Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #515 –
Find a small hole in the AGW theory and us[e] that as a excuse to continue dumping this much CO2 into the atmosphere, and we invite Drought and its friend Famine.
Even if the theory is wrong, and atmospheric (and oceanic…) CO2 levels are not important drivers of the world's climate? That's not to mention very costly coastal flooding in the world's financial centers such as NYC (that will be great for the economy, won't it?) How any billions will it cost to pump the water out of there, keeping in mind NYC is more than twenty times the size of New Orleans?
What evidence is there, that sea levels are rising "alarmingly" — specially as a result of Man's contribution to the atmosphere/ocean's CO2 levels?
You claim models are wrong. Meanwhile other models are pretty damn close and ocean temperature seem to have this tendency to understate the heat there. What models are wrong? Oh, the IPCC ? That tells us nothing. Which ones from them, or do you even know?
(emphasis added)
Which other models are "pretty damn close"? And why -if its so- does the ocean temperature have a "tendency" to understate its heat? (Shouldn't that have an explanation in terms of physics, and be -if its an important factor- represented in the models?) The last I heard, the IPCC relied on some 28 models… And they've taken in recent years to talking about "ensembles"; which is to say, none of them is actually reliable! And a scatter-shot modeling of the climate seems somewhat lame, does it not? (Why would anyone expect the average of however many wrong models to yield correct predictions? And, without correct predictions, of what use are the models? And how do they fit into what I assume we both think of as science?)
If the major driver(s) of "the climate" are wrongly attributed by the models used by the IPCC, what sense does it make to take what might be considered drastic actions to control such?
(The IPCC is, after all, a United Nations organization…)
…Unless there are other reasons for those "drastic actions"? (Might the UN have "unpure" motives? )
I can't help [but] notice that you brought zero science to this discussion.
Zero science? You mean, I haven't cited Michael Mann, et al, repeatedly? That's true!
I take it, you think Keeling's 2000 paper the work of a dolt? That's interesting…
(But don't feel too bad: I get the impression ersi feels the same way, about Lindzen and the Montreal Protocol… )
That silliness is symptomatic of the old nature vs humans mentality. The Right doesn't get it. If we wreck havoc on the planet, we do [it] to ourselves.
If we wreak havoc on industrial economies —to combat imaginary problems— we certainly do it to ourselves… Why would we, I'd ask.
If you think long and hard, you'll likely find an answer. There may not be one, and there may not be a "conspiracy" — but surely sociology and psychology together can explain what went wrong…
(I jest, of course!)