[Cascade]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-13, 11:44, said:

I am honestly impressed by your tenacity.

In 50 years when the world is 4 degrees warmer and millions have died, I am sure you will still believe just as strongly then as you do now. Your mind has a wonderful way of warping reality.

There have been decades of this without any significant warming why would we expect at this point that the world will be 4 degrees warmer in 50 years?

[billw55]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-13, 11:44, said:

I am honestly impressed by your tenacity.

In 50 years when the world is 4 degrees warmer and millions have died, I am sure you will still believe just as strongly then as you do now. Your mind has a wonderful way of warping reality.

In 50 years when the world is 4 degrees warmer (or however much) and millions have died (or however many), I do not want to be lamenting the hundreds of billions of dollars (or however much) that could have been used to help them, but was instead squandered on futile attempts at prevention.

Yes the world is getting warmer. We need to adapt.

[dwar0123]

billw55, on 2012-November-13, 15:52, said:

In 50 years when the world is 4 degrees warmer (or however much) and millions have died (or however many), I do not want to be lamenting the hundreds of billions of dollars (or however much) that could have been used to help them, but was instead squandered on futile attempts at prevention.

Yes the world is getting warmer. We need to adapt.

I am not sure where you think we disagree.

Unless you are under the impression that adaption is free?

[Al_U_Card]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-13, 16:37, said:

I am not sure where you think we disagree.

Unless you are under the impression that adaption is free?

Certainly proven to be less expensive than the pipe-dream of controlling global climate with a carbon tax or exchange trading scheme. Tax and scheme....interesting but not as interesting as where you get your actual information and data from rather than the propaganda that you are presenting.

BTW, how about this for the scandal-plagued BBC and its approach to "climate" reporting?

From Lions and tigers and bears, oh no!

The BBC and broken Hockey Stick?

In March 2006 the BBC aired a program called Meltdown, (Youtube here) where the presenter posed as a mildly sceptical individual, trying to resolve the arguments for and against man-made climate change. The culmination of the program was the hockey stick graph, with the intention to show clear and unprecedented ‘dangerous’ climate change and that previous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period were minimised.

The fact that the ‘hockey stick’ had been discredited seems lost on the BBC, and they go to a scientist very clearly on one side of the debate to explain it to the viewer. No mention of the controversy, no mention of McIntyre & McKitrick’s papers and in fact the BBC producer is telling Briffa what he must do to convey the message of the program, to discredit sceptical ideas and convince the viewer of the consensus scientific arguments.

Hi Keith, [Briffa]
Good to talk to you this morning. Just a few thoughts to reiterate what we’re hoping to get out of filming tomorrow.

1) Your interview appears at a crucial point in the film. Up until now our presenter (Paul Rose, he’ll be there tomorrow) has followed two conflicting thoughts. On the one hand he’s understood that the world is currently getting warmer.

But on the other he’s discovered lots of historical stories (the Bronze Age, the MWP, the LIA) which tell him that climate changes naturally all the time. In trying to resolve this paradox he’s come across this thing called the hockey stick curve, and he’s come to you to explain it to him.

2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present
warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that.

This is a very bigmoment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global
warming.

3) The hockey stick curve shows that what Paul thought were big climate events (the Bronze Age maximum, the MWP, the LIA) actually when looked at in a global context weren’t quite as dramatic as he thought. They’re there, but they are nothing like as sudden or big.

4) Paul can question you on things like: How reliable is the hockey stick curve? How do you work out past climate (cue for you to talk about proxies)? What drives all the “natural”
fluctations in climate (this can be answered in very broad terms eg it’s down to changes in the sun’s output, volcanoes etc)

5) In terms of filming my first choice is to do it as a projection in Zicer, where you show the Mann curve, then flick up as many other ones as you think are important (within reason!) and elaborate the point that what’s happening now is unprecedented compared to these historic records. In my ideal world, you walk right up to the projector image and
point things out on the screen, with parts of the projected image falling on your heads and shoulders. Stills of tree rings or anything else climate related eg ice cores, corals,
would also work as powerpoints, because you could talk about them as egs of proxies.

