"How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong"

[rushmc 18]

this is all it will take
Remember, I onced thought that AWG was a real danger
So my mind can be changed

The link explains what it will take

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/09/how-to-convince-a-climate-skeptic-hes-wrong/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Remember, I onced thought that AWG was a real danger

No, you didn't. You've been mocking climate science for as long as you've been on this board. The only change you've made is going from a type II denier to a type I.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Remember, I onced thought that AWG was a real danger

No, you didn't. You've been mocking climate science for as long as you've been on this board. The only change you've made is going from a type II denier to a type I.

Mocking science??? Really??? This is the route you gotta go?

That is kind of sad but you have been getting more vitrolic about the subject as more and more data come out that puts to question your conclusion

Anyway

It was about the time I came to this sight I started doubting

Type 1 type 2?
Meaningless
Just a lame attempt to stop debate

Hell Bill
I used to be pro gun control too!

But reading a bit of history about the formation of this country changed my mind on that too!

I can and have given the reasons but I know you dont care
So I dont care anymore either

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JWest 0]

"Mocking climate science" Not all science.

Let's play a game, let's assume that you are correct and humanity has no effect on climate change and the current observed change is purely nature related. 1.) Who do you think benefits from saying climate change is human influenced? 2.) Do you contest that the CO2 levels are rising? 3.) If the CO2 levels are rising do you agree that the risk posed to people by raising the CO2 level is a big deal? 4.) If CO2 emissions were to become unregulated who would that benefit? 5.) If manmade climate change is false and propaganda used to prevent excess CO2 emission is that really a bad thing knowing the consequences of an CO2 saturated atmosphere?

[Andy9o8 0]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Teaparty.svg/2000px-Teaparty.svg.png

[lawrocket 3]

JWest

Let's play a game

I'm your huckleberry. That's just my game. I'll try it

Quote

let's assume that you are correct and humanity has no effect on climate change and the current observed change is purely nature related.

Roger. Big assumption that I disagree with but I'll go with it

Quote

1.) Who do you think benefits from saying climate change is human influenced?

Any person who wishes for government to to harm the petrochemical industry. Also, any person who seeks to institute collective change to the world economy and be either the governor of it or has an investment backed expectation.

It's like asking who benefits from mandating carbon monoxide alarms in every house. The CO alarm manufacturers do

Quote

2.) Do you contest that the CO2 levels are rising?

No. Observational data is pretty convincing

Quote

3.) If the CO2 levels are rising do you agree that the risk posed to people by raising the CO2 level is a big deal?

No. Not as they presently are. A hundredth of one percent increase isnt a big deal to me.

Quote

4.) If CO2 emissions were to become unregulated who would that benefit?

The same people who benefited before they were regulated. That is pretty much everybody who lives in the developed world. Carbon based energy pretty much made the difference between the developed world gland the third world.

There are some drawbacks, of course. But in general unregulated CO2 has led to some amazing improvements in quality of life. It's what we would call a first world problem.

Quote

5.) If manmade climate change is false and propaganda used to prevent excess CO2 emission is that really a bad thing knowing the consequences of an CO2 saturated atmosphere?

Yes. It is wrong and a bad thing. If the basis for changing the basis of modern civilization (carbon fuels are the basis of it) is predicated on falsities and propaganda, then it is because fact is not a good enough reason.

Again, these answers based on assumptions. Just like a climate model.

And also note the subjective quality. Use of terms like bad or big deal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Read the link
It address's most your questions

Not the what if bs as that is not science
that is desperation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JWest 0]

The game wasn't met for you. It was met for
rushmc. But I can't stop you from answering.

"No. Not as they presently are. A hundredth of one percent increase isnt a big deal to me."

It might not be a big deal now, but if the numbers continue to increase it will become a big deal. Ocean acidification and heat trapping caused by C02 has the potential to cause a mass extinction event.


rushmc. I'm not concerned with what the article says I want to know what you think. This isn't about the website you post, it's about you and your beliefs. Unless you just regurgitate what it says with no thought, but I'm giving you more credit than that.

[kallend 1,626]

lawrocket

Quote

2.) Do you contest that the CO2 levels are rising?

No. Observational data is pretty convincing

***3.) If the CO2 levels are rising do you agree that the risk posed to people by raising the CO2 level is a big deal?

No. Not as they presently are. A hundredth of one percent increase isnt a big deal to me.



Only because you are looking at a small change in an already small quantity expressed specifically to make it look no big deal.

But what if we say, perfectly equivalently, that it's a 100ppm change?

Or an increase from 280ppm to 400ppm, a 33% change comparing before to after?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 384]

For what it is worth, the atmosphere is currently saturated with CO2, and the worst thing that has happened is that global food production is at a record level.... Oh the horror.

[JWest 0]

brenthutch

For what it is worth, the atmosphere is currently saturated with CO2, and the worst thing that has happened is that global food production is at a record level.... Oh the horror.

