12

Global Warming: A New Study Could Destroy Doomsday Climate Change Forecasts

Posted by  $  nickursis 7 months, 1 week ago to Science
59 comments | Share | Flag

Another hit on the "settled science" of climate change, which may just throw the whole model into the dump...
SOURCE URL: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-model-nitrogen-rocks/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 1 week ago
    This sums up the biggest problem concerning global wa...I mean, climate change:

    ...science is not supposed to have a politically predetermined outcome pushed by ideology and politics. This new nitrogen study is but one example of consensus science being overturned. The global warming science establishment should now be open to similar studies and dissenting voices on CO2 to overturn the alleged climate change consensus."

    But will they?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by maxgeoac 7 months, 1 week ago
    Seriously? I mean during the early Carboniferous Period, the temperatures were warmer, and there was a significantly more Carbon Dioxide in the air than today. And yet, it is because of this period of geological history that we get a vast majority of our coal beds and fossilized tree debris. Why? Because it was the age of forests when plants had plenty of food, warmth, and water to grow.

    Oh, wait! Geology doesn't play into the "Man Made" Climate Change models, thinking, or politics. Whoops, my bad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by minorwork 7 months, 1 week ago
      Why? Because 290 million years ago fungi developed the ability to digest lignin. Until then during the Carboniferous Period, there was no organism existing that could break down the lignin after a few organisms had developed the means to break down cellulose. Lignin is a tougher nut to crack. Today see how long an old tree survives what with the existence of bacteria in termites and animal guts and the fungi that digest cellulose and lignin. https://phys.org/news/2018-02-fungi-n...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 7 months, 1 week ago
      I believe that you are correct. The source of Nitrogen is interesting but irrelevant to the topic of global warming. There is abundant historical (inc prehistorical, as you point out) evidence that the Earth cycles through warm and ice ages irrespective of the number of human campfires burning.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 7 months, 1 week ago
    Not sure why people think this is so revolutionary. Almost all fertilizers have a substantial nitrogen component in them so we've known plants can absorb nitrogen from the soil for a long time. We've been aware of nitrogen revitalization from microbes and certain plants in crop rotations as well for decades. That these haven't been incorporated into any models until this study seems a calculated omission rather than a new revelation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
      Notice though, a lot of "deniers" have questions how, in the midst of previous cycles that had very high CO2 levels, were the plants growing like monsters and everywhere in abundance? Nope, did not fit the narrative, so it was conveniently ignored.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 months, 1 week ago
    Doom, apparently endures. No matter how many doom dates have passed with no consequence, no matter how many times some heretofore uncounted upon natural event or chemical that's been there all along,, forestalling "The End" it seems we just aren't happy unless a certain segment of humanity can predict the end of the world.But if you have ever watched the Discovery channel you'll begin to realize that the odds against the Earth's continued existence keeps rising every minute of time passing until odds-makers might as well go back to bed.The fact that the earth has been destroyed several times, and each time comes back smelling like a rose is phenomenal. It appears as if, through no power of its own, Earth is indestructible or who ever is playing dice with the universe" * isn't always paying attention ---.. *Albert Einstein I often think that the Universe is unnecessarily big. But then I start to think about what the odds will have to be for the Universe to produce intelligent life all on its own. All of a sudden, those vast numbers of space and time begin to make a bit more sense. I think that we are beginning to understand that there is a solution to every problem in the Universe and like the Universe itself, If given enough time and space we can solve them all.
    . .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 7 months, 1 week ago
    It is a religion....the more facts you present, the greater the adherents cling to it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 1 week ago
      Right! Real science is also not ideological. Science isn’t about denying, actively ignoring or shutting down those who want question compiled results or have evidence that contradicts the consensus. Although their was the case of where some theories of Einstein’s (of Jewish decent) were outright rejected since it could have polluted the purity of “German science.”
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CarrieAnneJD 7 months, 1 week ago
    Looks to me that it would NOT throw the whole climate change theory "into the dump" but would, instead, explain why all the models have been over-projecting the warming... which might just make the theory cohesive and therefore bolster its credibility. I really don't know... but that's what it seems to suggest to me--that this new discovery has a huge effect on how science will be taught because it destroys the "nitrogen is from the atmosphere" narrative, but that it has the added bonus of making the planet able to withstand more carbon dioxide... not ANY amount of carbon dioxide, but more than previously thought. So... from the "fixes the projections" perspective, the analogy would be "we're at a level 8 and thought earth could only process a level 3; new discovery reveals earth can actually withstand a level 6, so we're still in trouble but it's not quite as imminent as we thought."

