Warming: Where Is The Harm?

[Omniskeptical]

Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see.

We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.

No we don't have overwhelming evidence. But if you want to base it on pollution, the industrial revolution of the past was easily worse.

[seer]

Just curious - how do you suppose Al Gore got all of those tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of professional science journals to buy into his lies? Who pays for this huge worldwide conspiracy? It it the same funding source that pays all those life science professionals to accept the Theory of Evolution lies?

So HMS - what would you have us do to reverse this? And if you can not get countries like China, India, most of Asia and Africa to join in, what real good would our efforts do?

[seer]

(4) Raising sea level has already caused some coastal areas and islands to be abandoned.

This is only the beginning . . .

The sea level has been rising for thousands of years - and?

[shunyadragon]

Ok, from what I can understand from the grafts linked, from the late 1880s to present the earth's average temperature has increased about one degree f. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

This has seemed to have topped off in the late 90s. And we remain fairly stable, but we are stable at a much warmer temperature. So has that warmer temperature really cause any empirical harm? From what I have read we just went through three years of the mildest hurricane seasons in recent memory. I mean what weather events can we point to that are worse now in either duration, frequency or intensity because of this warming?

This is short of a sound bit to reflect reality.

(1) Three years of hurricane records is not reflective of a pattern. In fact the historical record of hurricanes does not at present provide sufficient evidence for the influence of Climate change. There is more evidence that tornadoes frequency an intensity have more of a relationship to climate change.

(2) What you call leveling off as far as average temperatures in recent years is somewhat of an illusion. You need to evaluate different factors of temperature change and distribution across the globe.

(3) The greatest impact of climate change is aridification of the regions bordering the arid and semi-arid regions, and as it progresses it could easily be easily catastrophic for world agriculture.

(4) Raising sea level has already caused some coastal areas and islands to be abandoned.

This is only the beginning . . .

[Sparko]

Just curious - how do you suppose Al Gore got all of those tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of professional science journals to buy into his lies? Who pays for this huge worldwide conspiracy? It it the same funding source that pays all those life science professionals to accept the Theory of Evolution lies?

wow "tens of thousands" scientists and "hundreds" of professional science journals?

LOL. I hope that was hyperbole. If not, you are dumber than you act.


By the way, is that how they proved Copernicus wrong? By touting the thousands of scientists and journals?

[HMS_Beagle]

Has climate changed? sure. It ALWAYS changes. There is no proof that man is causing it though, or that he will cause some runaway greenhouse effect. The actual climate trends do not match the CO2 outputs. The predictions of the models over the last 30 years have failed to come true.

Just curious - how do you suppose Al Gore got all of those tens of thousands of scientists and hundreds of professional science journals to buy into his lies? Who pays for this huge worldwide conspiracy? It it the same funding source that pays all those life science professionals to accept the Theory of Evolution lies?

[Sparko]

"Tobacco smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer, honest! That's just Democrat political lies!"

Yeah you make absofreakinglutely no sense. But that is what I have come to expect of your posts recently. You and Jorge are pretty much two sides to the same coin. Idealogues without a lick of sense.

Yeah, we know. It's all a big conspiracy to take your rum money. There's no evidence at all. There aren't thousands of scientific papers published every year with documenting the problem. Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world doesn't have a dedicated scientific publication Nature Climate Change. It's all Al Gore's lies.

Has climate changed? sure. It ALWAYS changes. There is no proof that man is causing it though, or that he will cause some runaway greenhouse effect. The actual climate trends do not match the CO2 outputs. The predictions of the models over the last 30 years have failed to come true.

[HMS_Beagle]

The reality is that you believe anything the democrats tell you to believe. You have not shown us any actual "overwhelming scientific evidence" at all. All you have done is make claims, show us some chart that shows negative precipitation and is based on a computer model, and hand-waved away anything anyone else says as "wingnut" even though your "evidence" does not correspond with the actual recorded data.

"Tobacco smoke doesn't increase the risk of lung cancer, honest! That's just Democrat political lies!"

You haven't even been able to answer one of seer's questions, or back up any of your claims, or even define "climate"

Yeah, we know. It's all a big conspiracy to take your rum money. There's no evidence at all. There aren't thousands of scientific papers published every year with documenting the problem. Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world doesn't have a dedicated scientific publication Nature Climate Change. It's all Al Gore's lies.

[Sparko]

Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see.

We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.

My philosophy is that real problems don't vanish if you stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there. My philosophy is to accept reality and to work to solve the problem.

The reality is that you believe anything the democrats tell you to believe. You have not shown us any actual "overwhelming scientific evidence" at all. All you have done is make claims, show us some chart that shows negative precipitation and is based on a computer model, and hand-waved away anything anyone else says as "wingnut" even though your "evidence" does not correspond with the actual recorded data.

You haven't even been able to answer one of seer's questions, or back up any of your claims, or even define "climate"

[HMS_Beagle]

Nobody is saying we should destroy our earth. But creating artificial restrictions just to satisfy political agendas disguised as "science" only serves to harm the economy.

Still in Tobacco Company defense mode I see.

We have overwhelming scientific evidence the problem is real and will only get worse if we don't act to mitigate the damage. You don't like it for political reasons but your political motivations don't change empirically measured reality.

But I suppose your philosophy is just "well so what if it isn't true? We still need to control x,y,z just in case"

My philosophy is that real problems don't vanish if you stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't there. My philosophy is to accept reality and to work to solve the problem.

[Sparko]

There's no such thing as climate. It's all a conspiracy led by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to keep TrueChristians^tm from their rightful place as Earth's slum landlords. Just ask the pirate.

Nobody is saying we should destroy our earth. But creating artificial restrictions just to satisfy political agendas disguised as "science" only serves to harm the economy.

But I suppose your philosophy is just "well so what if it isn't true? We still need to control x,y,z just in case"

[seer]

Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.

Ok, so a thirty year trend when man made Co2 has grown exponentially doesn't count. That is nonsense HM, if we did see a negative effect on global precipitation rates from AGW this is exactly where we should see it. The other real problem HM is that there is no consensus on the rate of precipitation. Three different studies come to three different conclusions - why should I believe that their long term trends are any more accurate?

[Truthseeker]

Let's not reply to the beagle as long as it doesn't come up with a definition of "climate" that makes sense and seems helpful.

[HMS_Beagle]

If you don't have a definition of "climate," you're just producing wind. And too much hot air.

There's no such thing as climate. It's all a conspiracy led by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton to keep TrueChristians^tm from their rightful place as Earth's slum landlords. Just ask the pirate.

[Truthseeker]

Short term fluctuations don't negate long term trends. After all the data that's been presented you still can't grasp the basics.

If you don't have a definition of "climate," you're just producing wind. And too much hot air.