|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 24, 2009 15:32:05 GMT
The number one lesson of skeptics in reference to AGW is that the skeptics are justified and correct. AGW is falsified as science,....How is it falsified? I think he means the crazy 2C+ anomaly predictions in the models...not the piddly increases in temperature we've been seeing. Those high projections are entirely falsified...we'd have needed to see radical departure from even the warming period to reach them. Also we're finding out all sorts of important new bits of the puzzle...like the fact that man's aerosols are also likely responsible for some of the warming when it was originally just assumed that they cooled. Assuming we can ever actually pull the AGW "signal" out of the noise of weather...I think we'll find that it's been muted quite a bit by negative feedbacks.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 25, 2009 13:00:49 GMT
The number one lesson of skeptics in reference to AGW is that the skeptics are justified and correct. AGW is falsified as science,....How is it falsified? I think he means the crazy 2C+ anomaly predictions in the models...not the piddly increases in temperature we've been seeing. Those high projections are entirely falsified...we'd have needed to see radical departure from even the warming period to reach them. Also we're finding out all sorts of important new bits of the puzzle...like the fact that man's aerosols are also likely responsible for some of the warming when it was originally just assumed that they cooled. Assuming we can ever actually pull the AGW "signal" out of the noise of weather...I think we'll find that it's been muted quite a bit by negative feedbacks. As with most pseudo science, AGW only exists in the margins of measure ability and the in the minds of its believers and promoters. AGW is about major catastrophes, millions if not billions dying, ice caps melting, storms a brewing, real end of the world stuff. CO2 generated by humans is not going to do that. Period. We have wasted billions hand wringing over CO2, when we could have reduced soot worldwide dramatically for probably much less money. And actually helped people along the way. Not one law or protocol or treaty imposed by the AGW belief community has reduced CO2 at all. This entire exercise, from Hansen's original stage production in the deliberately over heated Senate hearing room, to Kyoto, to Gore's movie to anything now has done anything at all for the climate, CO2 or people, except for the profiteers and groupies who made money from the circus.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2009 17:30:16 GMT
I think he means the crazy 2C+ anomaly predictions in the models...not the piddly increases in temperature we've been seeing. Those high projections are entirely falsified...we'd have needed to see radical departure from even the warming period to reach them. Also we're finding out all sorts of important new bits of the puzzle...like the fact that man's aerosols are also likely responsible for some of the warming when it was originally just assumed that they cooled. Assuming we can ever actually pull the AGW "signal" out of the noise of weather...I think we'll find that it's been muted quite a bit by negative feedbacks. As with most pseudo science, AGW only exists in the margins of measure ability and the in the minds of its believers and promoters. AGW is about major catastrophes, millions if not billions dying, ice caps melting, storms a brewing, real end of the world stuff. CO2 generated by humans is not going to do that. Period. We have wasted billions hand wringing over CO2, when we could have reduced soot worldwide dramatically for probably much less money. And actually helped people along the way. You should discuss that last sentence with someone like Ross McKitrick who campaigns against limits on smog pollution.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Aug 26, 2009 3:21:09 GMT
As with most pseudo science, AGW only exists in the margins of measure ability and the in the minds of its believers and promoters. AGW is about major catastrophes, millions if not billions dying, ice caps melting, storms a brewing, real end of the world stuff. CO2 generated by humans is not going to do that. Period. We have wasted billions hand wringing over CO2, when we could have reduced soot worldwide dramatically for probably much less money. And actually helped people along the way. You should discuss that last sentence with someone like Ross McKitrick who campaigns against limits on smog pollution. Why? Why don't you discuss AGW with Lovelock?
|
|