    Again, I don't know, but that's what the study suggests to me...

    Independent UK news story: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...

    Study itself: http://science.sciencemag.org/content...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 7 months, 1 week ago
    If liars can not enforce their lie then it becomes irrelevant in the face of reality. When they can enforce their beliefs by changing the lives of others then others always suffer or die.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 7 months, 1 week ago
    As he said at the end, and which tells us why they have clung to the made up model - grants! Follow the money, especially where politics and science meet. There has to be money to be made, else Hillary would not have threatened to make criminal any challenge to the global warming theory. Science has always been about discovering an explanation, with the idea, onre information could change what was before fact. A lot of people have become rich over global warming, while tax payers footed the bill to make green industries survive.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 7 months, 1 week ago
    I dont care what the climate does in 50 years. I will be dead long before that, and whoever lives then can deal with it. They have 50 years to move away from the shorelines and tornado prone areas.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 7 months ago
    This is certainly the coldest April I've ever experienced in NorCal. I keep asking, "Anybody know where Al Gore is?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Andy 7 months ago
      Didn't he say no cold spells after the year 2000? We still get them all the time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  7 months ago
        The data was skewed showing no cold spells, I think was what he was saying, according to the Grand Minimum people, we will have a little Ice age fpr the next 10-15 years...which seems to be what is happening based on current events, Southern Spain and Morocco had snow for the first time in years just a few days ago...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Andy 6 months, 2 weeks ago
          Are you saying Al Gore predicted this? That's hard to believe. I never heard anything about an ice age. It's all warming.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  6 months, 2 weeks ago
            No, Andy, just the opposite. Al used skewed data to predict nothing but warming..warming and mre warming. Yet the Grand Solar Minimum has a known effect of a mini Ice age. The skewed data indicate warming, when in reality, it has been pretty much stable, with hot spots moving around, just as there are cold spots. This year Nor Cal, MN and the East got the bonus. Notice you don't hear Big Al anymore, unless it is a money making scheme? Someone slipped him some "facts" and he is fading away before getting dragged out in the square...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Dobrien 6 months, 2 weeks ago
              According to my gas co . Feb was 12 degrees colder the last year. March 5 degrees colder and April was 15 degrees colder.
              Going back to August 2017 our avg temp is normally 83 and we only hit 80 once. Certainly not data that indicates runaway warming.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
    How many articles do we need tearing down the straw man of "settled science" (a contradiction in terms) and "doomsday forecasts"? It's almost like people think if they keep writing enough articles about that it will make global warming go away.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
      Because the left keeps using science as a false justification to inflict more looting on us. Until we can kill them off, we have to continually fight back. This guy just happened to be fed up with the false science and finally was able to prove it was the way he thought it was.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
        "the left keeps using science as a false justification to inflict more looting on us"
        Their doing that does not affect reality. A year ago I came upon Naomi Klein's book, This Changes Everything. She argues just what you say "the left" argues. If she's "the left", she's a perfect example of what you say. Her incorrect arguments for socialism do not affect the reality of global warming.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 1 week ago
      “The climate change deniers suggest there’s still a debate over the science. There is not!”
      Obama

      Sounds like “settled science" to me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
        "There is not [debate over the science]"
        There's no serious debate that the evidence shows it's happening and is hastened by human activities. If this makes it's "settled science" then it is "settled science".
        But science is always open to new evidence, and I will not be surprised if some revolution shows we were wrong in some major way. Wishful thinkers will say, "can't you guys just settle on one answer and stick to it?" That's not how science works though. The people who write these articles start with something they and I wish were true and then go looking for any anomalies they can use to get to the answer they (and I) want.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 1 week ago
          Over thousands of years science points to there being “large” swings of climate temperatures, which were both higher, and lower, than anything in the last couple hundred years. Volcanos, on earth and in the oceans, and the sun’s radiation are the major causes of the changing climate.
          How much mankind is also affecting the swings of the climate changing, in what way, with what possible consequences, in how much time, and what to do about it is totally debatable. But instead, it has become more of a political and ideological witch hunt. Punishing/shutting up those that question the testing or cherry picked conclusions of the collective hordes of publicly paid scientists.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
            "what to do about it is totally debatable."
            I have not heard a clear plan about what to do about it. I think they could do the best calculation possible of the costs and tax those activities. That's very hard to do because it's hard to measure those costs. There's also the risk that it would be just be another tax, with no corresponding decrease in income tax or other taxes. Working out the amount would be politicized. We still have people in denial of the basic facts. Imagine trying to work out numbers for a tax change that benefits high-income earners at the expense of people in jobs that contribute to climate change. Moreover, there will be hell to pay if new evidence is discovered showing the wishful thinking were right and that either human activities have less impact that we thought or the costs of the change are lower than we thought.

            "hordes of publicly paid scientists"
            This is the funniest part. Scientists are getting paid, so we can't trust science. Literally trillions of dollars of economic activity in some way contribute to climate change, so there's unbelievable pressure to understate it. So it's ironic when people say financial interest biases the science in the opposite direction.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
              CG, "I have not heard a clear plan about what to do about it" That is because they DONT debate, they screech their ideas and expect you to react and immediately do what they want (give them your guns, celebrate whatever crazy ass sexual unions they want, allow illegals to move in and give them every right and no responsibility, and always, "save the damn children". NO.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
                " That is because they DONT debate, they screech their ideas and expect you to react"
                Just ignore those people. There have been people screeching and trying to get a reaction all my life. I completely ignore them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 1 week ago
              It tends to be human nature to do what your boss is paying you for even if you may not fully agree. It is also human nature to want to keep your job.
              These facts can be ignored or taken into account.

              Just look at what is happening to the humanities departments in many universities. And it’s spreading to all ages of student.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Flootus5 7 months, 1 week ago
          I suggest you read Marc Morano's Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. There has been no warming for 20 years now, no increase in storm intensity or frequency, no record breaking hottest years in the last 3 years, no reduction of polar ice, no threat to polar bear babies, and the concept that CO2 is even a player as a greenhouse gas compared to basic moisture is ludicrous.

          How can this be in the face of such "overwhelming consensus"? To help understand this, I'd like to include a fine essay by John Hunt, MD of Casey Research:


          Why Do I Fail to Believe the Climate Scientists?

          By John Hunt, MD

          Libertarians have a powerful bullsh*t detector. Libertarians ascribe to philosophies based in part on their internal consistency, which is a key component of what Doug Casey calls “soundness.”

          Set against the backdrop of a sound and rational philosophy, BS sticks out.

          When it comes to climate science, my BS sensor alarm goes off like a klaxon. Is it my disdain for newspeak, since they manipulatively changed the term from global warming to climate change? Or is it something more substantial that keeps triggering my alarm?

          I admit that I am not a climate scientist. In this case, that may be a strength, as I’ll explain below. First, here are my biases: Like most, I appreciate a clean, healthy environment. I value human life above that of bees and trees. I consider nature to be amoral: Nature doesn’t care about you or your family, nor does it know right from wrong. And of course, I oppose initiation of force and fraud against my fellow man. I am dismayed when people try to deny their biases.

