AGW: The best arguments a lay person can make!

Mithrae said:

There's nothing predictive about it.

Click to expand...

well thats great news so there is no need to be concerned about the blade of the hockey stick turning sharply upward!! Thank God for you!!

Mithrae said:

The 'hiatus' might not have been as big a deal as you think it is. .

Click to expand...

its not what I think but what scientists think:

Bumps and wiggles
Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.

James972 said:

1) Hockey Stick was 18 years ago and nothing happened, so, so called scientists were wrong,
2) They said AGW started in 1900 when population was 1.6 billion (now 7.5) and little carbon use. Huge population increase and huge carbon use today but no correlative change in temperature as the scientists predicted
3) Temperature change since 1880 has been 1/100 F per year, too little to measure against backdrop of Little Ice age and numerous other possible influences and variables.
4) Scientists said bad weather would be worse yet the opposite happened confirmed by scientific data and insurance companies. This means they don't understand weather and cannot predict it
5) Much current debate has been on a warming hiatus when new population and carbon highs should have shot temperature off the blade of the hockey stick.
6) Good scientists like Roger Pielke are driven out of the debate by leftists in the university monoculture who dont want the truth to interfere with their political agenda to use AGW to concentrate govt under the pretense of saving the planet from AGW
7) Climate scientists were the nerds of academia until AGW, now they are rock stars saving the planet. Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all as the worst scientists in history so they must ride this wave till the bitter end regardless of the science!! It seems very similar to the scientific consensus that developed many times in the field of nutrition.

Can anyone help me with any more?

Click to expand...

Humankind can certainly affect its immediate environment for the better or for worse. Whether humankind has the ability to affect climate change, short of a massive nuclear war, may or may not be true at least based on differing opinions within scientific circles.

If humankind IS affecting the climate, that is unlikely to be reversible without removing humans from the Earth. The verdict is still out whether such climate change is or is not beneficial to humankind and other living things on Earth over the long term, but to me the sensible approach is helping people adjust and adapt to an inevitably changing climate rather than think we mortals have the power to control that.

At this time I prefer to trust more those whose opinions are based on pure science alone more than I trust those whose livelihood or personal fortunes depend on AGW being a bad thing.

AlbqOwl said:

Humankind can certainly affect its immediate environment for the better or for worse. Whether humankind has the ability to affect climate change, short of a massive nuclear war, may or may not be true at least based on differing opinions within scientific circles.

If humankind IS affecting the climate, that is unlikely to be reversible without removing humans from the Earth. The verdict is still out whether such climate change is or is not beneficial to humankind and other living things on Earth over the long term, but to me the sensible approach is helping people adjust and adapt to an inevitably changing climate rather than think we mortals have the power to control that.

At this time I prefer to trust more those whose opinions are based on pure science alone more than I trust those whose livelihood or personal fortunes depend on AGW being a bad thing.

Click to expand...

There's actually little evidence of man-made climate change.

Climate News
[h=1]Detection and Attribution of Man-made Climate Change[/h]By Andy May Chapter 10 of the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report (WG1 AR5) report on climate change deals with how man-made climate change is detected and how much of the total change is due to man. They call the chapter “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional,” but in…

Jack Hays said:

There's actually little evidence of man-made climate change.

Climate News
[h=1]Detection and Attribution of Man-made Climate Change[/h]By Andy May Chapter 10 of the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report (WG1 AR5) report on climate change deals with how man-made climate change is detected and how much of the total change is due to man. They call the chapter “Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional,” but in…

Click to expand...

Certainly the pro-AGW models are suspect at best, a joke at worst, when they can't take known data from the past and produce anything close to what we actually have in the way of climate now.

But my argument is, that if we ARE affecting the climate--there are close to 7-1/2 billion of us now when at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there were about 900 million of us--the verdict is still out whether that is a good thing or bad thing. Wouldn't it be tragic if they actually found a way to reverse climate change and that turned out to be a bad thing?

AlbqOwl said:

Certainly the pro-AGW models are suspect at best, a joke at worst, when they can't take known data from the past and produce anything close to what we actually have in the way of climate now.

