Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-06-29, 23:43:43

"Should have an impact" as in "the model predicts an impact". And first came the smog, then acid rains, then ozone depletion. These are material facts. The model works.

Let's jump to the chase:
Read this, please.

(If you can understand this, I'll link to more "academic" papers… "Wicked Problems" are -mostly- important, ya know?
Do you care?)

The Kyoto Protocol was doomed from the beginning because it was modelled on plausible but inappropriate precedents.

[...]

iii) Misguided Models

[...]

The model for most of the post-war period was the Yalta and Potsdam summits, which shaped the post-World-War II world.

[...]

The classic model of summitry therefore developed with concentric circles of experts who supplied the decision-makers at the centre with the formulae and positions to negotiate.

I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-01, 01:02:31

I already noticed that the paper you are linking talks only about politics, not the science.

Not quite: That paper accepts the "science" you do (…I presume? You never seem to commit yourself to a position — and yet you won't say you're undecided…). Before I get into matters of strictly scientific interest I'd like to know where we stand on policy issues and efficient strategies…
But I won't likely get my wish!

So: Shall we start here? (Or would you like to go as far back as MBH98?)

Models defined your way are not the basis of "global warming" concerns. Greenhouse effect is.

As someone once said, make things as simple as possible; but not simpler!

Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-10, 21:01:03

Time for your story of photons. Long overdue.

Yes. We want photons! We want photons! We want photons! We want photons!

Sorry, I'm inspired by the Greeks.

The article you gave was too simple though.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-10, 13:01:03

The article you gave was too simple though.

Oh? In what way was it too simple?

Low blow at linear models, while providing no suggestion to improve the field of study. Concentrating on the projections of the "rising mean temperature" while avoiding the main topic, i.e. environmental concerns, that which forms the bulk of IPCC reports.

Quite some while ago, in another thread, I asked you a simple question: Does a photon have free will? (You didn't answer… I'd only wanted to see how much of an animist you were.)

It doesn't matter to me… Likewise, your petty rhetorical points.

I ask you again: Which paper did you read?

(The one I recommended was a PHD dissertation…)

The main point of which I took to be that the effects of the so-called greenhouse effect are, well, dependent upon many other factors — sometimes even resulting in a "negative greenhouse effect". And important, at that.

What -ignoring my qualms about consensus science- would you want to see, to combat carbon pollution?

I think that someone here believes that human activity is influencing our climate and that someone else here believes that human activity is not influencing our climate, but I am not sure.

And the last but not the least, because we should have a deep respect for all forms of live beings of the Creation

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education.

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.

Secondly, even analyzing the issue under an absurd approach and admitting they were right, even so, the general principle of precaution, due to the unsurmountable consequences of such disaster, would advice for prudence and reducing the human caused impact in the earth's climate balance, never to adopt behaviors that will inevitably rise such interference.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-11, 00:55:26

My knowledge of greenhouse effect comes from ordinary primary school education.

That explains a lot…

By that maxim, you'd have to hop over every crack in the sidewalk — to spare your mother's back… 

This discussion is absurd.

Firstly, opposition to human activity driven changes to climate is exclusive to an insignificant small number of individuals desperately trying to receive some compensation from oil and other forms of highly pollutant industries and very much restricted, if not exclusive, to the US.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.