Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[kerplunk]

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

[Sensei Rob]

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

If you think any of my points are incorrect, then you're clearly in need of better education. Statements like, "You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping" serve nothing besides pointing out your own ignorance.

[anonymous-user]

Sensei Rob said:

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

If you think any of my points are incorrect, then you're clearly in need of better education. Statements like, "You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping" serve nothing besides pointing out your own ignorance.

BOOM there it is.

I can’t believe it. sensei rob has just burst in and overthrown the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Here on pistonheads.

Amazing that we were here to witness it!

Nobel prize and fellowship of the royal society undoubtedly coming your way.

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

Sensei Rob said:

It's much ado about nothing, really. All scaremongering to raise taxes.

Nobody is denying climate change (aka global warming). The issue is whether it's humans to blame or whether it's natural. Bear in mind, early Earth had much higher CO2 levels and still gave rise to life proves that we can't kill the Earth.

People ought to look into the Medieval warm period as a case study for climate change. Spoiler alert: it was great. It also happened before the Industrial revolution, meaning it's a total headscratcher for the likes of Greta who skipped too many days at school. Perhaps it's all caused by solar activity, after all.

CO2 is literally plant food. So, we can expect plants to grow bigger and bear more fruit. Deforestation is an issue that needs to be sorted out, for sure. Furthermore, if that's still not good enough, we now have the technology to literally extract CO2 from the sky and convert it into fuel.

Coming in here with your common sense tut tut! The Borg are preparing "your assimilation chamber" as I type ..................

This is the sort of insight you were coming out with in 2007, “all about taxes”

Seriously, you don’t actually agree with this still do you?

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 3rd March 10:59

[kerplunk]

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

If you think any of my points are incorrect, then you're clearly in need of better education. Statements like, "You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping" serve nothing besides pointing out your own ignorance.

Looks like you think I just said the MWP is due to orbital cycles. That doesn't bode well for your reading comprehension.

Pointing out you're gish galloping is just pointing out the obvious infantile debating technique of bombarding with spurious factoids - something that takes very little effort - and then expecting people to spend lots time and effort debunking. I can see you're on the cusp of lighting a fat cigar because people aren't doing what you demand which therefopre must mean your talking points are good and relevent and true.

I'm happy for you to think that - confirms my prejudices about irrational deniers.

[durbster]

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

Seriously, your arguments are just bullet points copied and pasted from page 1 of the denier handbook, and have all been explained here countless times. These cards you are holding are not as good as you imagine.

Nobody disputes that warming can and has occurred naturally in the past. It's a total non-sequitur to think that it means the current warming is not caused by emitting loads of CO2.

We know the current warming is caused by human activity because a) we are emitting loads of greenhouse gases and b) the laws of physics tell us that's what will happen. If you want to run with this argument, you're going to have to explain why our understanding of physics is wrong.

[Pan Pan Pan]

durbster said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

Seriously, your arguments are just bullet points copied and pasted from page 1 of the denier handbook, and have all been explained here countless times. These cards you are holding are not as good as you imagine.

Nobody disputes that warming can and has occurred naturally in the past. It's a total non-sequitur to think that it means the current warming is not caused by emitting loads of CO2.

We know the current warming is caused by human activity because a) we are emitting loads of greenhouse gases and b) the laws of physics tell us that's what will happen. If you want to run with this argument, you're going to have to explain why our understanding of physics is wrong.

We also know that we are increasing the component that `you' say creates the green house gases in the first place, but you don't seem to want to know about that.

[Sensei Rob]

durbster said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

Seriously, your arguments are just bullet points copied and pasted from page 1 of the denier handbook, and have all been explained here countless times. These cards you are holding are not as good as you imagine.

Nobody disputes that warming can and has occurred naturally in the past. It's a total non-sequitur to think that it means the current warming is not caused by emitting loads of CO2.

We know the current warming is caused by human activity because a) we are emitting loads of greenhouse gases and b) the laws of physics tell us that's what will happen. If you want to run with this argument, you're going to have to explain why our understanding of physics is wrong.

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Has it ever occurred to you to even try to dismantle those 4 points?

Here you are:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

Debunk them.

[anonymous-user]

Sensei Rob said:

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Has it ever occurred to you to even try to dismantle those 4 points?

Here you are:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

Debunk them.

A few minutes on google and will find you a wealth of reliable sources of information that will help your understanding of this topic and explain why every one of your points isn’t evidence that disproves AGW.