But my argument is, that if we ARE affecting the climate--there are close to 7-1/2 billion of us now when at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution there were about 900 million of us--the verdict is still out whether that is a good thing or bad thing. Wouldn't it be tragic if they actually found a way to reverse climate change and that turned out to be a bad thing?

Click to expand...

Is climate change a ruin problem?

AlbqOwl said:

Wouldn't it be tragic if they actually found a way to reverse climate change and that turned out to be a bad thing?

Click to expand...

they already can I thought. On 9/11 all planes were grounded, no more jet contrails to reflect sun and temperature went up 2 degrees. All we have to do is schedule more flights at noon and we've contained 200 years of AGW

Jack Hays said:

Is climate change a ruin problem?

Click to expand...

That's probably a good argument, but forgive me if I don't read past the opening paragraph. I have read so many of these arguments both pro and con from suspect sources, probably okay sources, definitely good sources, etc. and for me the verdict still comes down to the following truths:

1. Those who receive funding from whatever source so long as AGW is a problem generally find some way to present AGW as a problem.
2. Those who do not receive funding for AGW, either pro or con, more often than not do not see it as a proven problem.
3. Whichever it is, there is no practical way to reverse it. If we are causing it, it won't be reversed without committing massive genocide or reverting to stone age lifestyles.
4. And the bottom line remains that we just don't know for sure. And even if we are affecting climate change, there is no evidence as yet as to whether that is a good thing or bad thing.

AlbqOwl said:

That's probably a good argument, but forgive me if I don't read past the opening paragraph. I have read so many of these arguments both pro and con from suspect sources, probably okay sources, definitely good sources, etc. and for me the verdict still comes down to the following truths:

1. Those who receive funding from whatever source so long as AGW is a problem generally find some way to present AGW as a problem.
2. Those who do not receive funding for AGW, either pro or con, more often than not do not see it as a proven problem.
3. Whichever it is, there is no way to reverse it without committing massive genocide or reverting to stone age lifestyles.
4. And the bottom line remains that we just don't know for sure. And even if we are affecting climate change, there is no evidence as yet as to whether that is a good thing or bad thing.

Click to expand...

I might quibble here or there, but on the whole I think you've got it.

AlbqOwl said:

That's probably a good argument, but forgive me if I don't read past the opening paragraph. I have read so many of these arguments both pro and con from suspect sources, probably okay sources, definitely good sources, etc. and for me the verdict still comes down to the following truths:

1. Those who receive funding from whatever source so long as AGW is a problem generally find some way to present AGW as a problem.
2. Those who do not receive funding for AGW, either pro or con, more often than not do not see it as a proven problem.
3. Whichever it is, there is no practical way to reverse it. If we are causing it, it won't be reversed without committing massive genocide or reverting to stone age lifestyles.
4. And the bottom line remains that we just don't know for sure. And even if we are affecting climate change, there is no evidence as yet as to whether that is a good thing or bad thing.

Click to expand...

people like warmer climates far better. They are far more comfortable and cheaper in a dozen ways. The warmers have a lot to overcome just on that

James972 said:

people like warmer climates far better. They are far more comfortable and cheaper in a dozen ways. The warmers have a lot to overcome just on that

Click to expand...

Well it is a fact that humankind, wildlife, and plant life on Planet Earth have fared far better during warm climates than they have during colder ones. So that would have to be a consideration I would think in assessing whether a warmer climate is a good thing or bad thing. Yes, some marginal areas now inhabitable might become less so, but vast areas like Canada and Siberia with much longer growing seasons could become bread baskets of the world.

Again I think we should always be doing research, but don't base policy on the unknown or just for the purposes of controlling people to no purpose other than enriching a very few. And the emphasis should be on how to adjust and adapt to inevitable climate change rather than waste time, money, and whittle away at liberties in silly pretense of trying to control that.

This is part of the Bisti Badlands in northwestern New Mexico. This is a large area devoid of any life other than a few scraggly weeds, a very occasional insect or reptile and even those have trouble clinging to life here. It is absolutely good for nothing other than as a scientific curiosity and it is protected by the BLM for that purpose.