What? That's not how saturation works. If the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 you couldn't add more CO2 to it.

[lawrocket 3]

JWest

It might not be a big deal now, but if the numbers continue to increase it will become a big deal. Ocean acidification and heat trapping caused by C02 has the potential to cause a mass extinction event.

What doesn't? Everything has the potential. Potential. I'm not about "potential." I'm about probability.

Will it cause a mass extinction? Answer. With 99.999 percent confidence, no.
So why is mass extinction brought up? Answer. Because it sounds all scary and shit and it can influence people's behavior if they think something will happen when they've got a better chance of winning the lottery.
So is that why there are always images posted of what the planet would look like if all of the ice sheets melted? Answer. Exactly. It won't happen for hundred of thousands of years, but we need to scare the fuck out of people by putting forth bullshit scenarios and making people think that remote possibility is actually high probability.
SO why not just tell the truth? Answer. "If manmade climate change is false and propaganda used to prevent excess CO2 emission is that really a bad thing..."

I don't care which side is shoveling shit. Both are. I'll call it. You answered the question. You justified propaganda in the form of a question. Which is where the discussion is going as evidence mounts that the effects are not nearly so bad as projected. Level 4 alarmist: "Who cares about the science? It's the right thing to do."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 384]

JWest

***For what it is worth, the atmosphere is currently saturated with CO2, and the worst thing that has happened is that global food production is at a record level.... Oh the horror.

What? That's not how saturation works. If the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 you couldn't add more CO2 to it.

The atmosphere is optically saturated. Think about it this way; putting a foot of insulation in your attic will keep some heat in your house. But putting ten feet of insulation will not keep ten times more heat in your house. The warming effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically. Yadda yadda bla bla bla, do your homework Junebug. Yawn.

[JWest 0]

brenthutch

******For what it is worth, the atmosphere is currently saturated with CO2, and the worst thing that has happened is that global food production is at a record level.... Oh the horror.

What? That's not how saturation works. If the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 you couldn't add more CO2 to it.

The atmosphere is optically saturated. Think about it this way; putting a foot of insulation in your attic will keep some heat in your house. But putting ten feet of insulation will not keep ten times more heat in your house. The warming effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically. Yadda yadda bla bla bla, do your homework Junebug. Yawn.

You claimed that the atmosphere was already saturated. It is not. The rising CO2 levels show that it is not.


lawrocket-

Mass extinction is inevitable, even if it is billions of years away. I don't find that scary it's interesting! If we continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere faster than it can dissipate is will reach toxic levels and it will cause a mass extinction event. As you said it probably wouldn't be for hundreds of thousands of year. But it would happen. There are also tons of other things that could kill us long before that, disease, asteroids, mentors, all can kill us long before CO2 levels. We could invent technology to take care of the problem by the time it became a serious threat anyway. We will be long dead before the ice sheets could fully melt, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything no to prevent that from happening.

[lawrocket 3]

brenthutch

******For what it is worth, the atmosphere is currently saturated with CO2, and the worst thing that has happened is that global food production is at a record level.... Oh the horror.

What? That's not how saturation works. If the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 you couldn't add more CO2 to it.

The atmosphere is optically saturated. Think about it this way; putting a foot of insulation in your attic will keep some heat in your house. But putting ten feet of insulation will not keep ten times more heat in your house. The warming effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically. Yadda yadda bla bla bla, do your homework Junebug. Yawn.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brenthutch 384]

I thought I was mistaken once, but I was wrong.

[airdvr 197]

JWest

The game wasn't met for you. It was met for
rushmc. But I can't stop you from answering.

"No. Not as they presently are. A hundredth of one percent increase isnt a big deal to me."

It might not be a big deal now, but if the numbers continue to increase it will become a big deal. Ocean acidification and heat trapping caused by C02 has the potential to cause a mass extinction event.


rushmc. I'm not concerned with what the article says I want to know what you think. This isn't about the website you post, it's about you and your beliefs. Unless you just regurgitate what it says with no thought, but I'm giving you more credit than that.

I'm still waiting for you to dazzle me with your credentials. Anyways you all have a good convo over this problem. Bottom line is we'll never be able to afford to do the things that would mitigate the problem. The country won't go broke trying to fix this so, it won't get fixed.

In general, the cost of mitigation is 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than that of adaptation (Monckton of Brenchley, 2012). Affordable measures are ineffective: effective measures are unaffordable. Too little mitigation is achieved at far too great a cost. Since the premium is 10-100 times the cost of the risk insured, the precaution of insurance is not recommended.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>The atmosphere is optically saturated.

It's close to saturated - but not quite. That's why doubling the CO2 level increases forcing by only 3 watts per square meter rather than 50 watts per square meter (which would be rapidly fatal to us.)

>The warming effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically.

Exactly. See above.

[lawrocket 3]

brenthutch

I thought I was mistaken once, but I was wrong.

