Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Global Warming? (Score 0) 273

by KeensMustard (#47754805) Attached to: Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

So I guess all those scientists searching for the cause and the IPPC are just wasting their time eh?

Hard to make judgement call on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and whether they are wasting their time, but I'd say it seems like a worthy cause - unless you meant the International Plasma Protein Congress (IPPC)? Or perhaps the International Probabilistic Planning Competition? or the The International Pastors' and Partners' Conference (IPPC)?

Comment: Re:Global Warming? (Score 1) 273

by KeensMustard (#47754429) Attached to: Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor
If anything, the models being wrong would make us MORE pessimistic and increase the urgency of action to prevent further climate change. Because if the models don't correlate to actual temperature then it is just as likely they will underestimate future temperature rises as overestimate. The view 'the models are wrong' is actually a pessimistic view.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. I

You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.

If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.

Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.

Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.

Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

Reality proves my assertion.

You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, t

I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.

hat's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.

So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory.

Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

To summarize - you can't cite a study because you know, conspiracy theory. TIme travelling zombie tyndall flits from school to school, making sure that no-one ever discovers that CO2 is not, in fact, a greenhouse gas.

Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.

Comment: Re: Transparent? (Score 1) 174

What thirty years?

You can't subtract 30 from 2014?

I seem to remember the way, prior to your memory, all scientists were worried about the coming ice age, with the coming droughts.

Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.

something about fewer sunspots transferring less energy to the earth.

Something something sunspots something something. Well, I'm convinced.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

But that isn't what [denialists] are saying, is it.

Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 1) 174

It doesn't matter if anthropogenic CO2 causes warming or not (although there has yet to be any empiracle evidence of such).

empiracle?

What matters is the costs with correcting it verses enduring it. So far, enduring it seems to be more cost effective than the plans to correct it that are being considered by governments.

Cite a paper that backs this assertion

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 2) 174

We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).

Do "denialists" have a theory?

Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?

Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published?

No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.

I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

What debate is that?

Comment: Re:Transparent? (Score 3, Interesting) 174

I should think that any geo-engineering attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to be on a massive scale - there will be plenty of time for the anxious to voice their concerns and present their evidence.

Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

"It's like deja vu all over again." -- Yogi Berra

Working...