Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[hippie_hunter]

The UN keeps moving that goalpost. It was originally "too late to act" in 2000.

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the problem.

Published on July 5, 1989, Page 2E, Miami Herald, The (FL)

That's honestly the biggest problem with the environmentalist movement. Even with facts on their side on man made climate change, the fact that they're so willing to rush to automatic absurd doomsday predictions seriously damages their credibility. I think a lot more people would care about climate change if climate scientists stopped acting as if the world were going to end tomorrow.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

The article you posted did not suggest that the "science" had been diluted or polluted by politicians: it suggested that the solutions suggested by the experts had been redacted, in order to prevent them from interfering with any supranational negotiations that may ensue. That is inevitable, and the lesson is probably that the remit of the scientists in such scenarios should be more clearly defined.

The article points out what is already known. The scientists have their say in the main report...then the politicians enter the picture and supplant the science with their agenda. When the science does not agree with the agenda, the science is deleted. They have marathon sessions as they go over the report line by line and decide what the political message with be.

The report exists to influence policy. That's why they call it "The summary for policymakers". It's a political document...not a scientific document.

Germany, Belgium object to communication plan

But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/g...complicates-job-of-un-climate-panel-1.1860527

This is what they care about. Pushing their agenda and not talking about anything which would interfere with that. They actually want to delete any science that would "give ammunition to skeptics". Truth is not their goal.

At a closed-door meeting in Stockholm this week, each paragraph of a document written by scientists is being projected onto large screens. Delegations from scores of nations participate in the editing: Words will be substituted, emphasis will be added, entire sentences may well be inserted or deleted.

After four days of haggling, the media will be summoned by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a news conference on Friday where the final version of the document—known as the "Summary for Policymakers"—will be released along with a solemn announcement that "science" has spoken.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...3981304579079030750537994.html?mod=hp_opinion

Real scientists speak truth and acknowledge doubts and uncertainties. Politicians get involved and they do not care about the truth...they only want to use the parts of the science which support their agenda.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Storch, Germany has recently seen major flooding. Is global warming the culprit?

Storch: I'm not aware of any studies showing that floods happen more often today than in the past. I also just attended a hydrologists' conference in Koblenz, and none of the scientists there described such a finding.

SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.

Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people.

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ’2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”

Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”

Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Even one of the biggest alarmist scientists can't bring himself to spout the doom that we hear from politicians and activists when he is asked direct questions. Phil Jones:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Phil Jones: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

He certainly tried hard...but ultimately had to be honest about it. The "rate of warming prior to our CO2 emissions was the same as after our CO2 emissions during the current 200 year old warming period.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

PJ: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Boy he hated to admit that one, didn't he?

There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

PJ: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

He even openly admits there is "debate"....running counter to the oft-claimed "consensus". So the next time you hear someone try to shoot down a discussion about the MWP, remember there is a big question about that.

If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

PJ: The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.

When you hear about the "evidence that the warming is manmade"...this is it. They can't think of anything else. So they use the theory....which they also use on the models which have failed to predict the climate.

When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

PJ: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Again shooting down this "consensus" claim you often hear from the media and activists.

 

[Doctor Evo]

There's a difference between empirical evidence and a theory.. I don't know what else I can say.

I never claimed there wasn't. You're still missing the point, and you're not helping your case.

 

[Doctor Evo]

That's honestly the biggest problem with the environmentalist movement. Even with facts on their side on man made climate change, the fact that they're so willing to rush to automatic absurd doomsday predictions seriously damages their credibility. I think a lot more people would care about climate change if climate scientists stopped acting as if the world were going to end tomorrow.

Perhaps the only legitimate point that JKD has been able to put forth in this thread is that there's a difference between what the scientists are saying and what policymakers and the media are saying. The sensationalization of these issues is primarily attributable to the latter entities.

Of course, this goes both ways - as evidenced by JKD's shameless quote-mining. The scientific message gets lost along the way.

 

[SV Fan]

That's honestly the biggest problem with the environmentalist movement. Even with facts on their side on man made climate change, the fact that they're so willing to rush to automatic absurd doomsday predictions seriously damages their credibility. I think a lot more people would care about climate change if climate scientists stopped acting as if the world were going to end tomorrow.