It's a logarithm. Logs are asimptotal. Going from 400 to 800 ppm has the same effect as going from 600 to 1200 ppm. Point is it ain't saturated. It is no use overplaying your hand.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

http://www.livescience.com/50405-antarctica-heat-records.html?

[winsor 186]

JWest

The game wasn't met for you. It was met for
rushmc. But I can't stop you from answering.

"No. Not as they presently are. A hundredth of one percent increase isnt a big deal to me."

It might not be a big deal now, but if the numbers continue to increase it will become a big deal. Ocean acidification and heat trapping caused by C02 has the potential to cause a mass extinction event.


rushmc. I'm not concerned with what the article says I want to know what you think. This isn't about the website you post, it's about you and your beliefs. Unless you just regurgitate what it says with no thought, but I'm giving you more credit than that.

From a triage standpoint, climate change is a chronic issue while we face some very pressing acute issues - a few of which are real show-stoppers. Even agreeing that carbon footprint is a concern (e.g., Al Gore's jet and power bills), we will be lucky to ever reach the point where it is on the list of our top ten problems.

Who benefits from raising the alarm? Mr. Carbon Footprint himself, Al Gore, has amassed over $100,000,000 touting the issue.

Science, like investigative journalism, has skepticism as its backbone. Whenever there is a hint of conflict of interest, follow the money. And yes, it works both ways.


BSBD,

Winsor

[rushmc 18]

JWest

"Mocking climate science" Not all science.

Let's play a game, let's assume that you are correct and humanity has no effect on climate change and the current observed change is purely nature related. 1.) Who do you think benefits from saying climate change is human influenced? 2.) Do you contest that the CO2 levels are rising? 3.) If the CO2 levels are rising do you agree that the risk posed to people by raising the CO2 level is a big deal? 4.) If CO2 emissions were to become unregulated who would that benefit? 5.) If manmade climate change is false and propaganda used to prevent excess CO2 emission is that really a bad thing knowing the consequences of an CO2 saturated atmosphere?

1) Governments and those like Al Gore. But there are more groups for other reasons. If needed after this exercise I will address those groups
2) Nope, CO2 levels are rising and they have risen in the past to higher levels and we are still here
3) No, see number 2
4) They are not regulated now to any extent. The question makes no sense
5) As stated above, we know CO2 levels have been much higher in past and we are still here. So, if you know what those consequenses really are, please share them with us


To follow up
IMO there are three different groups pushing AWG mediation
First one is those in government and the UN
Groups like these have been pushing different pollution scenarios for decades. (I remember in the 70’s we were all about to freeze to death)
Some of them legitimate. But legitimate pollution concerns have a problem for big government control all things types. Legitimate pollution concerns CAN be addressed and mitigated so the issue goes away and efforts to control more (using those pollution concerns) are stymied. So, bring in CO2. Label it a pollutant. It can NEVER be controlled and I think many know this but, since it never goes away it is a long term issue that can be used to manipulate many things.
The second group truly buys into AWG. They really believe that man has the power to radically effect the planets weather (I think we may have a negligible effect at best). They think we all should live as they think we should. And since they do not have the power or data to move forward their ideas or concerns, they use the government to force what they believe on the rest of us.

The third group is vocal but other than the noise caused by them, they affect the rest of us very little.

Now, you mentioned the wattsupwiththat.com web site. The founder of this site DOES believe that man has an effect. But he also believes that the alarmists overstate the issue/problem
Most of the links on this sight are from many differing and varied areas of expertise. He requests feedback and dissent (this is what GOOD scientists do) and has honest on line debates. The problem with this site for many here is it draws to one place, the newest info out there and makes it easy to find so others can consider it/them. The alarmists hate this. Because as of late, there is nothing NEW to support the assertions they push forth.

There are now 4 issues that I find of interest regarding AWG. Ice core studies. Then (one of the last ones I linked from the sight mentioned) the effects of aerosols related to warming. The latter being a study which indicates that those effects look to be WAY over stated. That implication then suggests that CO2 effects are way over stated as well. Then there is the so called hidden heat in the ocean and the acidification of the oceans. I have posted articles around these issues as well.

I have no problem with honest discussion. But as seen here often, the climate skeptic heretics need to be silenced at any cost. Because the latest observations, studies and data do not support the alarmists cause.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[LyraM45 0]

JWest

***For what it is worth, the atmosphere is currently saturated with CO2, and the worst thing that has happened is that global food production is at a record level.... Oh the horror.

What? That's not how saturation works. If the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 you couldn't add more CO2 to it.

He said it was saturated-- not fully saturated.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kallend 1,626]

rushmc

CO2 levels are rising and they have risen in the past to higher levels and we are still here

"Still here"? Were we here at those times in the past when they were at higher levels? Did our civilization's infrastructure exist and survive at those times?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*** CO2 levels are rising and they have risen in the past to higher levels and we are still here

"Still here"? Were we here at those times in the past when they were at higher levels? Did our civilization's infrastructure exist and survive at those times?

Actually, thanks for making my point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln