I believe the implication is that the market is not free because the external costs (CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming) are not taken into account.
If you’re looking for a cite that the right wingers get up in arms when people propose that the external costs be internalized, please tune into the Republican primaries.
If you’re looking for a cite that forcing the market to internalize the costs of polluting is still a free market, I can’t provide that. The free market is bad at dealing with external costs (and external benefits).
That’s why I want to know what hypothetical evidence would falsify the relevant conclusions about global warming; if the globe doesn’t get any warmer – possibly even getting a bit cooler – then the external cost you specified doesn’t exist to be taken into account.
Last I checked, it’s the folks on your side who aren’t being taken all that seriously – and if I were to hazard a guess as to why, it’s because you’re not much for making falsifiable predictions. So by all means, keep trumpeting that reluctance while figuring it makes other folks look bad for asking about falsifiable predictions; science runs on falsifiable predictions, you’re running away from falsifiable predictions, and I’m quite content running with that.
Now that I have to see.. Who are you talking about here? Where it counts is in academic and scientific settings, not in blogs like Watt’s up with that.
Nope, I did make a falsifiable prediction then, now you are ignoring just to make an even more sorry point. In any case, the point here is that your point is not even taken seriously by skeptical scientists that also looked at the data and have concluded that people that predicted a warming trend since the 50’s were correct.
I’m not ignoring the falsifiable prediction you made, except to the extent that you’re backpedaling away from it: What you are doing here is just a form of a strawman argument. As I said many times before what it counts is what scientists said. What I said was just a “humor him” “bet”. It’s only because you’re now portraying yourself as a strawman with an opinion that doesn’t count that I’m asking how we can falsify someone else’s opinion; to the extent that yours is relevant, I’m delighted to keep on with it as the years continue to mount up; you’re the one saying that my doing so represents a strawman argument against someone who doesn’t count.
I’m asking what falsifiable predictions they’re making now – and what falsifiable predictions they were making back in '98, at that. I want to know how we can falsify their current predictions, not whether their past predictions came to pass; the latter is fine, but the former is crucial.
You are also ignoring the efforts of the professional merchants of doubt have on the American public.
That is right (as I’m humoring you ) now, can you stop avoiding the cite and reply to it? Otherwise I will have to assume that they are correct and your points are silly.
And now, since it is clear that the accusation that there was no predictions made was show to be poppycock, it is time to move the goalposts… as the cite said, deniers say that it has not warmed since [del]1995[/del], [del]1998[/del], [del]2001[/del] etc. etc. just reset and delay action.
It’s not an appeal to popularity; it’s an explanation of popularity. What I think will fly is pointing out (a) whether your falsifiable claim eventually gets falsified, and (b) whether the guys you’d like to cite are making falsifiable claims; I believe the lack of falsifiable claims goes a long way toward explaining the popularity of the other side, and believe any falsified claims from your side would further help make the other side even more popular.
Again, I’ll reply to a cite that replaces an allegedly silly point with something else. A cite that says “no warming since '98 ain’t enough…” isn’t helpful unless it goes on to spell out what falsification criterion would be enough. So long as I’ve only got the criterion you previously supplied, I’ll reluctantly stick with it; supply a cite with a new criterion and I’ll reply to it instead.
First off, I’ve only ever said '98; you’re the one who’d be moving goalposts by nervously backing away from the criterion you’d previously offered – except you’re doing it without even supplying a replacement criterion, which goes past “move the goalposts” all the way over to “refusing to even set up a new goalpost”.
I’m merely saying that (a) if you ever want to mention a new goalpost – as set by you, or set by a scientist, or set by an “(in real life) science writer that is known as Potholer54 on youtube” – then I’ll reply to it; and (b) if you don’t, then I’ll keep replying to your previous one.
Baseless claim, what Plass and other scientists found in the 50’s can be falsified.