Repeating a list of old hackneyed myths and saying “debunk them” is utterly pointless.

You’re not going to listen to whatever anyone here posts anyway.

Plus this is a thread about climate POLITICS the clue is in the title.

The climate scientific debate thread is this one,

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing//topic.asp?h=0...

[kerplunk]

Sensei Rob said:

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Has it ever occurred to you to even try to dismantle those 4 points?

Here you are:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

Debunk them.

Debunk the physics of increasing GHGs = warming

And make it snappy - finger-clicky!

[durbster]

Sensei Rob said:

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Whereas you come across so open-minded.

Sensei Rob said:

Debunk them.

No ta. There's a wealth of information out there that explains why your points are duds. If you were actually interested, you'd already have debunked them yourself.

[Randy Winkman]

deeps said:

Randy Winkman said:

deeps said:

kerplunk said:

Not sure how denying AGW so as to avoid taking on the huge task of transitioning away from fossil fuels is having a backbone.

I like how he appears to be a believer in the solar-driven ice age ahoy idea though - nothing at all convenient and self-serving about that of course.

He's clearly of the same stripe as australian oil/mining geologist (and like Roberts a One Nation candidate) David Archibald who back in the noughties predicted massive solar-driven global cooling by 2020 (promoted on these pages by guess who!). Guess what - it never happened and global temps went in the opposite direction. Oh well that non-physics based cycle idea didn't work - but there's still plenty of eager to believe suckers around so let's ply it again!

Edited by kerplunk on Tuesday 2nd March 02:55

There's plenty of predictions of solar cooling ahead, obviously predicting timescales isn't easy and I think many underestimated the solar lag to climate 10-15 years ago. When you weigh it up, that's not a patch on all the failed warm side predictions though. There's no way warmists 15 years ago would have predicted or remotely believed the extreme low temperatures of this winter.

One thing's certain, now is not the time to be investing in solar and wind, with the potential for bitter winters ahead and increased energy demand, what a foolish policy which will cost lives. I don't trust politicians at all when it comes to keeping the lights on over then next few decades. Potential disaster in the making.

Don't you think there's a danger in getting a bit carried away about the cold weather earlier this winter? It's been positively balmy for a couple for weeks now in SE London and for today the BBC forecast for Inverness says 6 degrees, rising to 8 for the weekend. Where are the extreme low temperatures now?

Maybe you don't follow global temperatures? Or perhaps only watch the BBC? I'm talking about the brutally severe northern hemisphere winter of 20/21.

There were plenty of stories on the BBC about how cold it was in lots of places a few weeks ago. I'll keep an eye out on different platforms for further stories on average temperatures for the winter.

[kerplunk]

Randy Winkman said:

There were plenty of stories on the BBC about how cold it was in lots of places a few weeks ago. I'll keep an eye out on different platforms for further stories on average temperatures for the winter.

Dec/Jan data is available.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

January was down on December (as expected due to La Nina conditions in the pacific) - just the 6th warmest January in the record.

Not much sign of a 'brutal' NH winter in the first two winter months.

[Sensei Rob]

durbster said:

Sensei Rob said:

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Whereas you come across so open-minded.

Sensei Rob said:

Debunk them.

No ta. There's a wealth of information out there that explains why your points are duds. If you were actually interested, you'd already have debunked them yourself.

It's because you can't debunk them. It's ok - you win some, you lose some. Here you lost.

[Sensei Rob]

El stovey said:

Sensei Rob said:

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Has it ever occurred to you to even try to dismantle those 4 points?

Here you are:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

Debunk them.

A few minutes on google and will find you a wealth of reliable sources of information that will help your understanding of this topic and explain why every one of your points isn’t evidence that disproves AGW.

Repeating a list of old hackneyed myths and saying “debunk them” is utterly pointless.

Oh, so you think they're myths!!!

Literally every one of those 4 points are established scientific facts. You know what they say...Science doesn't care about your feelings.

[kerplunk]

Sensei Rob said:

durbster said:

Sensei Rob said:

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Whereas you come across so open-minded.

Sensei Rob said:

Debunk them.

No ta. There's a wealth of information out there that explains why your points are duds. If you were actually interested, you'd already have debunked them yourself.

It's because you can't debunk them. It's ok - you win some, you lose some. Here you lost.

Light that cigar!

