There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[aonsquared 9]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I don't get it, BillV said it was rain that caused wildfires (California with 120% rainfall than normal) and now it is drought that causes wildfires.  Can you guys please get your act together.  

Setting up a strawman argument about a different topic that I never made, then attacking it for being inconsistent? Impressive

Edited January 12, 2020 by aonsquared

[aonsquared 9]

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Brent understands perfectly well that the temperature is rising, the oceans are warming, and that the glaciers are melting. He just is of the opinion that all those things are minor, or even good. And the convenience and profits of continuing and even increasing the rate of fossil fuel consumption far out weigh the risks to society. And then he gets to come here and have some fun making points that he knows full well are easily refuted, but will often get a rise out of people. It's okay to poke holes in his nonsense, but don't be fooled. He is playing you.

He's not that consistent.

Looking at a lot of his posts, they started with cherry-picked data on how it's not actually hotter, ice in Antarctica is growing, AGW is a myth peddled by people with an agenda.

Then he refutes his own point by accepting that it's actually a degree or two hotter, but "who cares it's good for us and plants".

Maybe it's not just the climate that's changing, his excuses are too. But he has such a LARGE amount of posts with the first argument, so if he changes his argument now those posts go to waste...

[kallend 1,623]

A lot of troll-feeding going on in this thread.

[BIGUN 1,053]

19 hours ago, aonsquared said:

By the way, English is not my first language.

Yeah, well I think your english is just fine. Even more importantly, your expertise in the subject and delivery is excellent. 

[brenthutch 383]

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by brenthutch

[BIGUN 1,053]

So, I love sarcasm and humor of which this was both. But, the end of his message - even he states that we should do something different. It's kind of like your wiki site source link. . . You picked the parts for your argument that suited your argument - but, within the entire context of that citation - you blew right over the part where it said that if we were to stop now; it would take centuries if not a millennia to undo the damage.   

[brenthutch 383]

Let me address our newcomer.

Is the planet warming?  In some places yes, in others no, overall by a degree or two.

Is the warming caused by man's activities?  Perhaps.

Is the warming an existential threat?  Evidence would suggest otherwise. (Please don't site the last thunderstorm or wildfire as "evidence")

Can we stop bad weather by going vegan, putting solar panels on our roofs, taxing carbon and buying a Tesla.  Absolutely not.

The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.  To riff off of Dr. Strangelove, you guys need to stop worrying and learn to love CO2.

mic drop

[gowlerk 1,909]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

This only partly correct. There is something we can do about it. We can lower the rate of increase. You seem to think we should not bother, I disagree. But you are also partly correct, we will see rising levels for many more years.

[wmw999 2,120]

And now there's another facet to climate change/CO2 increase: 

I don't give a shit, because (short-term, and I can't fix it by myself)

Wendy P.

[aonsquared 9]

20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.  To riff off of Dr. Strangelove, you guys need to stop worrying and learn to love CO2. 

mic drop 

So you're saying, bend over and take it? No wonder you dropped the mic

No, this is a technological problem with a technological solution. We can accelerate these technological improvements even faster by giving it proper funding and attention. There's lots of exciting tech on the way.

Thanks for conceding.

Edited January 12, 2020 by aonsquared
spelling

[brenthutch 383]

36 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

it would take centuries if not a millennia to undo the damage.   

What damage?  Can you give a single example of "damage" that was irrefutably caused by AGW?

[BIGUN 1,053]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

damage" that was irrefutably caused by AGW

NASA's page will point you here:

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

[aonsquared 9]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

NASA's page will point you here:

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

Prediction: he will attack NASA's credibility and integrity.

It's the start of another cycle, so yes we should take kallend's suggestion and stop feeding the troll.

Edited January 12, 2020 by aonsquared

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, aonsquared said:

No, this is a technological problem with a technological solution. We can accelerate these technological improvements even faster by giving it proper funding and attention. There's lots of exciting tech on the way.

Yep and we can use it when it gets here.  Meanwhile China has given up on green and is building a coal fired power plant every week,(with a lifespan of 30-50 years) India is not far behind and Africa is just getting started.  To deny the Third World the opportunity to pull itself out of poverty, using cheap, reliable, and abundant fossil fuels is nothing short of neocolonialism.