And that is why you feverishly avoid dealing with the cite that debunks the idea of using only recent dates in an attempt to discredit the predictions from the 50’s on.
What it is clear that since the realization that the evidence shows how natural sinks are not absorbing the extra human made CO2 as many expected, then it is clear that the test had to start from those days, and the theory did hold on.
“don’t exploit the commons”? WTH does that mean? You think just because GE likes to duck under the tax radar that somehow they aren’t in it for the money?
H. L. Mencken once said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
The AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory is a perfect example of what Mencken was referring to. It’s 100% bogus. Rising levels of CO2 don’t cause warming, warming causes CO2 levels to rise, because higher temperatures decrease the solubility of CO2 in our oceans. The warmer it gets, the more CO2 enters the atmosphere. It’s as simple as that.
Yes the earth has been warming, ever since the Little Ice Age, but it was a completely natural, and extremely beneficial phenomenon caused primarily by changes in cycles of solar activity. That it happened to coincide, in part, with the industrial revolution when man started to use fossil fuels in huge quantities is mere coincidence. Our use of these fuels had no meaningful effect on temperature change…
The following chart, all by itself, is all any rational person needs to know that the AGW theory is false.
If increasing CO2 were the primary driving factor in temperature change, how can one explain the period from 1940 through the mid 70’s? As the chart, from Dr. Willie Soon at Harvard, clearly shows, temperature change correlates with changes in solar activity, not with changes in the levels of atmospheric CO2, whether from the use of fossil fuels or other sources. This brings us to the first major truism in the climate change debate:
It’s the sun stupid!
The most ironic part of this entire revolting affair is the fact that throughout history, man and the other animals have shivered and starved during earth’s cool periods because crops (all plant life) cannot grow well when it’s cold. Likewise, man has always thrived during the earth’s warm periods. Look at the rise of the Minoan, the Greek, and the Roman civilization, and you’ll see that this is true. This brings us to the 2nd major truism in the debate:
Warming is Good!
While pollution is real to be sure, CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s one of the basic building blocks of life. We consume oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants then consume the CO2, to make food and Oxygen. It’s called the circle of life. CO2 is not carbon. It’s a clear and beneficial trace gas. This brings us to the 3rd major truism in the debate:
Without CO2, nothing would be green!
The recent Global Warming scam is the 4th example of climate alarmism in the last century. Check out the following article from a 1976 issue of Time Magazine:
and you’ll read about the last one, during which the same dishonest climate scientists were telling us that an ice age was coming, and that we were partly to blame for that as well:
Greenhouse gasses have only a minor effect on temperatures, but even if it were more significant, the AGW theory would still be bogus because more than 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 represents only 3 or 4% of greenhouse gasses. Even more important however is that only 4% of all CO2 comes from human activities, which includes the use of fossil fuels. At it’s current levels of roughly 390ppm (parts per million) that means that man made CO2 comprises only 16ppm in our atmosphere. That’s 1 part in 62,500. If anyone believes that such an infinitesimal amount of a colorless, odorless beneficial trace gas is actually causing catastrophic global warming, then they really need to get back back on their meds, because the very idea is absurd on its face.
The scary part is that the Global Warming hoax is only the foundation of an even bigger lie, the myth of sustainability, which is the cornerstone of the UN’s Agenda 21. DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications which if you’re not familiar with you should really read up on. Once you understand it, you’ll have plenty to worry about, I assure you.
I think you need to sort out what exactly it is you are looking to falsify. Some candidates:
Whether any warming has in fact occurred. It is a fact that it has. Can’t be falsified. The ocean heat content record demonstrates beyond doubt that the Earth has taken on board a whole lot of heat energy since around 1970 and that has to have come from somewhere.
Whether CO2 has a warming effect. All things being equal, it’s a fact that it does. To deny this would involve throwing some very established radiative transfer physics out the window. However, the CO2 increases in the atmosphere do not explain all the warming seen, and IF the warming effect of CO2 alone was all we had to worry about, a good cost-benefit case could be made to carry on regardless until the coal runs out.