          I learned the scientific method as an academic scientist (medical researcher). Now as a writer, I am an observer. And here is what I discovered by being at the nexus of science and observation: climate science, like many fields, is rife with self-reinforcing layers of bias. My distrust of climate science isn’t because I ignore facts, nor because I disrespect the scientific method, nor because I’m in psychological denial or brainwashed by oil companies. To the contrary, my skepticism arises because I’m aware of the weaknesses of the academic process that creates the climate scientist and the research he produces.
          What leads a person to become a climate scientist? How might the selection process for entry and success in the profession create problematic bias?

          1. It is reasonable to consider that children raised in “climate-conscious” families are more likely to become interested in the environment than their peers. This is the first step in the multiple distillation process. They’re more likely to undertake a science fair project about climate change. Given today’s politics and popular culture, climate change projects are more likely to win awards at middle school science fairs, overseen by mostly progressive teachers who are concerned about climate change. The winner—encouraged by the attention his victory gets—gains heightened interest in the climate. In high school, encouraged by his teachers, he writes climate papers. He’s more likely than most to pursue environmental science in college.

          2. College professors encourage the most dedicated students in the introductory environmental studies class to pursue climate science as a major. Others—who are uninterested or skeptical—may never again see the inside of a climate science classroom after the semester ends. The distillation toward purity continues.

          3. As undergraduates pursue their master’s degrees, the crop of future climate scientists is further winnowed and distilled. Those who don't align with their professors’ views are less successful at getting into a PhD program. Later, success within PhD programs relies on abiding by one’s dissertation committee’s wishes, and progressing in ideological alignment with them. It’s a priesthood that demands orthodoxy; heretics aren’t welcome. Toe the line is the mantra here. Toe the politically correct line so as to get the PhD as fast as possible and start making money.

          4. But who hires a PhD in a subject that doesn’t lead to a commercial product? Usually, it’s a university. So he needs to pursue funding. The newly minted PhD starts applying for grants—mostly from government agencies or his own university. He creates a project designed to prove something that he believes is likely to be true, and certainly wants to be true. For instance, CO2 causes the death of baby polar bears. He writes a grant application that will be reviewed by committees populated with scientists who make their living from government-funded studies of climate change. The wise new post-doc or assistant professor therefore designs a research project carefully to align with the views of the committee. If he fails to craft his project to appeal to the reviewers on the committee, he won't get funded. He might wash out from academia.

          5. Through this academic distillation, the most orthodox climate research projects get the funding. Funding allows the now-successful young academic to buttress his hypothesis and the beliefs of the grant committee that channeled funding to him. Never underestimate how research studies in any field are designed to accomplish the affirmation of the desired outcome, as opposed to examining the truth of a hypothesis. Confirmation bias is a poison within most every field. Also, the pressured academic will find ways to justify picking and choosing data consistent with his hypothesis, and even dispensing inconsistent data, perhaps convincing himself that something went wrong with the measurement system. If his project (done well or done poorly) appears to prove his hypothesis, he then publishes a paper. If the project fails to show that CO2 hurts polar bear babies, it’s unlikely that the young scientist will write a manuscript about it.
          6. Even if a particularly ethical scientist goes through the effort to write a paper that fails to support climate change concerns, it will be harder to get it published. Peer reviewers will be more critical, because it doesn’t reinforce their worldview. But it will likely be rejected by the editor before going to peer review. Then, the author would have to go through the considerable effort of resubmitting the manuscript elsewhere or respond to the reviewers’ critiques by doing more studies.

          And it just isn't worth it, because publishing such a paper could only hurt his career, marking him as a rogue, dissident, or traitor. So, the young academic understandably sticks the rejected manuscript and its data in a desk drawer. This process of selective manuscript writing, editorial bias, peer-review bias, and selective resubmission, are four important reinforcing biases that further distill the scientific liquor. Because of these, it is highly unlikely we will ever see a published article concluding that CO2 doesn’t adversely affect polar bear babies.

