Just out of curiosity, ever compare how those did to Roy Spencer’s own models?
Which non-volcano Non-niña year would you accept as the base? Deludeds always cry “1998” but never say which year is a good one.
Which year?
What time period?
No.
“Checking them up” is quite a bit milder than accepting that belief in global warming is deluded. You seemed to be advocating the latter.
Of course. I don’t expect the people who made the models to have sudden epipanies. Advocates definitely have to check, first, thweir own beliefs.
As to “belief in global warming is deluded”, you’re overstaing it.
The earth has warmed in he last 100 years or so and humans have had an impact.
The question is how much impact and if the remedies proposed for the impact (even if it is as high as some say) are the best solutions and not suimply feel-good measures.
The ammount and even the sign of the forcings derived from the scientficially sipmle fact that more CO2 means higher temperatures is the problem. Also, the ability to tell apart the background, natural changes and the human component.
That’s a considerably more nuanced view than I took you to have from reading the thread, but I admit that I’ve merely skimmed it. I daresay that view isn’t all that far from those you label “deludeds.”
The difficulty lies not just in the uncertainty of the predictions of this monstrously complex phenomenon, but also predictions of the political and economic factors (including but not limited to what China will do, what technology will look like in 50 years, what consequences different preventative measures will have), the fact that that the cost occurs now but the harm occurs in the future, and our trouble applying cost-benefit analysis to such large and qualitative problems.
It’s a tremendously difficult puzzle and anyone who says otherwise is indeed deluded. But complexity in itself doesn’t tell us anything about what we should do. We still have to make our best guesses.
Maybe global warming is a good thing?
I mean, right now we’re at the tail end of an interglacial period. The climate optimum was several thousand years ago - meaning the Earth used to be much warmer. Several thousand years ago there was no ice on Greenland. Greenland used to be green. What is now the Sahara used to be covered with lakes full of hippos and crocodiles. All that is gone now.
Left to its own devices, the Earth will continue to cool, as the Holocene comes to an end. During the last glacial period, the North American ice sheet came as far south as New York. Do we really want that again?
The Five Steps of Climate Change Denial:
-
Climate change isn’t happening
-
Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles
-
Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial
-
Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models suggest
-
Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first
6 ) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, we could have done something about it a couple decades ago but now it’s too late.
To clarify:
3-b) Climate change is happening but isn’t bad: some parts of the planet will get better as others get worse.
(I noticed this mistake again recently – Hi, John! – but one gets tired of repeating the same refutations over and over and over.)
That list only exists in the deluded camp. Nobody (who has any knowledge of science) has gone through those steps.
Also Access to clean wáter is 100 times more cost-effective in alleviating human suffering that all anti-GW measures combined. Ditto for vaccination and micronutrients.
Pray tell, what could we have done twenty years ago that wouldn’t have sent a billion people into deeper poverty and suffering in order to alleviate GW?
“Deluded” is my term for those who uncritically accept GW and who see any questioning, however minor, as a sign of evil and ignorance.
You’re right. Without fully considering China and India we can draw treaty till the cows come home and it’ll be to no avail.
Oh, yes. We forgot:
- Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, we should do something, but let’s not bother unless China and India do something first.
The complexity need not be an invitation to inaction. But it’s not irrational to be trying to assess the costs and benefits of different courses of action, which requires assessing what impact the action will have on overall greenhouse gas levels. In fact, it is irrational not to do so.
Actually, you didn’t specify who you were talking about, and your use of the word “reported” in the second sentence of your OP seems deliberately intended to give the impression that you are talking about a news article, science paper or other published material:
Somehow, I find that very easy to believe.
Climate change is happening far more slowly tan predicted, it is caused in some, yet not properly quantified way, by human activity, it’s not a really bad thing it may not even be bad at all and maybe even good, we should do something that is more cost effective than other urgent things like clean wáter, vaccination , and micronutrients, but let’s not bother too much with magical solutions unless China and India do something first because otherwise our efforts will be lost and suffering will come to a billion people now without lessening it to anyone in the future.