Whether amplifying positive feedbacks on top of the effects of CO2 are enough to give us something to worry about. Here there is still some work to do. The water vapour positive feedback is again based on established radiative transfer physics, but the size of that feedback depends on how much extra water vapour ends up in the atmosphere, and also its distribution. Latitude and altitude are both important. At the moment, the size of the effect of water vapour is a bit of a guesstimate. Additionally, the role of clouds is still debated and our data on clouds is surprisingly limited. Clouds may have a net negative feedback. I wouldn’t feel confident betting either way on the effects of clouds. So experiment and observation might just falsify the current belief that the amplifying feedbacks give us a problem. Not holding my breath.
Whether the various climate models predict the temperature trends into the future. This one is easy to falsify. The model trend lines have error bars, and the current crop of models are overpredicting temperature and skirting the boundaries of their 95% confidence intervals. From a certain point of view some of the climate models have already been falsified and the size of the overprediction will get worse the longer the current flat trend continues. This isn’t a great surprise to me since the models use different forcing histories for training and hindcasting, treat clouds differently, and predict different climate sensitivities. They can’t possibly all be right.
The big question: does the current flat temperature trend “falsify” global warming? Well, it doesn’t, can’t, falsify (1) and (2). It may falsify (3), or indicate that the Earth has shifted into a new feedback regime that is overall neutral or negative. But until we know exactly what is going on at the moment, even a 30 year flat spot or cooling trend will not falsify (1) and (2). It won’t tell us if we can stop worrying and burn the fossil carbon till we run out, or if we should use the time it buys us to cover the Sahara with photovoltaics before the feedbacks shift over to positive again or whatever. So asking for “falsifable predictions” doesn’t particularly help us at the moment. More satellites, cloud observations, the ARGO buoy network being extended and modified to operate at greater depths, a replacement for the failed GLORY satellite might give us some answers. We live in interesting times.
First time I see that a graph from the National Classifieds Directory is something that needs to be taken seriously, it is a bogus one BTW.
Lets look at the real data from NASA GISS and Solanki, 1979 to 2009:
Uh, nope.
Uh, no, but not because the bad effects are more likely to overcome the good ones, it is because: It is really dumb to make this point when just a few lines up you are making the absolutist one that there is no problem or warming going on.
Why thank you Michelle Backman, now for the most likely outcomes:
And that shows how clueless you are. That time article was debunked many times already.
Suffice to say is that Time Magazine said that “Climatological Casssandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive” that may be, but Time never bother to find one on the record, and that is because the actual records shows that most papers published then did predict a warming trend, and most pointed at global warming gases as the cause.
So why then say that it will be good if it is impossible to take place?
Needless to say you are making a baseless assertion like if no one had bothered to check:
Nah, the scary part is that you still think no one has looked before at the reheated (yes they are old and debunked before) baloney points you have here.
AT116: Join date Aug 2011 - today, actually. So far, 2 more or less non sequitur posts and 1 screed with mostly questionable sources and a reference to the well debunked global cooling claptrap of the 70s.
Not that a recent join date is necessarily a bad sign, but it’s not a good sign when combined with a poorly researched text wall.
I may point out here that there is a little nit to this, Pat Michaels has pointed out that the problem of using the argument that it has not warmed up since 1998 or other recent years is that things like el nino and la nina and low solar activity have conspired to make the “flat” but still warmer by decade line we are currently in, the danger for skeptics (and misguided deniers), as Pat Michael explained, is that once the sun and other items stop conspiring to keep this “apparent” slow down of the anthropological forcing then it will make the life of skeptics impossible as on top of that natural forcing the human emitted CO2 with its warming will be worse by then also.
) now, can you stop avoiding the cite and reply to it? Otherwise I will have to assume that they are correct and your points are silly.
