But, perhaps poor Scylla was merely confirming the existence of climate change by observing the unusual weather pattern? Why would you assume the worst about someone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is an entertaining and insightful pal?
I guess in addition to pointing out **Scylla **being a dick, I will also disagree with Captain Amazing. It may be true that a lot of the deniers in leadership know better, but their political base doesn’t. And more science won’t exactly change that, but the higher-level narrative about the science might – and this is an especially good story for that narrative.
Count me in as a global warming denier. The very fact that you refer to those who disagree as “deniers” shows me that you are trying to use rhetorical tricks to support a scientific, or statistical argument. That’s a big red flag. I know what scientific and statistical arguments look like, and I know what what somebody trying to sell an argument or assume their conclusion sounds like.
I especially like the “signs of global warming may include earlier snows and colder weather” type arguments.
It’s like my argument for invisible dragons. One of my predictive indicators for the coming onslaught of invisible dragons is that you will not see any evidence of them. Based on this we can tell they are coming soon, right?
You are fruitcakes.
The change you are claiming is very tiny within a very large and chaotic sample, and your measurements are not accurate enough to support your conclusion.
Now, climate change is a whole different matter. Sure we’re wrecking the planet and fucking things up, and we need to stop. But you can’t prove it’s getting warmer, and your ad hominem arguments to the contrary are evidence of this.
Oh please. You have already said you believe in manmade global warming. Did you change your mind in the last two years? Probably not. More likely, your anecdote schtick in this thread is just trying to troll GIGO et al. Well, more power you, if you’ve got nothing better to do. It just makes you a dick, that’s all.
And if you think I’m going to take your bait, you’re wrong.
I find arguments like this baffling. You seem too smart to be this dense, so then I have to wonder if it’s just wishful thinking or putting the joy of your political side “winning” ahead of basic common sense.
Let’s make an analogy. You live in a town near a mountain. Town scientists have found that a huge crack has appeared in the face of the mountain right above the town and is growing ever more rapidly. They’re not sure where it’s going to terminate, but the data suggests there’s a good chance that either (a) the entire face will sheer off and land directly on the town, smashing it flat or (b) pieces will fall off in succession, causing an avalanche that buries the town in fifty feet of snow. The only way to know for sure is when the rock actually falls, at which point it’s too late to do anything, so they recommend preparing for both possibilities. You instead argue that being smashed flat is very different from being suffocated and frozen, so until they can tell you which outcome is 100% certain, they’re just big fat liars and want you to worry about something that isn’t actually happening for some reason. They show you graphs and charts of the crack propagation and detailed computer simulations of the rock falling but you stand by your original assertion. They get mad and call you an idiot, which to you simply proves they’re big fat liars.
Seriously, there is hard scientific evidence of a significant warming trend which appears directly correlated to the sharp increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Computer simulations (and basic thermodynamics) indicate that if this continues, it will jar the climate system quite significantly, possibly disastrously. No one will know the exact outcome until it’s too late. That’s it. That’s the whole deal. If you think “wait and see” is the best course of action anyway, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that you are either a selfish prick or a fucking retard. Possibly both.
Meh, #86
But keep whining about being called a denier, the argument that we should not call those who deny the science that is indeed a very idiotic one.
Well, I don’t mind the whining Professor Brickmore *, 
- Scientist at BYU, Republican, Mormon (!) that tells people like Scylla to get over it, the earth is warming and humans are a reason for the current warming that will increase to even worse levels if nothing is done.
There’s a mile of space between believing and knowing for sure.
Is this a reference to the epistemology of belief about climate change, or to successfully walking the line of trolling?
I may be wrong but maybe you are confusing **Scylla **with Sam Stone, Sam has said in the past that he does accept the evidence and has said before that the ones still refusing the evidence are just full of hot air, like a certain sea monster here.
I’m not confused. **Scylla **says he thinks the evidence for manmade global warming is probably correct, which is why I think his contributions to this thread are designed just to get (y)our goat. I’m pretty sure he understands the difference between climate and weather, and between anecdote and statistical significance.
For all of you believers in AGM…now that India and China have emerged as the states with the greatest growth in energy se: how do you propose to these people the need to limit CO2 emissions?
Both countries have indicated that they will not limit their energy consumption.
How do we deal with that?
Sure, call me when the Germans enter Paris, call me when they occupy Belgium and the Netherlands. Then I’ll be concerned. :mad:
They are also eating our lunch in solar and they announced they are also getting into wind power, but that is the good news for the future, right now the bad news is that they also are depending on a lot of coal for energy, but it is not a sustainable development, the effects of AGW will force China and others to change or civil unrest brought thanks to wilder weather and sea rise will be the end of the current authorities like the communist party in China.
As we are still one of the best clients for Chinese products, the reality that we are not encouraging the switch to alternatives by not putting a real cost value to carbon emissions, our inaction is an important factor on preventing a more active change and we should change regardless of what others decide to do, as economies are more connected than before it is by leading the way that the USA can still induce a change to alternatives elsewhere as they will also be more compelled to produce better [del]mouse traps[/del] carbon capture or low or zero emission tools for industry.
It’s a difficult challenge. There is some benefit to engaging in efforts to create international agreements enforced by economic sanctions. Just as China was willing to adopt certain policies to gain admission to the WTO, they will eventually want to join TRIPS and other international coventions, which can be conditioned on them reducing carbon output.
I doubt, however, that any international regime would ever have much impact. So the most important thing we can do is innovate and export energy technology that is both cleaner and cheaper. We want to invent and ship new coal emission sequestration technologies, natural gas tech, hybrid car batteries, greener manufacturing techniques for materials like concrete, energy efficient appliances, and many other technologies being created in the U.S.
The biggest single thing we can do on that front is adopt policies that internalize the costs associated with fossil fuels for U.S. businesses, and then let the free market work its magic. Right now, U.S. businesses’ incentives are skewed by the fact that people don’t have to pay for the costs of the damage they cause (not even talking about climate change here, but much more direct stuff like asthma). If you make them pay for the consequences with a carbon tax or carbon cap with marketable permits, then you encourage them to innovate cleaner, cheaper solutions that can be sold abroad.
Ahh shucks,
Yeah, we forgot about them.
Stay tuned for a “but” they signed the Kyoto Accord !
China and India would lose more than North America would if we we’re all forced to change, ain’t going to happen.
Besides what’s the solution again ? Kill all the cows, move to the woods, ban cars and give some organization untold billions ?
So, clearly you ignored the last 2 posts, so tell me again, why are you not a denier?
Dammit, you’re right! That totally invalidates the theory of AGW! I had faith in that belief system before these stunning rebuttals of the scientific evidence!
Mitt Romney know it. Perry? Not so sure. In the moon landing case, the best way to convince someone would be to make an under the counter deal to put a NASA facility in their district. I don’t know about AGW. Maybe if the press kept asking embarrassing questions and kept following up?
Annapolis, Maryland, USA
The problem being that when (or if, as you prefer) that happens - it’ll be too late to do anything about it.
The question as I see it is there is an X% chance of catastrophic climate change, relative to human civilization. As X approaches 100%, it seems like almost any cost would be worthwhile to avert it.
The question becomes what is it worth spending for lower values of X.