Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

You state: “The jury is still out on climate change and its causes. Pronouncing your sentence without a firm jury verdict is similar to perverting the course of justice…”

The “jury” is not “out”. Scientific CONSENSUS indicates that human induced climate change is real. Do you understand what science is? Consensus? In any case, being more efficient is not “perverting the course of justice”.

Some more gold: “If climate change is the hoax that I suspect it probably is… it’ll be people like you that demand the alarmists get a fair trial before their hanging.”

Why is it a hoax? What possible conspiracy in the world is committed to making it a healthier and more pleasant place? Are you smoking crack? What on earth do scientists have to gain by hoaxing the world? Did the USA fake the moon landings? Are the Russians coming? Are gays and lesbians perverting the minds of our children and causing them to have sex with goats?

And finally: “Do some more research. Find some solid science before adding to the already numerous chicken little horoscopes.”

I believe that the folks at the NASA and NOAA are in the business of “solid science”. Unless you’re a scientist yourself (which you don’t appear to be) perhaps you’ll do us a favour of finding some peer reviewed “science” that supports your “climate change is a myth” rubbish.

Alternatively what I suggest is that first you have a few kids.

Next you can just keep doing whatever the hell it is you do now.

Then when the planet’s [ed: censored] and your kids ask you what you did about you can explain it all to them.

Good luck with that. Too bad you and your Today Tonight watching ilk will be taking this magical world down the toilet with you. I bet you like to fill your pool and water your lawn despite the water restrictions too…

[Tim M: Please, no swearing, no personal attacks, keep it nice, keep it relevant, or I WILL remove comments. This is the first and final warming. I don't want flames/trolls.]

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Firstly, I’ve spent more than 4 months reading, and reading, and reading. I see you reference Steve McIntyre/climateaudit. Hardly a scion of research (who funds him?). Secondly, the world needs scaring (I will admit I probably err a little too much on the side of scary though I make no apologies for it).

Secondly, the causes are addressed elsewhere. If I can make it clearer that man’s emmissions of GHGs are to blame, I can definitely do so -> where do you suggest I put this to obviate the point?

I detect the imprimatur of a hardened sceptic, but I’ll bite regardless.

As to your points.
1. There is ample (read: overwhelming) evidence to prove warming. If you are going to argue/debate from a position of “the world is cooling” then we should agree to disagree, and let people who know a lot more about this, keep putting out peer reviewed papers that show that the world is warming. Have you looked at the Polar Ice Year project? Ice doesn’t melt without warming.

2. Really? You need me to prove this?

3. Irrelevant – I read commentary from skeptics who admit this needs to occur (which in turn begs the question, why?)

Here are my points:
1. Big coal, Shell Oil, Chevron – they’ve all said we need to act. Shell Oil. Mull that over, if you will. Obama/Chu.
2. I agree we can’t afford to make a mistake. Not acting would be a mistake. Risk management practice.
3. Destroying the global economy: a well worn denialist proposition: I think it’s a furphy – the US coal and auto industries cried poor when catalytic converters and coal efficiency standards were mandated – jobs actually were created and profitability increased. Look at the jobs and innovation in greentech. Many jobs possible. Many. Not many in chopping trees down and burning non-renewable fuels (they run out in the end).
4. Yes, a lot of money has gone into getting models right. What is your point? The finance system especially the CDS market failed because it inadequately accounted for risk. The climate models similarly do not account for climate feedback loops. They are both complex. I would argue the climate system is very complex but is not subject to human emotion and therefore acts impassively. In time, I expect climate models to get better and better – currently they do not account for warming adequately. The changes we are saying are well in excess of any model. That does not render the models wrong in a boolean sense.
5. The jury is not still out on climate change. You might think it is, but it’s not. Refer #1 above (not for proof – there is ample observational evidence).
6. I see no similarity in regard of your assertion that pronouncing sentence without firm verdict is akin to perversion of justice. The jury bases its decision on the facts at hand. The facts are the facts. The world is warming (you can dispute this all you want – if you still maintain it is not, then we have no argument to pursue – for every piece of evidence you produce, I can produce 10 that disprove your claims, so you will shift the goalposts. I will not engage at that level). If the facts change, we can change our point of view. Until that time, and the facts point at warming, then that’s it.
7. There will be no hanging. If the world is not warming, I will be VERY happy to admit I am wrong. VERY happy. Please don’t misunderstand that.
8. I do plenty of research, thanks.

Religion has nothing to do with this, and your introduction of that into your comment debases any good points or questons you may have made/asked. By bringing religion into this, you attempt to cast the target as someone probably averse to science. I am by trade an engineer, and therefore have a very science-based mind.

Once again, thanks for the comment.

Best,
Tim

I’m not “sure” of the answers. What I am sure of is that on a risk mitigation basis alone, we should not do-nothing.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

I think you miss the problem. Look at the above. Your entire spiel is on the possible effects of climate change – you say nothing of its causes and what we can do about it. What are you trying to do? Scare us into submission?

Heres the thing. A lot of the science underpinning these scary articles is very questionable. There are too many sensor errors and other mistakes which have only been found by mathematical methods. Too many sets of now-known-broken data has found its way into charts all over the internet. It is now very difficult to even verify most of it.

Have you checked out http://www.climateaudit.org or http://www.wattsupwiththat.com ? They have a catalog of the mistakes discovered so far.

The 3 questions that need firm answers are:
1. Is the world warming?
2. If so, is it really CO2 driving it?
3. If so, how can we reduce CO2

The skeptics are divided on these points because the science on all 3 is not solid.

I’m sure you agree that we can’t afford to make a mistake on this issue. Destroying the global economy because “maybe” the theories are right is a no go for the skeptics.

Think about this… a lot of money has been spent developing “models” to support the C02 warming theory.

Yet many times this amount was spent to develop models of the global financial system.

Which one is more complicated? The man made financial system or the non-man made climate systems?

Even after all that money its obvious the financial modelling was a dismal failure and not even close to reality.

So how close to reality do you expect the climate alarmists models to be? Enough to sacrifice the progress of the world? Enough to starve a billion or more of the worlds poorest?

The jury is still out on climate change and its causes. Pronouncing your sentence without a firm jury verdict is similar to perverting the course of justice…

If climate change is the hoax that I suspect it probably is… it’ll be people like you that demand the alarmists get a fair trial before their hanging.

Do some more research. Find some solid science before adding to the already numerous chicken little horoscopes. Thanks

Just out of curiousity… are you religious as well? Is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorns or some deity with just as much evidence?

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)