          7. Publication of manuscripts (which are mostly going to be orthodox) is important for the success of a young academic. It’s a cycle. Grants fund research. Research enables publication. Publication enables more grants. This is the academic hamster wheel of the successful climate scientist. A negative paper could throw a monkey wrench in the cycle. That’s dangerous for a young PhD. So the remaining few young academics foolish enough to get an unorthodox or negative manuscript published are more likely to wash out of the field and become TV weathermen or journalists.

          8. To top it all off, it’s well known that even pro-orthodoxy climate research papers will only get attention from the lay press and mainstream media if it is REALLY BAD NEWS. If it bleeds, it leads. So we hear of the unprecedented increases in category 5 hurricanes, deadly forest fires in California, or more floods in New Orleans—all “caused by climate change” (a statement made with zero substantiation). As for reporting on a paper saying that sea levels aren’t going to rise 200 feet? What self-disrespecting mainstream click-baiting “journalist” would waste time taking such a story to their editor?

          The process of nurturing and selecting the climate scientist starts in kindergarten, progresses through high school and college, then to grant funding, manuscript preparation, and publication, and is then only seen through the lens of the media’s selective presentation. The many reinforcing layers of bias create a distillate of pure concentrated climate orthodoxy for the world to imbibe.

          We are told that 97% of climate scientists agree with their own scientific consensus. That’s a misleading statement, as that figure actually refers to 97% of climate scientists actively publishing in scientific journals, and we know how unlikely it is for a climate skeptic to join the field or to get published. It’s amazing that even 3% sneak through. For this reason and others, consensus ranks alongside expert opinion in its uselessness for the identification of truth. It should be no more surprising that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists accept the climate change orthodoxy than that 97% of seminary graduates would believe in their religion.

          Agnostics rarely go to seminary. Likewise, the neutral and unbiased rarely become climate scientists or remain in the field.
          Climate is an important issue. We need to get our heads around it in an intellectually honest way. In my view, the climate science community has not done that, and is incapable of doing it.

          So does global warming present a problem for us? With the climate science community doing the science, how could I possibly know?

          And what about the people who are so sure they do know? They’re basing their belief on their ingestion of a highly distilled product, selectively obtained by the systematic elimination of unorthodoxy. For this to occur requires no conspiracy. It happens whenever people maintain an unsound, internally conflicting ideology—because they can’t recognize BS through their distorted lens.

          Regards,

          John Hunt, MD
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  pixelate 7 months, 1 week ago
            Thanks for the post.
            I find that when I try to dispel the Global Climate Change warning to my left-leaning friends -- in particular, to assure them that polar bears are not in danger -- these friends become upset. One would expect a rational person to be happy to learn that those nice bears are not facing extinction and that their fears are unfounded. But no, they hold fast to their Climate Change orthodoxy as though it were an accepted religion that is not to be questioned.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 7 months, 1 week ago
              Next time you see them, have them lay down in a quiet room and take some deep breath’s.
              Then you and a friend need to chant,
              “The power of reason compels you”
              “The power of reason compels you”
              “The power of reason compels you”

              Warning this can be very dangerous!
              /s
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
            Thanks for posting Dr. Hunt's essay. I'll break down his points in the way I understand them.

            Popular words for global warming change over time - This is in consequential.

            Scientific bias - This is true in many fields. Science is supposed to welcome new ideas, but its pracitioners often dismiss ideas that don't support the current paradigm.

            Self-reinforcing bias - He's saying starting from the youngest age and all the way through becoming an expert, we discourage finding new things and reward people for confirming existing understanding. I disagree completely with this.

            Patronage - Funding has always been an issue for science. If there is a funding bias, though, I would expect it to be in favor of understating global warming since so much economic activity contributes to it.