But for 20 million years this area was lush rain forest populated with dinosaurs and many other forms of life. Fifty million years ago, all that came to an abrupt end whether via normal climate change or meteor strike or whatever.

So again, we humans have developed technology and have the ability to develop technology that will allow us to survive, even thrive in many different kinds of climate conditions. We should be devoting our efforts to adapting to changing conditions and making that work for us instead of thinking we can affect natural climate that only the powers of the universe control.

AlbqOwl said:

Well it is a fact that humankind, wildlife, and plant life on Planet Earth have fared far better during warm climates than they have during colder ones. So that would have to be a consideration I would think in assessing whether a warmer climate is a good thing or bad thing. Yes, some marginal areas now inhabitable might become less so, but vast areas like Canada and Siberia with much longer growing seasons could become bread baskets of the world.

Again I think we should always be doing research, but don't base policy on the unknown or just for the purposes of controlling people to no purpose other than enriching a very few. And the emphasis should be on how to adjust and adapt to inevitable climate change rather than waste time, money, and whittle away at liberties in silly pretense of trying to control that.

Click to expand...

great post!! Seems like the AGW liberal puppets have lost their stomach for this topic. I wonder why?

AlbqOwl said:

That's probably a good argument, but forgive me if I don't read past the opening paragraph. I have read so many of these arguments both pro and con from suspect sources, probably okay sources, definitely good sources, etc. and for me the verdict still comes down to the following truths:

1. Those who receive funding from whatever source so long as AGW is a problem generally find some way to present AGW as a problem.
2. Those who do not receive funding for AGW, either pro or con, more often than not do not see it as a proven problem.
3. Whichever it is, there is no practical way to reverse it. If we are causing it, it won't be reversed without committing massive genocide or reverting to stone age lifestyles.
4. And the bottom line remains that we just don't know for sure. And even if we are affecting climate change, there is no evidence as yet as to whether that is a good thing or bad thing.

Click to expand...

To some extent I agree with 1. and 2.,
Where I disagree, is that we actually do have an energy problem, in that it would be desirable to
bring the entire global population up to some level of western lifestyle standards.
The problem is our supply of fossil fuel, is insufficient to allow this.
I think a viable solution would be to store solar electricity as hydrocarbon fuels,
this solves many of the issues with existing alternative energy solutions.
Solar and wind are too irregular and too low density to support our on demand lifestyles.
Storing and accumulating the energy as hydrocarbon fuels, would allow a continuous supply of energy
for the foreseeable future.
(We need to build out a lot more solar.)

longview said:

it would be desirable to
bring the entire global population up to some level of western lifestyle standards.

The problem is our supply of fossil fuel,

Click to expand...

1) our fossil fuel supply seems unlimited even at $40/ barrel!!!
2) China just eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism so we know how to eliminate poverty over night. The only problem is liberalism which lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

James972 said:

even Warren Buffett says property insurance rates are going down as storm damage goes down. And, ACE( Acumulated Cyclonic Energy) index is going down too. This means the so called scientists don't understand weather at all and cant predict it.

Click to expand...

I had hoped that your 'best arguments' were offered in good faith, but your claims 6 and 7 made that doubtful and your recent posts #38 and #40 suggest it's more likely that you're a victim of partisan indoctrination. Given that, the best advice I can offer you is to do your own research and form your own opinions.

I addressed the 5 potentially valid arguments from your OP in some small detail with full references, and you have not offered a substantial response on any of those points. Please try to understand that your views really don't affect anyone else - let alone a fellow on the opposite side of the Pacific to whom your R team and D team politics and the insistence on thinking about science in those terms all seems rather silly - so I've really got nothing to gain by suggesting that you look into these issues a little more.

A few pointers:

> Half-remembered anecdotes really don't tell anyone anything. "Warren Buffet said this" or "Roger Pielke did that" are not credible references, and reflect a habit which is more likely to twist the story into the poster's own biases than provide accurate information. Find a credible source, and often as not you'll find that your recollections were incorrect and learn a little something for yourself in the process (I know I certainly do!)

