AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
but that does not change the response curve of CO2, only how fast we are pushing up the curve.
The concept of catastrophic AGW, is based on two factors.
The first is the direct response of CO2, based on observational data in lab experiments.
This is where the 1.2 °C for each doubling comes from.
The second part is based on the concept that feedback from the warming caused from the
direct response, will be amplified to cause between .3 and 3.3 °C of additional warming.
(Yes, their range is a factor of 11 between low and high.)
At more than half way through the response for the first doubling,
We are barely scrapping the low end of the prediction.
Intersting orgainization the author defends. A organization that have worked for the tobacco company. Who knows who it works for then it comes to global warming? And as I also posted before the oil companies is amongst the richest companies in the world so they can afford to support a lot of organization. Also”climategate” relates to East Anglia e-mai. I already posted a link to it and I do it again, lower down in my post.
Yes they was a fault in one paraph in a report with over 900 pages. But it doesn't change the overall findings.
Good respond and explanation to that.
Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com
Already posted on that case. I know I once again link to Wikipedia, but it have a lot of reliable sources to follow up on.
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I can say it yet agian. That the work of IPCC is really impressive. That work is based on the work of so many scientist and so many findings, still the deniers can find so little to atack even then deniers use dirty tactics.
Last edited by Bergslagstroll; 07-15-14 at 02:14 AM.
Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons. Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States. Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.
The word "denier" has traditionally been used as a pejorative in other languages usually meaning "evil unbeliever in our religion". It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives.
An essay published by the online "democrat & chronicle" sums it up best as far as I am concerned....
Anyone even remotely paying attention to the debate over global warming has surely recognized that one side has simultaneously proclaimed victory and denounced the other. But few, it seems, have noticed how the language of the debate is being manipulated.
Those who argue that human activity causes irrecoverable damage to the planet and advocate curbing carbon-based technology through governmental regulation have boldly escalated their rhetorical attacks on their opponents. We have now reached the point where anyone who expresses skepticism over the “facts” or disagrees with the litany of “solutions” (cap and trade schemes, elimination of fossil fuels, declaring carbon a pollutant) is labeled a denier.
The sudden ubiquity of this relatively new political label signals an increased vitriol in a debate as much about politics as about science, for there is no denying that the term derives its rhetorical strength from the language of the Holocaust. The public discourse would be well-served if both sides refer to each other with the relatively neutral terms “believers” and “skeptics” and leave the Holocaust out of it.
Web Essay: Leave Holocaust out of climate debate
Liberalism—dividing up the EARNED wealth of honest, hard working and ingenious AMERICANS and giving it to the leeches who would rather waste their worthless lives living off the government teat.
Originally Posted by Verax View Post
This is the result of ignorance. People who don't understand science but think they do. I will never understand why people think that an idea they had while looking out the window is just as valid as a scientist... A professional, a person who went to college and got a degree, who spent many years studying after college and while working in the field many years as a career.
I've said this many times in the environmental forum and I will say it again here. Almost all of the questions about global warming can be answered simply by reading an introductory science textbook. The remaining questions can be answered by studying climate science and reading the IPCC's reports.
If you don't know anything about these things, you should not have an opinion that you think AGW is X(anything), because you have no idea. If you are going to have an opinion at least do a bare minimum of research and learn basic science first, it is not that hard at all. If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of whatever nonsense is spewed from television, radio, the internet. It is laughably stupid and you will immediately spot it once you learn a few basic things.
Longview's argument, which is made using a decent understanding of the science of the subject as described in the papers which the IPCC uses for the basis of it's argument, is clear. It is that there has been some warming due to increased CO2 and will be more as humanity continues to burn fossil fuel but that it will be minor as per the science and not as per the utterly unsubstantiated additional forcing which the IPCC relies upon to get their higher range figures.
You however seem to think that it is unreasonable to base our thinking upon a detailed look at the underlying science of a situation but must follow whatever the TV tells us to.