[deeps]

Sensei Rob said:

It's much ado about nothing, really. All scaremongering to raise taxes.

Nobody is denying climate change (aka global warming). The issue is whether it's humans to blame or whether it's natural. Bear in mind, early Earth had much higher CO2 levels and still gave rise to life proves that we can't kill the Earth.

People ought to look into the Medieval warm period as a case study for climate change. Spoiler alert: it was great. It also happened before the Industrial revolution, meaning it's a total headscratcher for the likes of Greta who skipped too many days at school. Perhaps it's all caused by solar activity, after all.

CO2 is literally plant food. So, we can expect plants to grow bigger and bear more fruit. Deforestation is an issue that needs to be sorted out, for sure. Furthermore, if that's still not good enough, we now have the technology to literally extract CO2 from the sky and convert it into fuel.

Spot on Rob.

You will have noticed that most of the Warmists here basically stick their fingers in their ears, swipe at you with sarcasm and insults, then hide behind '98% of scientists' and 'the science is settled' type comments.

I think they've bored most participants of the thread into leaving, maybe that's their intention.

[zygalski]

It's possible that quite a few of the PH members who were previously sceptical about AGW have looked at the memes, blog spot copy & pastes & youtube clips posted by the deniers and thought to themselves on balance, the scientific consensus is probably sound.

[deeps]

Sensei Rob said:

durbster said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

Sensei Rob said:

kerplunk said:

The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.

Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02

Great. So what caused it?

And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:

1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

I never said I would spend my time debunking all your talking points. Don't go getting finger-clicky. You're already off to a bad start by gish-galloping.

We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)

ORBITAL CYCLES - THANK YOU!!

So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.

Seriously, your arguments are just bullet points copied and pasted from page 1 of the denier handbook, and have all been explained here countless times. These cards you are holding are not as good as you imagine.

Nobody disputes that warming can and has occurred naturally in the past. It's a total non-sequitur to think that it means the current warming is not caused by emitting loads of CO2.

We know the current warming is caused by human activity because a) we are emitting loads of greenhouse gases and b) the laws of physics tell us that's what will happen. If you want to run with this argument, you're going to have to explain why our understanding of physics is wrong.

So durbster, it appears that you're taking the usual left-wing stance of "we're right, you're wrong, so there!" approach.

Has it ever occurred to you to even try to dismantle those 4 points?

Here you are:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.

2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.

3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger

4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.

Debunk them.

Speaking of higher CO2 levels, most Warmists I chat with have no idea about that. I recently had one calling me a witch that should be burnt at the stake for informing him that CO2 isn't actually a pollutant, but rather a mostly naturally occurring trace gas that's essential for life and current levels are actually rather historically diminished.

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. We are currently CO2 impoverished, hence why farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to help grow crops. Optimum CO2 levels are said to be around 1200 - 1500ppm. Below 150ppm and we will see major extinction events. At just over 410 ppm currently, we are on the low side of healthy.

Also, Earth entered an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were around 4400 ppm. According to climate hysteria theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot not freezing.

Shockingly, to the simple ''more CO2 must equal higher temperatures, it's physics" brigade, it is clear that many other factors besides CO2 influence temperature, and the actual benefits of increasing CO2 are completely overlooked.

[kerplunk]

deeps said:

Sensei Rob said:

It's much ado about nothing, really. All scaremongering to raise taxes.

Nobody is denying climate change (aka global warming). The issue is whether it's humans to blame or whether it's natural. Bear in mind, early Earth had much higher CO2 levels and still gave rise to life proves that we can't kill the Earth.

People ought to look into the Medieval warm period as a case study for climate change. Spoiler alert: it was great. It also happened before the Industrial revolution, meaning it's a total headscratcher for the likes of Greta who skipped too many days at school. Perhaps it's all caused by solar activity, after all.

CO2 is literally plant food. So, we can expect plants to grow bigger and bear more fruit. Deforestation is an issue that needs to be sorted out, for sure. Furthermore, if that's still not good enough, we now have the technology to literally extract CO2 from the sky and convert it into fuel.

Spot on Rob.

You will have noticed that most of the Warmists here basically stick their fingers in their ears, swipe at you with sarcasm and insults, then hide behind '98% of scientists' and 'the science is settled' type comments.

I think they've bored most participants of the thread into leaving, maybe that's their intention.

On the contrary, he's received perfectly reasonable replies.