Personally I wish somebody would come out and say hey climate change is really going to suck for a majority of the population, but some places it actually will have positive benefit(ie a certain distance away from an ocean and places farther away from the equator)

It definitely feels like all the doom and gloom of what will happen is one sided.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Personally I wish somebody would come out and say hey climate change is really going to suck for a majority of the population, but some places it actually will have positive benefit(ie a certain distance away from an ocean and places farther away from the equator)

It definitely feels like all the doom and gloom of what will happen is one sided.

Scientists say this all the time.

 

[floreairfoot]

I never claimed there wasn't. You're still missing the point, and you're not helping your case.

If you really think so, then explain why.

There's nothing contradictory about my original statement.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Fracture in the green community. Supporting nuclear is a big no-no I guess.

Arrest Monbiot
A reward is offered to people attempting a citizen's arrest of George Monbiot for crimes against humanity and the environment.

Monbiot must face justice for his criminal irresponsibility in promoting nuclear power.

This site offers a *reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the self professed “professional trouble-maker” George Monbiot for Nuclear Crimes against Humanity and the Environment.

http://wildar4.wix.com/arrest-monbiot

Edit: Here is his response:

Today I arrested myself for supporting nuclear power. Now, where's my £100?
A website called Arrest Monbiot has been set up due to my 'nuclear crimes against humanity' – so I'm turning myself in

You might not see me for a while. I've just been arrested, on the most serious of possible charges. They are: "deportation or forcible transfer of population", "imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law", and "enforced sterilisation".

I've always been pretty good at managing my time, and I've succeeded in fitting these in between writing books and articles, childcare and campaigning. Or so I've discovered from a new website, promoted by The Ecologist magazine, called Arrest Monbiot.

It's not a joke; they really mean it. And, if you're interested, they're offering real money as a bounty.

The website, set up by a group (or person?) called Radiation Free Lakeland, explains that by arguing in favour of nuclear power, I have "knowingly and systematically violated" the Rome statute of the international criminal court and have been deporting, imprisoning and sterilising the world's people. Some of the rules for performing a peaceful citizen's arrest on me bear an uncanny similarity to the rules for apprehending Tony Blair on the Arrest Blair site I set up. Arguing against abandoning our primary source of low-carbon energy during a climate change emergency is, it seems, directly comparable to launching an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands died.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...yself-supporting-nuclear-power-george-monbiot

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Perhaps the only legitimate point that JKD has been able to put forth in this thread is that there's a difference between what the scientists are saying and what policymakers and the media are saying. The sensationalization of these issues is primarily attributable to the latter entities.

Of course, this goes both ways - as evidenced by JKD's shameless quote-mining. The scientific message gets lost along the way.

The worst distortion of the scientific message by far is the "97% consensus" thing.

 

[Doctor Evo]

If you really think so, then explain why.

There's nothing contradictory about my original statement.

*Sigh*

Your original post implied (rather heavily, I might add) that theories are, virtually by definition, unsupported by empirical evidence. The juxtaposition you presented is quite clear. That implication (and subsequent comments, such as the "fact vs theory" comment) served to illustrate your basic lack of understanding of what a scientific theory actually is.

Not only are these two things not mutually exclusive, but in fact empirical support is a virtual necessity for any explanatory model to be elevated to the status of theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

^ Here, read this, since it's obvious you didn't take my earlier suggestion. This is the only time I'll do your homework for you.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Scientists say this all the time.

But then they mute it with absurd predictions. Already the coastal US should have already been flooded, the world should have already ran out of food, the Ozone layer should have already been depleted, the Polar Ice Caps should have already been gone, etc. Not only have their original deadlines passed, but in a lot of cases, the exact opposite has happened.

And this is a really bad problem because climate change is a real thing that is occurring and it is something that needs to be confronted. But all these doomsday predictions do is give fuel to the deniers legitimacy.

 

[Doctor Evo]

But then they mute it with absurd predictions. Already the coastal US should have already been flooded, the world should have already ran out of food, the Ozone layer should have already been depleted, the Polar Ice Caps should have already been gone, etc. Not only have their original deadlines passed, but in a lot of cases, the exact opposite has happened.

And this is a really bad problem because climate change is a real thing that is occurring and it is something that needs to be confronted. But all these doomsday predictions do is give fuel to the deniers legitimacy.

