*BELCH* Chew on it, folks. Humans will not kill life on earth. Earth will kill life on earth, when it damn well pleases. Everything in the universe is a cycle. Including our "climate changes".
This whole thread is bullshit. Too much of anything can disrupt a system and become a pollutant. Potassium is absolutely necessary to your physical well being but if your levels get too high you’ll blow out your kidneys. Same is true with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, too much and it blows out the earths natural ability to deflect heat from the sun. Y’all right wingers are retards.
THE POLICY DEBATE with respect to anthropogenic climate-change typically revolves around the accuracy of models. Those who contend that models make accurate predictions argue for specific policies to stem the foreseen damaging effects; those who doubt their accuracy cite a lack of reliable evidence of harm to warrant policy action. These two alternatives are not exhaustive. One can sidestep the "skepticism" of those who question existing climate-models, by framing risk in the most straightforward possible terms, at the global scale. That is, we should ask "what would the correct policy be if we had no reliable models?" We have only one planet. This fact radically constrains the kinds of risks that are appropriate to take at a large scale. Even a risk with a very low probability becomes unacceptable when it affects all of us – there is no reversing mistakes of that magnitude. Without any precise models, we can still reason that polluting or altering our environment significantly could put us in uncharted territory, with no statistical trackrecord and potentially large consequences. It is at the core of both scientific decision making and ancestral wisdom to take seriously absence of evidence when the consequences of an action can be large. And it is standard textbook decision theory that a policy should depend at least as much on uncertainty concerning the adverse consequences as it does on the known effects. Further, it has been shown that in any system fraught with opacity, harm is in the dose rather than in the nature of the offending substance: it increases nonlinearly to the quantities at stake. Everything fragile has such property. While some amount of pollution is inevitable, high quantities of any pollutant put us at a rapidly increasing risk of destabilizing the climate, a system that is integral to the biosphere. Ergo, we should build down CO2 emissions, even regardless of what climate-models tell us. This leads to the following asymmetry in climate policy. The scale of the effect must be demonstrated to be large enough to have impact. Once this is shown, and it has been, the burden of proof of absence of harm is on those who would deny it. It is the degree of opacity and uncertainty in a system, as well as asymmetry in effect, rather than specific model predictions, that should drive the precautionary measures. Push a complex system too far and it will not come back. The popular belief that uncertainty undermines the case for taking seriously the ’climate crisis’ that scientists tell us we face is the opposite of the truth. Properly understood, as driving the case for precaution, uncertainty radically underscores that case, and may even constitute it. Source: https://fooledbyrandomness.com/climateletter.pdf
A well written argument for moving forward with CO2 abatement. It contains at least one inconsistency. And it omits consideration of the most important alternative conclusion. The inconsistent argument arises when it is stated The scale of the effect must be demonstrated to be large enough to have impact. Once this is shown, and it has been, the burden of proof of absence of harm is on those who would deny it.. The author is drawing on the models when he states parathetically "and it has been." This is after he has just convinced some of us that even if the models are all wrong we should not roll the dice when the conseqences of our not acting are dire. He has failed to recognize that a conclusion that the "scale of the effect must be large enough to have impact..." Is dependent on models. This is disconcerting when we know that no model has been as yet shown to be correct. All models that have existed long enough to test their predictive quality have been shown to be wrong, drastically in many cases. What is happening in reality then? It's this: the IPCC is adjusting the parameters in their currently favored models every few years. This brings the models predictions into acceptable agreement with the last few years of data! Sadly, we prefer a model that correctly predicts the future rather than the past! (See Nir Shaviv). So what if the models are all wrong. If there are some guesses coming from competent climate scientists that rising CO2 may lead to catrastrophic temperature rise wouldn't it make sense to be cautious and stop releasing so much anthro CO2 into the only atmosphere we have? That's how the argument goes, and it seems to be a good one when the consequences of doing nothing about CO2 emission could wreck our planet's human habitat. Unfortunately the author of this otherwise fine article has not recognized that there is already scientific findings that have not yet been shown to be incorrect and are fully suported by data that are dispositive of the Hanson Hypothesis. This is the hypothesis that anthropomorphic CO2 will result in catastrophic temperature rise. Many sound arguments exist for development of non-fossil energy sources, and many strong arguments can be made for the US participation in international climate accords. An argument based on fear of catastrophic warming due to anthropomorphic CO2 is not one of them however. This is not to suggest that our Earth is not warming. But if it is, it is not measurably due to rising anthropomorphic CO2. We can be absolutely certain of one thing, however, the climate will continue to change as it always has. If we find it rapidly changing in a way that is inhospitable to human life, we had better get busy and find out why. Perhaps it is due to human thermal pollution or some other anthropomorphic cause. If the cause is anthropomorphic in nature, then we should be able to do something about it.
Some PhD scientists who have looked a climate studies in detail maintain that we are near the top of one of these long cycles, though they don't all agree on the cycle's period The data you posted may be some of the data they are looking at to inform their opinions.
At one his rallies, a sign was posted on a tree that read, "Chop me down before I kill again." This is also from the same party of supporters who believe vaccines cause autism.