Hopefully this makes it clear what I’m trying to achieve.” (email 1683)

Looking back on this I wonder how Keith Briffa felt about this request, as in the original emails, he was disagreeing with other scientist and saying he thought it might be as least as warm a thousand years ago.

[Al_U_Card]

[Al_U_Card]

Now, the CAGW alarmists would have us believe that this "dirty" weather is unprecedented (not even close, historically) and a direct result of our (not really very) warming planet. All because of us and our nasty CO2...

Al Gore is putting on another of his 24 hour rants on Current TV (before he bails on that, making out like a bandit). Happily Anthony Watts is putting up a webcast that will run concurrently and will showcase actual science and real data rather than the advocate hyperbole that AG promulgates.

See for yourself:

Cooler heads prevail over hot air...

[blackshoe]

"Advocate hyperbole" is bread and butter to a politician. Al Gore is a politician.

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-14, 16:04, said:

"Advocate hyperbole" is bread and butter to a politician. Al Gore is a politician.

And he is no longer subject to the public scrutiny that the political process affords.

p.s. Thanks for quoting Jillybean. Along with Caryn42, my two most favorite BBO members ♥♥

[luke warm]

our friends in the u.k. siad global warming stopped 16 years ago... i have no idea if their claim is accurate, but there it is

[Daniel1960]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-13, 11:44, said:

I am honestly impressed by your tenacity.

In 50 years when the world is 4 degrees warmer and millions have died, I am sure you will still believe just as strongly then as you do now. Your mind has a wonderful way of warping reality.

You should probably say IF. Considering that over the past 100 years, the world temperature has only increased 0.35 degrees (unless you are quoting Fahrenheit), your rate of increase is twenty-fold higher that recently observed. Do you have any reason to believe that we will experience such a drastic increase in the coming five decades compared to the previous 10?

[blackshoe]

"The sky is falling!"

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-15, 12:40, said:

"The sky is falling!"

now there's something we can all believe

[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2012-November-15, 12:27, said:

You should probably say IF. Considering that over the past 100 years, the world temperature has only increased 0.35 degrees (unless you are quoting Fahrenheit), your rate of increase is twenty-fold higher that recently observed. Do you have any reason to believe that we will experience such a drastic increase in the coming five decades compared to the previous 10?

I plead guilty to being an American and still using the backwards Fahrenheit scale.

I should still probably say if, but I am hardly the only one guilty of that crime here.

[Daniel1960]

dwar0123, on 2012-November-15, 13:57, said:

I plead guilty to being an American and still using the backwards Fahrenheit scale.

I should still probably say if, but I am hardly the only one guilty of that crime here.

Okay, we are on common ground now. I wholeheartedly agree that adaption is the better choice. It is significantly cheaper and more palatable to the general public, not to mention the agricultural benefits of a warmer, wetter world with high CO2 levels. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but that has happened throughout history, and those that have adapted best, come out on top. This is not to be callous, just practical.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2012-November-16, 06:25, said:

Okay, we are on common ground now. I wholeheartedly agree that adaption is the better choice. It is significantly cheaper and more palatable to the general public, not to mention the agricultural benefits of a warmer, wetter world with high CO2 levels. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but that has happened throughout history, and those that have adapted best, come out on top. This is not to be callous, just practical.

Since World War II, people have grappled with the Holocaust. How could a civilized country like Germany go about trying to wipe a race of people off the earth. One of the telling phrases from these discussions is the banality of evil.

Your discuss about "winners and losers" and those "who have adapted best come out on top" is very reminiscent.

"It's a damn shame those Africans and Bangladeshis didn't adapt better when the developed world started poisoning the commons..."

FWIW, I know Godwin's law better than most.
Even so, when folks are advocating genocide it seems appropriate to bring the Nazi's into the picture.