> Black and white thinking - for example "Any good crack in the consensus will instantly destroy them all" or claiming that "scientists don't understand weather at all and cant predict it" - is the enemy of reason and understanding. Try to understand the finer nuances of the issues you're thinking about.

> Partisan thinking is even more disastrous for anyone hoping to learn and understand an issue. You obviously view mainstream climate scientists as "liberal puppets" and "leftists" with a "political agenda" - in short, The Enemy - and thus you really have no hope of looking at the available information objectively. Try to understand that climate science is a field which has matured over the course of more than a century, which in the last few decades has come to persuade an overwhelming majority of scientists from countries around the world - regardless of the ebbs and flows of political influence - that on balance human activities are warming the planet.

That is not a partisan issue, that's just a fact. How we respond to that fact obviously is a political issue; and there are many possible responses, not just some sinister 'liberal agenda.' Unfortunately however, there is a rather constrictive ideology which insists that government is inherently bad and must become/remain arbitrarily small. That is an ideology which necessarily rejects all possible responses to climate change, and therefore forces itself into the unfortunate position of either wantonly abandoning all responsibility or concern for any consequences inflicted on future generations, or else having to deny the climate science itself and pretend that such consequences do not exist.

Jack Hays said:

Why are you anti-cow?

Click to expand...

They look at me funny

Seriously though, you would understand better than most how dishonest Tim's claims about the impacts of biofuel crops are: On one of the many occasions when I asked him to substantiate his wild accusations, he instead asked someone else to do his homework for him, and you did (August 2016, post #43). You posted a WUWT link to an article estimating a ~200,000 per year effect on global hunger deaths due to biofuel crops. That may or may not be correct, but at ~2% of all hunger-related deaths at least on face value it is entirely plausible. So what did our friendly neighbourhood Plumber do? He completely rejected and ignored the information he'd begged for, and continued flogging around his claim that there's tens of millions of deaths per year, more than all hunger-related deaths combined.

He is not just unfortunately mistaken, as all of us are on occasion, he is constantly and blatantly lying in a malicious (and illogical, and hypocritical vis a vis the even greater agricultural inefficiency of high meat consumption) attempt to discredit climate science and, as linked in that August thread, personally slander forum members who accept that science.

Mithrae said:

They look at me funny

Seriously though, you would understand better than most how dishonest Tim's claims about the impacts of biofuel crops are: On one of the many occasions when I asked him to substantiate his wild accusations, he instead asked someone else to do his homework for him, and you did (August 2016, post #43). You posted a WUWT link to an article estimating a ~200,000 per year effect on global hunger deaths due to biofuel crops. That may or may not be correct, but at ~2% of all hunger-related deaths at least on face value it is entirely plausible. So what did our friendly neighbourhood Plumber do? He completely rejected and ignored the information he'd begged for, and continued flogging around his claim that there's tens of millions of deaths per year, more than all hunger-related deaths combined.

He is not just unfortunately mistaken, as all of us are on occasion, he is constantly and blatantly lying in a malicious (and illogical, and hypocritical vis a vis the even greater agricultural inefficiency of high meat consumption) attempt to discredit climate science and, as linked in that August thread, personally slander forum members who accept that science.

Click to expand...

You seem to like the 200,000 number of deaths due to the use of food as fuel. I think that this is a gross underestimation. My estimate is that at least 20 million people are dying per year more than otherwise would. That is if the use of food as fuel stopped today then next year 20 million people would not die.

We disagree.

You seem to think that if I eat meat then I am not honest in this position. I don't get that. My eating meat will never cause any impact on this munber of deaths. If this policy changes as a result of poeple shouting about it then 20 million people will not die per year in my guess or 200,000 in yours. My small input into this is all I can do.

Obviously the impact of being forced to pay much more for food on the world's poor and nearly poor has had an additional impact. This false market for food strips wealth away from the world's poor and gives it to rich farmers in the west. If there was not this racket going on then the people who live on less than $10 a day would be significantly richer year on year and would gradually be in a position to improve the education of their children etc. The deaths due to geneeral impoverishment over long periods I have not included in my 20 million per year number.

