Have you read Richard Lindzen, Dyson Freeman, or William Happer on these issues? They are obviously more qualified than you and I. But they are obviously more qualified than almost everybody else on this issue, including most of the grant-suckers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212425)

In science, what matters is that you are right. Einstein>>>>>> everybody else. These people are orders of magnitude smarter than the people you cite.

I don’t give a shit about some post doc at some shitty college freaking out about CO2 when about some masters

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212501)

As for your last comment--no it was one of the three who was laughing, saying "CO2 isn't a poison! oxygen is more of a poison than CO2 hahaha" which I have to say is the kind of lying or if not lying then misrep of issues that raises my hackles on who is giving me the straight scoop.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212547)

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212674)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/freeman-dysons-selective-vision/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212692)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212700)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/15/study-finds-that-global-warming-exacerbates-refugee-crises

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200862)

That's what they should be discussing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200151)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994014&mc=76&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200280)

Second, does this have primarily a warming effect or a cooling effect? It's a cooling effect, no? It's certainly disruptive to some degree when it happens, and contributes a share of carbon to the atmosphere, but volcanos are known for global COOLING when they erupt, more so than heating things up.

What else you got? After all, human activity is only "A" cause of the current global warming trend, according to you, so what other causes are out there.

LEt's be clear on the CAUSE(S) before we can talk about what action, if any, to take. You cant give someone glasses without testing their vision first. Diagnose first, then prescribe.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200352)

So what do you prescribe?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200379)

I know you want to argue over what to do / what can be done / nothing but first lets be clear on volcanism as a source of global warming (and you'll see why in a minute or two if you answer true). Where do you get the data for this. (I'm sure the support for it is much less than the support for human activity as a cause of the global warming trend, but I'll reserve that for another time)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200891)

So, again, gonna answer?

You want to keep things muddled so no prescription can be made--isn't that the current conturd M.O. now that they've been gaped on denying the anthropogenic causation argument again and again.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200958)

I made a model, and it assumes six percent is volcanos. It predicts, perfectly accurately, that sea levels will also rise by six percent in the next sixty years. So we should be good. The science is settled.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36200984)

But I'm just trolling until you stop demanding answers to irrelevant questions and get on with rubbing my nose in the science. I'm waiting!

Then we can maybe get to the economics of it, which is the most important part.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36201104)

As for dogs "breathing"--yeah, humans keep dogs as pets. lots of humans, lots of pets. This is part of what is encompassed by the word "anthropogenic" no? Do we really have to define words first?

So you keep saying how there are many causes of the current global warming trend but you haven't really identified anything else viable. Volcanism--well, the support isn't really there--on the contrary, volcanos net a COOLING effect. Forest fires--well yes theres an increase in forest fires because of anthropogenic global warming! its a runaway effect, much like the melting of sea ice contributes to a release of CO2.

Dogs--that's just silly and falls under the rubric of human action.

So, first, to be clear, can we agree that Human Activity is "THE" primary proximate cause of the current global warming trend? Can we agree to that? you haven't even come up with anything to suggest otherwise, tbf.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36201152)

Now rub my greedy fucking nose in the science and your prescription.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36201559)

It looks like an argument can be made that forest fires contribute to global warming by releasing CO2.

However, It looks like without human made global warming the number of forest fires would be cut down significantly. Forest fires are sort of a cycle that gets enhanced by global warming--in other words--an increase in forest fires is part and parcel of what happens when there is anthropogenic global warming. minimize the human impact, cop less of the cycling runaway effect of forest fires. So its sort of an unfair thing to say is a "cause" unless your terribly partisan on the issue, but okay. Its sort of like saying, "Melting Ice in the Poles releases CO2 and is contributing to global warming."

You mention also dogs... I don't know whats going on there ...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36201040)

Next time you tell me something is or isnt, its not gonna mean anything to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36204461)

Carbon tax would incentivize investment in green energy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36206279)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36201007)

You've got it wrong right out of the box.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212591)

TEMPERATURE

INCREASE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212599)

You don't have to ADMIT your nose is being rubbed in it to have your nose rubbed in it. It's only that other people watching know. That's what matters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36209376)

Fuck my ass brother, I guess I look dumb and you do not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36209394)

Actually its already a given that human action is the primary cause of the current global warming trend. You misstate my project.

