.

Actually, the whole Mykenai thing is open to a different sort of discussion, namely "we don't know what the cock was going on over there". Climate change is sort of in the "equally unprovable" camp, slightly above "aliens did it" in terms of probability.

I'm not sure where you're going here, Dachs. What I was trying to say is that climate changes have influenced human history, and giving some possible examples, while trying to head off the discussion on specific instances, which doesn't belong in this thread.
BTW, nice with the Mykenai comment written in white, which I didn't even notice until replying...