[Al_U_Card]

Can you say: "Eco-fascists"?

...if: you’ve had your view ruined and your property value trashed by a wind farm; you’re one of the 2,700 people killed in Britain last year by fuel poverty; you can’t get a job; you’ve lost your job; you’re skint; your kids can’t sleep because they’re so worried about the pets that are going to be drowned by the carbon monster; you’ve ever wondered why occasionally — even once would be nice — the BBC doesn’t make a programme about ‘climate change’ which isn’t relentlessly alarmist.

There’s a reason for all this — one that the BBC has spent six years trying to conceal. The story goes back to a seminar, held in January 2006, where the BBC (to quote one of its own reports) gathered ‘the best scientific experts’ who concluded that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ on anthropogenic climate change...

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-November-16, 07:08, said:

Can you say: "Eco-fascists"?

Stop pretending that your asinine little circle jerk is a conversation.

You post reams of crap.
Every once and a while, people come on to mock you and let you know that you are despised.

The world would be a better place if you were dead.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2012-November-16, 06:53, said:

Since World War II, people have grappled with the Holocaust. How could a civilized country like Germany go about trying to wipe a race of people off the earth. One of the telling phrases from these discussions is the banality of evil.

Your discuss about "winners and losers" and those "who have adapted best come out on top" is very reminiscent.

"It's a damn shame those Africans and Bangladeshis didn't adapt better when the developed world started poisoning the commons..."

FWIW, I know Godwin's law better than most.
Even so, when folks are advocating genocide it seems appropriate to bring the Nazi's into the picture.

Since WWII, The Soviets wiped out millions in the gulags, The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1.5 million Cambodians, Up to a million may have been killed in the Rwandan genocide, The Ottoman Empire wiped out between 1 and 1.5 millian Armenians. Germany did not have a monopoly on evil or genocide. Mass killings neither began nor ended in the 20th century, and none of these had anything to do with climate adaptation.

History tells of many civilizations that likely disappeared due to climatic changes; the Mayans, Anasazi, Indus, and the Greenland Vikings for starters. Many of the World's poor depend upon the rich nations for assistance. Enacting draconian measures in an ill-fated attempt to curb climate change, would only result in economic decline of the Western world. How much money would be available then to help the poorest nations? Under the worst-case warming scenarios for the 21st century, Bangledesh and other low-lying nations would face disaster, but many of the wealthiest (U.S., Canada, Russia, and Western Europe) would prosper. It would then be our obligation to further assist these impoverished nations - and we would have added funds to do so. Would you deprive these countries of added assistance? By the way, Africa has experienced increase rainfall during past warming episodes, and decreased rainfall during cooling, very little adaption would be required on their part.

[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2012-November-16, 08:40, said:

Since WWII, The Soviets wiped out millions in the gulags, The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1.5 million Cambodians, Up to a million may have been killed in the Rwandan genocide, The Ottoman Empire wiped out between 1 and 1.5 millian Armenians. Germany did not have a monopoly on evil or genocide. Mass killings neither began nor ended in the 20th century, and none of these had anything to do with climate adaptation.

History tells of many civilizations that likely disappeared due to climatic changes; the Mayans, Anasazi, Indus, and the Greenland Vikings for starters.

There is a difference between the previous falls of civilizations due to climatic changes and the proposed current one. A difference that makes it very relatable to the mass killings.

We are causing it.

[mike777]

gen·o·cide (jn-sd) KEY

NOUN:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.



I hope one can discuss alternative approaches to global warming and not be accused of fostering genocide.


Given how people hated being without power, cheap and reliable power after Sandy, it is rather mean to lay such a guilt trip on America if you hve reservations about some version of a carbon tax.

OTOH as I have mentioned before if you view global warming as an urgent problem, there are only bad choices today.

If the issue is less urgent, adaption is something worth looking into and pursing as one possible option among many including innovation.