Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

[headhonchoII]

It's pretty simple, if the ice in Antartica and Greenland starts melting then you will get a major rise in sea levels, even if the whole of the Artic ice melted there would be no rise in sea levels. But arctic ice melting is a bad sign in itself.

Can you show us that this is happening? and like many on the global warming alarmist side, will you use 1975-1982 as a benchmark for making any assertions that we are seeing a major meltoff? I merely ask because this was a relatively cold period that for some unknown (haha) reason ends up being the point of comparison. So we take a 30% relatively colder period and then say things are 30% warmer now with 30% more ice melt now and that proves what exactly? That we are back at Point 0 for averages?

I have heard the ice cap is melting in Greenland but it would still take hundreds of years to completely clear.
I don't pretend to be up to date on the minutiae.

I agree that sea levels rising is not the major issue due to the above fact, storm surges from more powerful weather systems are a much bigger concern currently.

I also agree completely that any conclusion can be skewed by choosing what is the start point and what is the end point. It's something that most journalists and reporters seem to ignore completely, being the dumbed down copy pasters that most of them are these days.

Still if the scientists who study this say we have experienced significant faster warming since CO2 levels increased, then I am going to sit up and take notice. There is also the acidification issue in play.

I'm with finley mostly though as I think we need to deal with particulate pollution as a priority, being forced to live under it for much of the year in Taiwan and China and elsewhere.

[fred smith]

now, in your experience, headhoncho, would you say that economic development has aided in the reduction of pollutants or would you point to the vast successes of say awareness raising campaigns to achieve this? Where is pollution worse? richer countries? or poorer ones? and do we see trendlines that indicate whether pollution increases/decreases as a nation becomes more developed and thus richer? and would we also be able to see whether tax and regulatory burdens make a country develop faster and thus affect whether it becomes richer/poorer? So... if POLLUTION is the key concern, what is the BEST solution? in your view? based on the above thinking?

[stevef]

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... te-threat/

[fred smith]

Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group.

The genuine article mostly yes..

We are not given to theatrical rantings about falling skies.

Well, then "YOU" have been shanghaied by a very ambitious group of wannabes and charlatans.

Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees.

Except for the ones who get 99.9% of the coverage day in and out. And what is "your" role in "climatology?"

Why then are climatologists speaking out about the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

Really? a clear and present danger? I think that the only consensus on this is that man is contributing x to global warming which is occurring but that it could vary from a to z on the degree scale with most people putting it at d-f in terms of intensity which is similar to what we have experienced since 1850 when a mini ICE AGE was ending. Which is why the ones who are not as responsible as you have consistently used benchmarks from 1975-1982 when the world was much colder... So where is the clear and present danger and how does your "role" as a "climatologist" give you the "clout" to ensure that "this time" is going to be "different" than all the other "warnings of the sky falling" over the past 30 years?

[Jack Burton]

Really? a clear and present danger? I think that the only consensus on this is that man is contributing x to global warming which is occurring but that it could vary from a to z on the degree scale with most people putting it at d-f in terms of intensity which is similar to what we have experienced since 1850 when a mini ICE AGE was ending. Which is why the ones who are not as responsible as you have consistently used benchmarks from 1975-1982 when the world was much colder... So where is the clear and present danger and how does your "role" as a "climatologist" give you the "clout" to ensure that "this time" is going to be "different" than all the other "warnings of the sky falling" over the past 30 years?

So you're saying there is no danger, no crisis simply because it's not anthropogenic... that if indeed we are experiencing a "natural" mini Ice Age... whew... we can relax now. much ado about nothing.

interesting logic Fred.


nevermind that the rates of change are faster than previous ice age...

[fred smith]

So you're saying there is no danger, no crisis simply because it's not anthropogenic... that if indeed we are experiencing a "natural" mini Ice Age... whew... we can relax now. much ado about nothing.

interesting logic Fred.


nevermind that the rates of change are faster than previous ice age...

What is it with you and hyperventilating? such a typical liberal...

AGAIN.... for all the billions and billions spent on fighting climate change... what do you have to show for it? So the issue has always been, well, yes it is happening but how much is due to man and more important
what exactly are you going to do to stop it? spend more just to show that you care? even though the results are absolutely zero? Well, okay, then... as long as you feel good about yourself, never mind what actually
happens...

[fred smith]

So after all these years and all the invective, the responses to the climate change URGENT ISSUE of OUR DAY are thus? to merely want to discuss possible energy-saving solutions with no hyperbole? no demands for action? no criticisms for lack of action? no we must act or die?

What a strange calmness seems to have descended on the climate change alarmism experience. So... is this the time? can I feel the urge to do a round of I TOLD YOU SO whoo hooos? What happened to this all-important movement? This we must act NOW effort?

I guess I could have seen this coming but just not so soon...

By the way, for those of you without a life... can you share what your next urgent life-mission will be? I just want to prepare myself for the condescension and posturing patronizing pabalum that I shall prepare...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[headhonchoII]

Shushhh, it's the deafening sound.....of nobody listening.

[Fortigurn]

So after all these years and all the invective, the responses to the climate change URGENT ISSUE of OUR DAY are thus? to merely want to discuss possible energy-saving solutions with no hyperbole? no demands for action? no criticisms for lack of action? no we must act or die?

No. The responses have been discussed repeatedly in detail on this site. If you want to see a significant silence, look at this thread. How interesting that you haven't posted in it once.

[Dr. McCoy]

I hope I don't get demised. I've been feeling a little demisey, but it may be the air pressure.