Still, if you are happy with your 200,000 people per year dying as a result of the use of food as fuel continue.

Tim the plumber said:

You seem to like the 200,000 number of deaths due to the use of food as fuel. I think that this is a gross underestimation. My estimate is that at least 20 million people are dying per year more than otherwise would. That is if the use of food as fuel stopped today then next year 20 million people would not die.

We disagree.

You seem to think that if I eat meat then I am not honest in this position. I don't get that. My eating meat will never cause any impact on this munber of deaths. If this policy changes as a result of poeple shouting about it then 20 million people will not die per year in my guess or 200,000 in yours. My small input into this is all I can do.

Obviously the impact of being forced to pay much more for food on the world's poor and nearly poor has had an additional impact. This false market for food strips wealth away from the world's poor and gives it to rich farmers in the west. If there was not this racket going on then the people who live on less than $10 a day would be significantly richer year on year and would gradually be in a position to improve the education of their children etc. The deaths due to geneeral impoverishment over long periods I have not included in my 20 million per year number.

Still, if you are happy with your 200,000 people per year dying as a result of the use of food as fuel continue.

Click to expand...

In interconnected economies the most any activity ripples from its origine to marginally alter things throughout the wider society to impact the optimum and its composition. When one eats meat, one changes the demand for it slightly though it might be and affects supply. So yes. When I eat a steak I am casting my vote against reducing methane release. Ever so slightly.

joG said:

In interconnected economies the most any activity ripples from its origine to marginally alter things throughout the wider society to impact the optimum and its composition. When one eats meat, one changes the demand for it slightly though it might be and affects supply. So yes. When I eat a steak I am casting my vote against reducing methane release. Ever so slightly.

Click to expand...

Er... wot?

I don't see methane as a trouble. There once were vast herds of bison across the great plains they all farted like you would not belive. There are less cows now.

Tim the plumber said:

Er... wot?

I don't see methane as a trouble. There once were vast herds of bison across the great plains they all farted like you would not belive. There are less cows now.

Click to expand...

Methane is in itself a much more potent climate gas than co2. The main impact, however, is from the much larger amount of resources it requires to feed a person with meat. This production process releases large quantities of co2.
I recently read that beef production was responsible for 18 percent of climate gas release.

Jetboogieman said:

Man Made Climate Change is occurring, virtually the only people in the world who doubt it to absurd extremes is to be found virtually exclusively among American Conservatives.

And all this means was the Oil Lobbies money was very well spent. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Why believe the absurd extremes?

joG said:

The bees are dying!

Click to expand...

Not from AGW.

Steve Case said:

BINGO!

Cutting off the ethanol subsidy is one of the first things President Trump should do.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Cut all subsidies! Not just ethanol.

joG said:

Methane is in itself a much more potent climate gas than co2. The main impact, however, is from the much larger amount of resources it requires to feed a person with meat. This production process releases large quantities of co2.
I recently read that beef production was responsible for 18 percent of climate gas release.

Click to expand...

Methane is not a more potent gas. If you understood what RE (radiative efficiency) and GWP (global warming potential) really are, you would retract those words.

These terms have been designed to lie, without lying.

joG said:

Methane is in itself a much more potent climate gas than co2. The main impact, however, is from the much larger amount of resources it requires to feed a person with meat. This production process releases large quantities of co2.
I recently read that beef production was responsible for 18 percent of climate gas release.

Click to expand...

I don't care about methane or CO2 or the none problem of AGW. I do care about millions of unnecessary deaths due to the use of food as fuel.

James972 said:

1) our fossil fuel supply seems unlimited even at $40/ barrel!!!
2) China just eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty by switching to Republican capitalism so we know how to eliminate poverty over night. The only problem is liberalism which lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

Click to expand...

Oil is at $50, and the drop in price is from the over supply caused by fracking.
Fracking shortens the productive life of a well in a trade off of volume over time,
but costs money. It does not look like the gamble paid off, as the price of oil dropped.