[brenthutch 383]

31 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

NASA's page will point you here:

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

Couldn't find a single example, nothing outside the range of natural variability. I did find this though

"There are a lot of ups and downs in the data, but no obvious trends."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/01/09/tropical-cyclone-landfalls-around-the-world-over-the-past-50-years/?utm_source=CCNet%2BNewsletter&utm_campaign=63e5c6cabc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_10_02_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-63e5c6cabc-20144013&mc_cid=63e5c6cabc&mc_eid=4961da7cb1#652c776b3b00

Edited January 12, 2020 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 1,909]

50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"There are a lot of ups and downs in the data, but no obvious trends."

Again, the obvious trends are the rise in sea levels, the rise in average air temps, the decline of sea ice, and the receding of glaciers. You keep saying not to point to weather as a data point, at the same time you point to weather as a data point.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What damage?  Can you give a single example of "damage" that was irrefutably caused by AGW?

<face palm>

Have you considered Flat Earthing as well?

[airdvr 197]

On 1/11/2020 at 4:16 PM, billvon said:

No one does. 

I'm not sure what sort of point you imagined your sarcastic comment made.

Just going off of what you said that being paid to do something is a powerful motivator.  You seriously don't think the solar, wind, and battery companies don't provide funding that supports the findings?

Didn't take me long to find this group  https://www.seia.org/initiatives-advocacy

[billvon 2,396]

13 hours ago, aonsquared said:

He's not that consistent.

Looking at a lot of his posts, they started with cherry-picked data on how it's not actually hotter, ice in Antarctica is growing, AGW is a myth peddled by people with an agenda.

Then he refutes his own point by accepting that it's actually a degree or two hotter, but "who cares it's good for us and plants".

That's one of the primary characteristics of a denier vs a skeptic.  A skeptic is skeptical of parts of the science - whether warming will always (or even usually) result in worse weather, for example.  A denier simply denies everything.  The science he uses, and what he is denying, changes day by day.  The one constant is denial.

As an example, you will often see deniers switch back and forth between three basic positions:

1) It's not warming!  NASA and Hadley are lying to you.

2) OK it might be warming - but we're not doing it!  It's all natural!

3) OK we might be doing it - but the warming is all good!  Green warm utopia!

They are, of course, contradictory.  But when your one fixed position is a political one - to oppose the science of climate change - then it is, at least politically, self-consistent.

[brenthutch 383]

 

 

Simple physics? Kallend what do you have to say about one of your peers, where is he wrong?

Edited January 13, 2020 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,396]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Kallend what do you have to say about one of your peers, where is he wrong?

Again, all I have to do is look at the title of this thread.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yep and we can use it when it gets here.  Meanwhile China has given up on green and is building a coal fired power plant every week,(with a lifespan of 30-50 years) India is not far behind and Africa is just getting started.  To deny the Third World the opportunity to pull itself out of poverty, using cheap, reliable, and abundant fossil fuels is nothing short of neocolonialism.

And what about cheap, reliable and abundant slaves to help get things going? We're hypocrites there, too.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

23 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Brent understands perfectly well that the temperature is rising, the oceans are warming, and that the glaciers are melting. He just is of the opinion that all those things are minor, or even good. And the convenience and profits of continuing and even increasing the rate of fossil fuel consumption far out weigh the risks to society. And then he gets to come here and have some fun making points that he knows full well are easily refuted, but will often get a rise out of people. It's okay to poke holes in his nonsense, but don't be fooled. He is playing you.

Not 100%, he isn't. At his core he is an indoctrinated, right wing, anti-liberal addict. Don't forget his post lauding Trumps judicial picks and his "regrets" that he'll be forced to vote Trump again. Don't forget his homophobic posts. Don't forget Maya Angelou: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

Edited January 13, 2020 by JoeWeber

[aonsquared 9]

7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Simple physics? Kallend what do you have to say about one of your peers, where is he wrong?

so back to attacking the credibility and integrity of climate scientists "because they over-simplify and their climate models are wrong" via Youtube link.

Climate models are complicated, but brenthutch models are easy to predict (and I DID predict it btw)

Edited January 13, 2020 by aonsquared

[Coreece 190]

20 hours ago, aonsquared said:

There's lots of exciting tech on the way.

Then just market it as such.  Personally I think the whole "green tech" marketing scheme has hurt "green" tech.  If you're gonna go it that way, then just market them as gluten free EV's. XD. . .