Instead we should be banging on this victory we've already won, but we fucked up by not banging on it HARD AS FUCK every time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36209437)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

It's dead. Sad. Glad it confirms that the method here is to make a model, and when it doesn't work, just hindcast it and fuck with the assumptions until it does.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36209753)

It's explicitly stated on the page, bro. Last couple paragraphs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212376)

Feel free to comment on any of the half dozen or so links I've provided below as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212482)

Author: HodlUpHodlUpWait

5 IPCC reports

Dead wrong predictions one after the other. Completely outside the WIDE range of predicted outcomes. The Consensus.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3995058&forum_id=2#36204964)

you other thread

ZERO predictive power of the phenomenon

still no response b/c u are DONE HERe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36207757)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212392)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212397)

"STHEE! They weren't Completely Right In Their Predictions of a Fluid THYSTHTEM!!! It'th a Communitht Plot! The PRoof ith in the pudding! Follow the Money!!! IT'th the JEWTH!!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36209264)

libs lied as usual.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36209697)

It's fodder for the 'tards--luckily, extrapolations from what they are pushing on the topic are not taken seriously.

As a lawyer (who should be preparing for trial right now) I should add that I really don't think it would be that hard to significantly impeach them w funding sources, etc.

THREE percent. Remember that. It's how science works of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212477)

For example, the survey routinely cited for the "97% of scientists" liberal talking point doesn't actually say that 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are the primary cause of global warming. An honest summary of the survey would be to say that that 97% of relevant authors that took a position on the issue believe that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36212822)

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2013/05/16/document_cw_01.pdf

That is wrong. Not because they included scientists who don't disagree, but because they lumped all 3 categories of "believers" into the same bucket, which includes those that merely believe that greenhouse gas emissions cause warming.

Liberals appear to be using a naturalistic argument, i.e., whatever the Earth would have been like without humans is the "correct" environment that we should strive for. Therefore, we would need to quantify the amount of human change and work to reverse it at any cost. This paper does not provide the needed consensus on amount of human contribution (much less any discussion of cost--obviously outside the scope of the paper).

I would propose instead a simple cost/benefit analysis with no regard to whether humans are a net positive or negative. If we have high confidence that we can improve the environment in a quantifiable way that exceed a quantifiable cost, then by all means, let's do it. If that means reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm all for it. But we should set a price on how much each ton of carbon is worth and set up incentives accordingly (tax emissions, credits for capture, etc.).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36213142)

So instead waiting for something close to a consensus on cost/benefit, liberals fall back on the consensus that humans are changing the environment and "we must do something now!!!" even though we have no idea what would make economic sense to do. And you are labelled a "denier" or worse if you dare ask for numbers to support the liberal proposal du jour.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36213358)

After we know approximately what the marginal intervention is worth, we can set up incentives. Politically, this could be easily adopted in the west where valuations on human life/environment would be similar. The problem is that poor countries will have a much lower value assigned to their CO2 emissions because their lives are worth much less (economically). They would push for subsidies from the rich countries, which misaligns incentives and complicates things politically. But because the value the poor countries extract from the environmentally damaging behavior is also of much lower value to them, there is room for a solution. We might be able to handle that via tariffs and/or extraction of natural resources from the poor countries, such that we are not simply paying poor countries not to burn coal. Or perhaps those countries agree to outsource all energy production to rich countries in exchange for cheap electricity rates. Many possibilities here once we know what the actual value of the intervention is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36213425)

Conservatives main argument is that we haven’t even done step 1 yet, so gov’t shouldn’t do anything economically costly yet until we know it’s worth it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36214253)

I think Noobling has squarely and succinctly summarized the main issue w stage two: What to do.

Nooblings a smart dude, and/but he forgets just how dumb the average American (and lets face it, its got to be Americans) is on the subject, as this thread demonstrates. Libs aren't doing any service by their own minor fudgework, and conturds, well... Some will say anything for money. We cant get to step 2, what to do, like ever, until we deal w the denial pathology, in its various forms and degrees. There will never be enough support for voluntary carbon caps, etc. Unless and until the average American is better informed on the reality of ACC. And its such an important issue, it may be the way we go out, as a species.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3994341&forum_id=2#36213689)