I'm going to ask you a question, and I'd appreciate an honest answer:

How much primary, peer-reviewed scientific literature have you actually read?

For the vast majority of people, the answer is going to be a big fat *zero* - and many of those who claim to have read primary scientific literature don't actually know what it is and are mistaken.

 

[floreairfoot]

*Sigh*

Your original post implied (rather heavily, I might add) that theories are, virtually by definition, unsupported by empirical evidence. The juxtaposition you presented is quite clear. That implication (and subsequent comments, such as the "fact vs theory" comment) served to illustrate your basic lack of understanding of what a scientific theory actually is.

All that writing and you didn't say a single thing.. you're exhausting...

Not only are these two things not mutually exclusive

This is your mistake, because I never stated that a scientific theory would/must lack empirical evidence; it's just the opposite.

empirical support is a virtual necessity for any explanatory model to be elevated to the status of theory.

"CO2 warms the planet".. that is a scientifc theory with empirical support in the scientific community.

...which would mean that one scientific theory with empirical support is the "empirical evidence" of another scientific theory...

How far down the rabbit hole is that supposed to go?

 

[Doctor Evo]

All that writing and you didn't say a single thing.. you're exhausting...

I said plenty - your inability to understand what was being conveyed is no fault of mine.

This is your mistake, because I never stated that a scientific theory would/must lack empirical evidence...

No - you said (or, rather, implied) that a theory may exist, within a scientific context, without empirical support. This is simply not the case. Thus the contradiction.

I can't tell whether you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument, or whether you simply don't comprehend it.

"CO2 warms the planet".. that is a scientifc theory with empirical support in the scientific community.

...which would mean that one scientific theory with empirical support is the "empirical evidence" of another scientific theory...

How far down the rabbit hole is that supposed to go?

Nobody is saying that. Speaking of exhausting...you're creating arguments out of thin air!

 

[floreairfoot]

No - you said (or, rather, implied) that a theory may exist, within a scientific context, without empirical support. This is simply not the case. Thus the contradiction.

I was using the word "theory" in a common way, because I do not consider the argument for human caused global warming a scientific theory.

I'm a simple person.

Nobody is saying that. Speaking of exhausting...you're creating arguments out of thin air!

Well.. most people here would have to agree with that, right?

...but this wasn't meant to start an argument, it was an example for why I do not consider human caused global warming a scientific theory.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I read an article awhile back that stated since a lot of the science back then couldn't take into account the proliferation of e-devices taking over as our primary source for reading instead of paper and that lead to a severe reduction in the amount of trees being cut down which allowed for more consumption of CO2. So that could be one reason why predictions that they thought were going to happen haven't occurred yet.

 

[summerteeth]

I read an article awhile back that stated since a lot of the science back then couldn't take into account the proliferation of e-devices taking over as our primary source for reading instead of paper and that lead to a severe reduction in the amount of trees being cut down which allowed for more consumption of CO2. So that could be one reason why predictions that they thought were going to happen haven't occurred yet.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but this is part of the problem with climate alarmists. They are operating under the assumption that all things remain constant and don't take into account the scientific advances. We don't know how much carbon capture technology will advance which could make this whole debate rather pointless.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I read an article awhile back that stated since a lot of the science back then couldn't take into account the proliferation of e-devices taking over as our primary source for reading instead of paper and that lead to a severe reduction in the amount of trees being cut down which allowed for more consumption of CO2. So that could be one reason why predictions that they thought were going to happen haven't occurred yet.

They don't take into account a lot of things through the natural progression of technology and new regulations that get developed.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but this is part of the problem with climate alarmists. They are operating under the assumption that all things remain constant and don't take into account the scientific advances. We don't know how much carbon capture technology will advance which could make this whole debate rather pointless.

You hit the nail on the head right there buddy.

 

[Harley2004]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but this is part of the problem with climate alarmists. They are operating under the assumption that all things remain constant and don't take into account the scientific advances. We don't know how much carbon capture technology will advance which could make this whole debate rather pointless.

Planning on technology saving us from what we have done to the environment, is obviously a risk.

 

[Lighthouse]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but this is part of the problem with climate alarmists. They are operating under the assumption that all things remain constant and don't take into account the scientific advances. We don't know how much carbon capture technology will advance which could make this whole debate rather pointless.

True, but considering they actually don't know what those advances will be, they shouldn't assume anything at all. We don't know! That's something science is willing to admit. We don't know the future, but this is happening, and we should be really concerned about it.

 

[Lighthouse]

There's a difference between empirical evidence and a theory.. I don't know what else I can say.



Fact vs Theory

One can be observed and proven.. the other can not (yet).







Debate? How can we debate you when we're mocked for disagreeing with you?

It's as if we've blasphemed against your god.

You really know nothing about scientific theory, science, or....hell, you don't understand natural logic.

 

[Lighthouse]

Planning on technology saving us from what we have done to the environment, is obviously a risk.

Yeah. The whole "We'll figure it out later" is a terrible plan.

 

[summerteeth]

Yeah. The whole "We'll figure it out later" is a terrible plan.

Well that's the thing though what other realistic concrete plan is there? It seems like environmentalists are only willing to work towards one solution: stopping oil and gas companies. It's difficult for me to take the whole the world is doomed prediction when they aren't willing to dump 100 tons of iron dust off the coast of the Galapagos to create a phytoplankton bloom to help remove CO2 from the atmosphere because it might kill some fish it also could help boost the sea life population we don't really know for sure, but the fact that it could kill some fish the plan is dead on arrival.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

But then they mute it with absurd predictions. Already the coastal US should have already been flooded, the world should have already ran out of food, the Ozone layer should have already been depleted, the Polar Ice Caps should have already been gone, etc. Not only have their original deadlines passed, but in a lot of cases, the exact opposite has happened.

To be fair to scientists, almost none of them are making these absurd doom predictions you see in the media and from politicians' mouths. James Hansen was one...but he's a full time activist now.

Even Phil Jones doesn't say things like that when he's asked direct questions about it.

Those with an agenda take what scientists say, distort it beyond belief, and then present it as "this is what scientists are saying". The "97% consensus" is a great example of that. Most scientists do agree "the earth has warmed over the past 100 years". But then activists morph that into, "Most scientists agree we are doomed and must act now to stop catastrophic climate change".

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, but this is part of the problem with climate alarmists. They are operating under the assumption that all things remain constant and don't take into account the scientific advances. We don't know how much carbon capture technology will advance which could make this whole debate rather pointless.

Not just climate alarmists. All doomsayers base predictions on a reality where nothing ever changes and human ingenuity does not exist.

Human beings are the most adaptable species on the planet. We live in just about every environment on the planet and have adapted to every single problem which has been presented to us over the 200,000 years of our existence. Sea levels have been rising all during that time and we don't even notice. We don't just stand on a beach as water rises over our heads.

That's why Paul R. Ehrlich was so comically wrong with his predictions in the Population Bomb. He refused to factor in human ingenuity. Our ability to grow food advanced dramatically and there is more food than ever before despite a huge increase in population. ...In fact...the fact that the human population has increased is proof he was wrong.....there can never be more people than the earth can support. ...So the entire line of thinking that "more people will doom us" doesn't make sense.

The same attitude has been a part of the "peak oil" predictions over the last 100 years. Over and over and over there are those who keep predicting we are "going to run out of oil soon"....and they have been wrong 100% of the time. Now...I've got no love for oil companies....catch me filling my Corolla with gas some time and you'll see me grumbling about the artificially inflated price. I will embrace a new power source as soon as it arrives. But that doesn't mean I can't see reality with how wind and solar are not ready yet. Part of my problem with environmentalists is how they torpedoed our switch to nuclear power years ago. Fossil fuels should be a small percentage of our energy by now if not for them.

You see that stuff in this thread. Some are actually assuming we won't adapt or advance in the coming years. Seriously? That's what we do. That pretty much defines our species.

 

[floreairfoot]

You really know nothing about scientific theory, science, or....hell, you don't understand natural logic.

I'll repeat myself for you..

I was using the word "theory" in a common way, because I do not consider the argument for human caused global warming a scientific theory.

If you'll refer to my last two posts, you'll see my explanation.

It won't, because they don't want facts.

You really know nothing about scientific fact, science, or....hell, you don't understand natural logic.