climate change denial is worse than anti-vax movement

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Felch, I like that you're questioning the reliability of the science, not casting slurs on the integrity of the scientists.

The issue is not much directly the few degrees average increase in temperature - it's that that is only an average. Some places will warm by more than that, some that will consequently become much crappier places to (try to) live. Some places will get colder. Heat is the fuel that drives the weather engine - more heat means more energetic weather; in chaotic system, which the weather inherently is, more heat would strongly tend to increase chaos.

You and me, (I assume you are, too,) are white Americans, who tend to see bad weather as something rarely more than an inconvenience. That is not the case for po' folk engaged in agriculture. You rile up the weather system, change is going to tend to happen everywhere. And while that means some places, including ones that have nowhere to go but up, will get a nicer climate, that is not where most of the people growing food are. We've got seven billion people and counting to feed - too much change too fast, and that number is going way down in a decidedly unpleasant way. I cannot speak to the reliability of anyone's models, but I do think there's ample reason to be concerned.

[Felch]

Why do you believe warmer climates are generally better? Generally the countries further from the equator are better off than the countries closer to it.

Two reasons: biodiversity, which is much higher in the tropics than in the arctic, and crop yields which are also higher near the equator than the poles. The economic situation of tropical countries has a lot more to do with colonial exploitation than just heat.

[Felch]

Felch, I like that you're questioning the reliability of the science, not casting slurs on the integrity of the scientists.

The issue is not much directly the few degrees average increase in temperature - it's that that is only an average. Some places will warm by more than that, some that will consequently become much crappier places to (try to) live. Some places will get colder. Heat is the fuel that drives the weather engine - more heat means more energetic weather; in chaotic system, which the weather inherently is, more heat would strongly tend to increase chaos.

You and me, (I assume you are, too,) are white Americans, who tend to see bad weather as something rarely more than an inconvenience. That is not the case for po' folk engaged in agriculture. You rile up the weather system, change is going to tend to happen everywhere. And while that means some places, including ones that have nowhere to go but up, will get a nicer climate, that is not where most of the people growing food are. We've got seven billion people and counting to feed - too much change too fast, and that number is going way down in a decidedly unpleasant way. I cannot speak to the reliability of anyone's models, but I do think there's ample reason to be concerned.

I agree that there is a potential for catastrophe, but there are other things we could be spending money on that make a lot more sense. If you're pouring money into dubious energy schemes instead of schools, is it really a good investment?

The other issue beyond our primitive and unreliable models is the mistaken belief that human beings can't adapt. Humans aren't fast, we don't have claws or fangs or venom, we don't have thick hides or the fecundity of vermin. What we have is an uncanny ability to change ourselves to adjust to a new situation. Let's not mistake poor for stupid. The third world will be better served by improved governance than carbon taxes. Give people an environment where their kids can get an education and their property isn't routinely seized by roaming bands of gun thugs, and they'll handle a couple degree change in temperature just fine.

If the climate models did a better job of matching observations, I'd look at the situation differently.

[Dauphin]

Crop yields increasing with temperature is only true when you look at at cooler climes. Doubt it is true for Arabia or North Africa for instance. Areas near the equator are more likely on the other side of peak temperature and so on the other side of the slope.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Again, it's not being a little warmer that's the problem. -And a thing that helps get the environmental types so enthusiastically behind doing something about it is, cleaning up pollution is a good idea for other reasons, too. We're fouling our own nest.

Schools , though.

[Berzerker]

Arabia and N Africa green and dry out as the monsoon track expands and contracts with the changing axial tilt of the Earth

[Felch]

Crop yields increasing with temperature is only true when you look at at cooler climes. Doubt it is true for Arabia or North Africa for instance. Areas near the equator are more likely on the other side of peak temperature and so on the other side of the slope.

I'd say the defining characteristic of Arabia and North Africa is (lack of) moisture rather than heat. Oases and rivers can support agriculture even in hot climates.

[Dauphin]

I'd say the defining characteristic of Arabia and North Africa is (lack of) moisture rather than heat. Oases and rivers can support agriculture even in hot climates.

