THE thread for climate skeptics.

[seer]

I think for people like him they need it to be because they value their politics so much over anything else - I'd bet even his religion. I've come to see that most (not all) conservatives would rather chew glass than admit they were wrong about climate change. For them, they need to convince themselves and others that it's 'all politics' because from day one, that's how they've approached this issue.

FYI - I was into this stuff before it was ever on your radar. In the 70s I had every edition of the Whole Earth Catalog, I worked construction and designed Passive Solar homes as a hobby (domes, Yurts, Shed Roof construction, etc...) They often only used rain water, composting toilets, and all the wood and glass was recycled. My wife and I also did all organic gardening. What I am against is the left's insatiable desire to control our lives and destroy capitalism, and they will use anything to accomplish this, including climate change.

[Sea of red]

FYI - I was into this stuff before it was ever on your radar. In the 70s I had every edition of the Whole Earth Catalog, I worked construction and designed Passive Solar homes as a hobby (domes, Yurts, Shed Roof construction, etc...) They often only used rain water, composting toilets, and all the wood and glass was recycled. My wife and I also did all organic gardening. What I am against is the left's insatiable desire to control our lives and destroy capitalism, and they will use anything to accomplish this, including climate change.

What does this have to with the science? Oh right, you can't refute any of the evidence.

[seer]

What does this have to with the science? Oh right, you can't refute any of the evidence.

Idiot, did I say I didn't believe the science? Or that man did not add to the warming? The only thing I questioned were some of the dire predictions.

[shunyadragon]

Idiot, did I say I didn't believe the science? Or that man did not add to the warming? The only thing I questioned were some of the dire predictions.

That is not all you did, you question GCC predictions, because of political reasons.

Well . . . ah, many times you do seriously question and reject science, and selectively cite science to justify your theological agenda.

[seer]

That is not all you did, you question GCC predictions, because of political reasons.

Yes, I said I questioned their predictions, and yes there are political reasons - I don't trust what leftists like you will try and do with the science.

[Sea of red]

Yes, I said I questioned their predictions, and yes there are political reasons - I don't trust what leftists like you will try and do with the science.

What, because you can't understand it?

[seer]

What, because you can't understand it?

No because of false past predictions:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/...er-hurricanes/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...rming-industry


And because I know leftists like yourself like the back of my hand.

[Sea of red]

No because of false past predictions:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/...er-hurricanes/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...rming-industry


And because I know leftists like yourself like the back of my hand.

TheNewAmerican and old washed up Anthony Watts...

That about sums up the voting demographic for Donald Trump.

[seer]

TheNewAmerican and old washed up Anthony Watts...

That about sums up the voting demographic for Donald Trump.

Really, can you point to exactly where the Watts article was off?

[Sea of red]

Really, can you point to exactly where the Watts article was off?

It's always been disputed how climate change will effect hurricane strength and frequency.

[seer]

It's always been disputed how climate change will effect hurricane strength and frequency.

And I suspect that there are disputes about some of the other dire predictions.

[Leonhard]

No, I asked how much the sea level has risen. And it doesn't look like it has risen everywhere.

Doesn't look like doesn't work. The evidence is that globally it has risen. Local areas can be affected by tides in weird ways, and I doubt you carefully observed that beach carefully several days per month, and could compare it exactly several years back.

I'm not doubting your powers of observation, or that you can't remember a difference, but the fact of the matter is that there is.

[Leonhard]

Actually no we can't and we won't. No country (US, China, India, etc...) will hobble its manufacturing base to comply.

No one is proposing that nations should hobble their manufacturing base.

People will not give up their cars,

Nobody is proposing that either, and I've read the IPCC report.

and no one will stand for the doubling or tripling their energy costs.

Of course. And that's not in the radar either.

One rational way around this would to bring hundreds of new nuclear plants on line, but the left will not allow that.

Nuclear power isn't magical. It takes decades to build a nuclear power plant, though once its built its a fairly stable and dependable energy source. There's plenty of uranium, and way more thorium. I have no problem with nuclear power per say, its just not nescessarily the most attractive option to introduce.

Take Denmark. We have no nuclear industry. No sites to deposit the nuclear waste and zero experience building an operating nuclear power plant. We'd have to import most of that from companies in France, and export nuclear waste by train, through several capitol cities to a deposit site in Norway or Finland, etc... Or we could build a lot of wind mills and solar power, and work on the power storage problem, and develop a flexible power grid. Denmark has opted for the latter, and we're on track to be totally green somewhere around 2050.

Solar and wind will never cover the needs of our population in the short time that some are claiming that we have.

"Short time"? Its not a doomsday scenario seer. The climate response has been modelled on the kind of response humans have. Full fossil fuels and nothing done about it would result in at least a six degree increase in temperature, which would be horrible. The amount of crops that could be grown would shrink terrible. Huge countries like China have already exhausted the arable land they have. If it shrunk by ten percent they'd have a crisis. Same with the US. In this worst case scenario the world BNP might decrease by as much as 25%, which is more than the effect WII had on it.

If we stopped totally, right now, from releasing CO2, there would only be a further increase in global temperature of 0.5 degrees (as the climate reaches equilibrium).

In between these two extreme scenarios there's a reasonable scenario where the richest and most polluting countries make a slow transition over the course of a couple of decades to a mixture of solar, wind and some nuclear. Countries not quite in the first class category are expected to make a transition to a half-and-half mixture of renewables with cheaper power sources, and the hardest hit developing nations should of course be allowed to take whatever is cheapest for them, as getting them out of the most extreme level of poverty is instrumental in stopping the population growth.

[Leonhard]

Yes, I said I questioned their predictions, and yes there are political reasons - I don't trust what leftists like you will try and do with the science.

I still don't understand why you haven't put Shunya on ignore.

[seer]

Doesn't look like doesn't work. The evidence is that globally it has risen. Local areas can be affected by tides in weird ways, and I doubt you carefully observed that beach carefully several days per month, and could compare it exactly several years back.

I'm not doubting your powers of observation, or that you can't remember a difference, but the fact of the matter is that there is.

Actually Lurch confirmed my observation:

Your personal observations may depend on how old you are, may reflect local variations in sea level rise (which exist), or may simply not reflect reality.

Have a look at the table at the end of this NOAA report on nuisance flooding:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...20Flooding.pdf

Nuisance flooding is caused by a mix of local sinking of the ground, and climate driven sea level rise. And it's happening much more often, as that table shows. But the magnitude of the increase varies from place to place. Wilmington, NC has seen a 40-fold increase; Providence RI has seen none. So you may just happen to be going to a place where the difference isn't as pronounced.

Rhode Island, near Providence, are the beaches I have been going to all these years.