brenthutch

Let me explain in a format that you may find easier to understand. Tax cuts + deregulation = record economic expansion

Trickledown is STILL working! Longest economic expansion in US history!

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Who on this forum disagrees with him and on what point/s.

Does anyone disagree with any of his points?

You don’t know generals very well then.

Nice!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/22/gmos-double-standards-union-concerned-scientists/#.XQzQXvZFyUk Better?

Legitimate source??? Union of Concerned Scientists?? These guys??? https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/union-concerned-scientists-advocacy-group-promotes-unscientific-views-gmos/

You didn't check very carefully. The article I posted is from 2019 not 2017. If more heat means more drought, where is the global increase in drought?

I made no such statement. I asked a question, a rhetorical one at that. To think otherwise is willful ignorance.

Why does that not surprise me. I had a feeling that you would be at least tangentially associated with the Union of Concerned Socialists, uh I mean Scientists.

You must have missed the part about 2019. BTW your simplistic view of heat = drought is appropriate for a high school level of education. In the real world, humidity, wind and cloud cover also play a role. Not to mention warmer conditions can and often do = longer growing season. You are also ignoring the beneficial effect that elevated levels of CO2 have on plants that live on the margins. Not to mention the simple fact that despite slightly elevated global temperatures we are not witnessing an increase in global drought conditions.

Do you doubt the veracity of my post? Would you feel better if I told you it was from the Union of Concerned Scientists?

Apparently the science is NOT settled "In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources. 200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled. More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm. N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined. N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability. N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system. N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields)." It can be a bit lonely for me on SC but its nice to know that the scientific community has my back.

I think you meant to say a few hundredths of a degree warmer Lack of water NOT higher temps cause droughts. Basic earth science. (BTW Higher levels of CO2 in the air allow plants to absorb the same amount of carbon whilst opening their stomata for much shorter periods, thus losing less water due to evaporation.)

You keep posting graphs of lower arctic sea ice...apparently you are unaware that there was less ice 6000 years ago (long before SUVs)

"Let me explain, no there is too much let me sum up" 1 CO2 does not now nor has ever controlled global temperatures 2 Higher temperatures have NOT resulted in an statically significant increase in floods, droughts, cyclonic storms or wildfires 3 Historically high levels of CO2 have been beneficial to life on this planet 4 No CO2 mitigation regime can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis

“Remember, we are talking about global warming, not global warmer. If the black line is not on top than it is bon appetit for the reality denying warmists.”

No my point is that the older climate models overstated the climates sensitivity to CO2. Thirty years on, we can compare actual observation to what they predicted and see that they fail. Apparently the new and improved models fail even more miserably.

"For nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too. In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.”" The new and improved climate models are even worse than the old ones apparently.

No I would say CO2 is a relevant driver of CO2 and that's about it.

No, just pointing out the obvious, that CO2 is not much of a driver of climate and that breathless claims of record hot years (by a few hundredths of a degree) are pointless.

From NOAA's website "The global land and ocean surface temperature for May 2019 was 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average and the fourth highest May temperature departure from average since global records began in 1880. Mays 2016 (+0.93°C / +1.67°F), 2015 (+0.89°C / +1.60°F), and 2017 (+0.87°C / +1.57°F) were warmer."