Which is why discussion of climate change as an effect on temperature alone is meaningless.

[Dauphin]

That is to say, it is not a 2c temp rise that will cause crop yield changes. It is going to be strongly impacted by flooding and droughts.

[Felch]

Right, but discussion of climate change based on worthless models is also meaningless.

[Ben Kenobi]

in 100 words or less, what is your belief of the truth of the climate change situation?

At present? There hasn't been warming in 15 years.

I believe that Mann's present hypothesis is based upon models that are not only erroneous but deliberately altered to produce a warming trend that isn't there in his actual data. I believe that present climate orthodoxy is reliant upon these erroneous models, thus producing the results that we see where so many different climatologists are wrong and wrong in the same way.

I believe there are significant numbers of folks willing to use this myth to facilitate other changes they wish to see in society - see Agenda 21. Among which includes, but not limited to: attacking resource extraction, increasing taxation, increasing the cost of certain products resulting in a lowered standard of living, limitation of housing construction, confiscation of private property, increasing restrictions on the use of cars, increasing requirements to fund public transportation, changes in education standards, increase in government size, and population control.

I count at least 4 or 5 recent significant changes just to products that I use out of the global warming scare. CFLs, and the use of plastic grocery bags are just two. Add ethanol in gas, use of gas taxes (rather than having public transportation fund itself), reduction in the use of road spaces, confiscation of private property and changes in the curriculum that have impacted me.

This is a whole religion, and when we talk about getting religion out of people's affairs, this whole climate worship has had a huge impact far beyond that of other religions.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's no doubt that CO2 causes warming. What I don't buy is all the predictions of doom. Nobody knows how climate change will shake out. Generally speaking though, warmer weather is good and cooler weather is bad. Even if we lose some marginal bits of land, I think we'll be better off because the tundra and arctic will warm up and become more useful.

We aren't even as warm now as in the medieval warming period. If cars and people are the primary drivers of global warming, this makes no sense to me.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

At present? There hasn't been warming in 15 years.

I believe that Mann's present hypothesis is based upon models that are not only erroneous but deliberately altered to produce a warming trend that isn't there in his actual data. I believe that present climate orthodoxy is reliant upon these erroneous models, thus producing the results that we see where so many different climatologists are wrong and wrong in the same way.

I believe there are significant numbers of folks willing to use this myth to facilitate other changes they wish to see in society - see Agenda 21. Among which includes, but not limited to: attacking resource extraction, increasing taxation, increasing the cost of certain products resulting in a lowered standard of living, limitation of housing construction, confiscation of private property, increasing restrictions on the use of cars, increasing requirements to fund public transportation, changes in education standards, increase in government size, and population control.

I count at least 4 or 5 recent significant changes just to products that I use out of the global warming scare. CFLs, and the use of plastic grocery bags are just two. Add ethanol in gas, use of gas taxes (rather than having public transportation fund itself), reduction in the use of road spaces, confiscation of private property and changes in the curriculum that have impacted me.

This is a whole religion, and when we talk about getting religion out of people's affairs, this whole climate worship has had a huge impact far beyond that of other religions.

254 words. You get an F.

[Lorizael]

Has anyone told AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH? that BK isn't a real poster and that there's no reason to respond to it?

[Dauphin]

Right, but discussion of climate change based on worthless models is also meaningless.

The models are not useful for making decisions as they can't quantify the risk. Within the margin of error it can be shown the consequences are overall negative. I feel it akin to buying insurance - how much are you willing to pay for a risk that could be relatively benign or catastrophic and the insurance salesman is a bit iffy on what is actually covered by the insurance plan.

If the cost of preventing global warming was, say, a one off $10 trillion global outlay, borne mostly by the richer countries representing about one billion people, that's a cost of $10,000 per person. I wonder how many would gladly pay that (either as tax or high costs) if it meant the planet became carbon neutral through whatever means was devised. I wonder how many would prefer to risk the economic cost of not acting - either because they think the consequences aren't that bad, the outlay would not achieve the desired effect, or because they would personally benefit from a warmer local climate.