            Bias against publishing null results - I have heard about this issue in many contexts. I'm not ready to throw out science because human bias finds its way in. Would he say studies that don't show no health benefit from statins wouldn't get funded, so we have no way to know if statins are helpful? It seems like he's ready to throw out all science.

            Self-selection - "Agnostics rarely go to seminary" - This is based on the false premise that the only reason people study the climate is to find anthropogenic climate change. But we know people go into similar fields studying archane processes that have no prospect of a politically-charged result.

            "how could I possibly know?" - Indeed. Isn't this the crux of it? If humans are flawed and biased, how can we know anything? The post-modernist argument as I understand it goes: "Whenever we study the world, we're studying models to represent reality. Since those models change over time, we know the models are not the same as reality. There is no way to remove human bias from science. So science naturally afirms the power structure in which its practioners operate. We need to start with the politics and how to create just/fair power structures. Science is just a window into those power structures. We don't actually know anything from science."

            I categorically disagree with post-modernism. We need to do our best to understand the world despite human foibles, despite if the answer is exploited by manipulative people. Science isn't about believing things in our hearts. It's a process of experimentation and building models to understand the world.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
          CG, Really? "There's no serious debate that the evidence shows it's happening and is hastened by human activities' well then why the hell is Oregon still trying to ram 1.5 billion in Cap and Trade down our throats to "save the world from climate change"? Do not be so naive....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
            I'm missing something. I'm saying the current evidence is human activities are changing the climate and the changes will cost other people. I'm saying science is always open to new evidence, but right now that's how it looks. Claims that it's not happening are based on wishful thinking. So governments respond by taxing activities commensurate with the mess they make. Before you know it, innovative people will find ways to avoid making the mess or to clean up the mess.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
              And I am saying that the change in climate is NOT man made, or provable as man made, but is a natural occurrence that has gone on for thousands of years. There is NO evidence to support the "man does it". There is lots of evidence that this has happened over and over, because of other factors (solar changes, Earth changes, axial tilt, magnetic filters).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
                So it comes back to questioning whether the current scientific understanding right. New evidence certainly will be found, and our understanding certainly will change. But you don't need to pay attention to any of that because you already know the answer.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
                  CG, data, and false premises and false narratives, they do not work well together, that is the "man made Climate change" myth. If they just would shut up and concentrate on combating the effects of climate change (as measured) rather than trying to stop it (which is impossible), they would be a lot further ahead.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months, 1 week ago
                    " shut up and concentrate on combating the effects of climate change"
                    It's better to avoid people than to try to make them shut up.

                    I am not knowledgeable about what we should do about global warming. It seems like the only tool we have is reducing greenhouse emissions. But that tool isn't very good. It seems hard to have billions of people enjoying an affluent life and going back to 1990s emissions. That only slows the problem. And if we magically stopped all emissions, the earth would still be changing, possibly in ways costly to humans. So it seems like we need some other approach. Geoengineering sounds nice, but it doesn't exist year. I think it's possible that we taxed carbon emissions in place of taxing work/investment, maybe someone would think of a very low emission way of storing, transporting, and releasing energy.

                    As you say, in the minds of talking heads and politicians, there's plenty to do. They never let a crisis go to waste. But what's the scientific action to take? My understanding is scientists know it's happening but do not know a practical way to stop it. This environment leads people to just deny the reality of it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  7 months, 1 week ago
                      CG, the point is stop wasting time and trying to milk people of their money for something that has enough data to prove it is not as they say it is, so they cannot use it as the justification to tax us more. It is a boondoogle, a ripoff, and a cottage industry, look at Gore, who is about as carbon generating a creature as there is and has made millions on it.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 months ago
                        "so they cannot use it as the justification to tax us more"
                        If I knew people would use global warming to increase taxes and I saw argument from final consequences as a valid argument, we wouldn't even need to do any research on this. We don't like the consequences of giving someone an argument to raise taxes, so the science must be wrong somehow.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo