Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are various factors involved there, in particular a shift from coal usage to natural gas. So do you feel confident we'll meet the 70% drop in GHG emissions (relative to baseline trajectory) defined by RCP2.6, without "requiring substantial changes in energy use and emissions of non-CO2 gases."?
Climate Change deniers are the modern version of those who believed the earth was the center of the universe.
Yes. Shale oil and shale gas are a game changer. Besides that, RCP is an economic idea, not science. At current rates, there will be a 1 ft increase in sea level and a 1 degree C rise in temperature. That is what closest fits our current situation. The RCPs really seem to involve net change in CO2 so it is even more fanatical than just saying there will be an increase in CO2 emission rate. This is also assuming no albedo change due to cloud cover and no change in temperature due to the ENSO.
Nobody denies that the climate is changing, it always has and it always will. Climate change worshipers are the modern equivalent of Aether worshipers. Eh, they are worse. They talk about stuff they know nothing about, make fun or people that have a different view than themselves, all while doing exactly the same things about making a change in their lifestyle to benefit the planet according to their climate change beliefs as those of us who are not in the church. Nothing. Actually probably less. I do everything I can to limit my carbon output, not because I'm worried about climate change but because wasting energy and resources is an irresponsible way to treat my home. Most are just a big bloated bag of wind hoping for what, more taxes?
Fair-minded, intelligent post, IMO. There are ever so many factors involved in climate change, regardless of whether it cools or warms over the millenia. The world, especially Americans like you and me, wants the U.S. government to do something about it, but no one makes any real noise about China, Russia and all the other really nasty polluters. Oh, liberals of all stripes give lip service to their opposition to other countries' pollution, but none of them DO anything about it. IMO, if the rest of the world does nothing to reduce pollution, it's pointless for us to do anything either. If the world wants us to cripple our economy combatting pollution, let them match our efforts or we should match the worst of theirs.
There is near unanimous scientific consensus that mankind's CO2 emissions are warming the earth. Scientists who study climate science and do know what they are talking about. This isn't about taxes or whoopla - it's about catastrophic changes that will have a negative impact on everyone - taxes are the least of one's concerns.
Actually, they did for two decades, until it became impossible to do anymore. I can find TJ and bigtexxx posts from 5 years ago doing exactly that. Not to mention the "Lake Errie is covered in ice! Ho, ho! Global warming, don't you mean Global Cooling?" Thread from this year. The energy industry is fighting a rear guard, spoiling action the same way the tobacco industry did for 40 years about tobacco and the link to cancer (or the 'tobacco question' as they used to say). They do everything possible to sow the seeds of doubt. There were cocksure idiots up through the 70's and 80's convinced that smoking causing cancer was unproven, strutting around, laughing at all the "stupid people" who believed all the hype about cigarettes. I'm sure the next stage will be one defiance, like with smokers who stopped disputing the health risks, but made a big deal about how much they loved it and didn't care. That was big in the 90's. Well start hearing the "benifits" of climate change. Rest assured, your children and grandchildren won't dispute the facts. The only regret I have is that neither one of us will be alive so I can enjoy watching people rub your face in it. But until then, keep on puffing away. I hear from big tobacco that there are no proven health risks. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SWXbVsMkz1U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The real reason for your "near unanimous scientific consensus" is that the Obama administration is loathe to award grants to researchers who have a contrary opinion. If the Republicans win the next presidential term, I'll be curious to see whether there is a shift in grant awards and, perhaps, a new consensus.
The scientific consensus happened before Obama was in office. There was scientific consensus back when the GOP controlled congress and the white house.
I think you need to start citing your sources for all this impending doom you say will happen. Where exactly are you getting this kind of forecast? Global temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees F since 1880 - when the earth shook off the Little Ice Age. And these temperatures are only unprecedented as far back as 1300 years ago.
I like how you consider a post that is mostly strawmen and assumptions with almost no factual supporting evidence and ends with an insult in your mind is fair-minded and intelligent. Given that you then follow up with several strawmen and assumptions I guess that makes sense.
GW Bush's own scientific advisers told him that climate change was real and human activities were contributing to it.
In another thread I posted something along the same lines. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=9513268&postcount=189 [rquoter]Once again people are looking at this issue through political lens and not understanding the nature of science and how that should be applied to policy. Science doesn't make policy decisions. The science itself only attempts to explain observable phenomena and provide a range of possibilities about future phenomena. In a case like this yes there are no certainties but a range of probabilities and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the Earth is warming and that human activities are contributing to that. Now how much that is and what timetable that isn't so clear but this would be akin to saying that the scientific consensus is that smoking causes lung cancer. Any individual who smokes a pack a day for 40 years there is a chance they won't get lung cancer and almost certainly the severity of and when they get it might not be the same as someone else who smokes a pack a day but there is a high probability that a person smoking a pack a day for 40 years will get lung cancer. This is where we get to policy. Science says nothing about whether someone should smoke or not. That is a personal policy decision each person has to make. An informed decision would be to consider the science and decide that while there is some counter arguments most scientific arguments say smoking can cause lung cancer so it's a good idea not to smoke. In the same way if we look at the science behind climate most scientists are saying that human activities are affecting the climate so the informed policy would be to consider that. Now there certainly is the possibility that human activities have nothing to do with climate change but consider that there are many other benefits to addressing the activities that are contributing to climate change such as increasing energy efficiency, developing renewable energy sources that don't emit other pollutants like SO2, and develop new technologies. All of those alone would make it worth it even without considering greenhouse gases. From the policy standpoint considering all of the potential gains there are longterm benefits to addressing climate change even if the science has to be wrong. Just the same as not smoking has other benefits besides avoiding lung cancer. [/rquoter]
If the Republicans win the next term, I'll be curious to see if they can tank the economy worse than they did in 2007.
You can always find a way to look at the data and say, "hey, I know better than all these stupid scientists - I'm going to find any way to argue against this before I believe in the scientific method". You know, it used to be really hot when the earth formed - so what's a few degrees of temp change anyway right? Even if it went up 5 degrees that just means to turn up the AC. Afterall, it was much worse 4.5 billion years ago.
How did climate change issue became political for some people is beyond me "scientists almost unanimously agree because they are on obama's payroll" are people this stupid
Is it possible that you have bad information or that you have been misled? Here is a graph of insolation at 65° N latitude since you may have trouble understanding climate change. Can you point out when and where CO2 was ever a major driver of climate change or temperature?
That's an exaggeration, insofar as I believe there's a diversity of the degree of doubt about climate change, and the extent to which it is both man made and reversible or mitigable.
