Wow, you correct spelling on internet forums. If you can't defend the argument then look for words they misspelled. Thats enlightment.
Well, at last you found something you could latch on to. It is obvious you pretty much gloss over anything that looks like evidence, facts or reality, so I tried to give you something bite sized. But your use of such a bad misspelling of clever was seriously pathetic. Especially when I used a completely valid idiom, and you tried to look smart and did that (cuhckle). Now apply that to CO2, methane and global warming problems, but this time do something different. It is called "stop basing your opinions and statements on your highly flawed and malfunctioning viewpoints Do some "RESEARCH". Or in your case, "reserch."
What is this MMGW that we are talking and what is the objective of those who put forth the myth? The myth of MMGW has less to do with science and more to do with politics. Those who perpetrate the myth wish to put draconian restrictions on the economy in the name of saving the world. This is cheap talk that promises the world but will fail to deliver any results. In order for me to buy into the MMGW hype I need three criteria to be met. 1. We have to have real evidence that we are causing global warming and the human induced GW has to be significant. This has not be demonstrated. 2. It has to be shown that the human induced increase in temp is harmful. I have not seen any evidence of this. Why we assume we know the optimal temp of the Earth is beyond me. 3. It has to be shown that we can actually control it. I have seen zero evidence to suggest that we have any way to change the climate in a way that we see as beneficial. Is there a 'consensus' on these three criteria? No, there isn't. Lets look into criteria number 1. Even scientist who buy into MMGW, there are many who think the human induced climate change will be minimal. There are many who say the forces in play are so complicated that models put forth cannot accurately predict the climate in the future(this is my belief). Criteria number 2. Is it bad? Is there a consensus that it is bad? It certainly seems to me that thousands of square miles of farmland will be opened up if it were a little warmer. The MMGW people say the coldest parts of Earth will get warmer, while the warmest places on Earth will stay about the same. If thats the case, whats the problem. Look at population density in the tropics vs the artic and antartic zones. There is higher population density where it is warm. No consensus here. Criteria number 3. Can we alter the climate in a way that we see as beneficial? This has to be the most bizarre claim of them all. There is flat-out zero 'consensus' that we can make a conscience effort to change the climate to our liking. If you can't do it, why pass the law.
Actually it has. Isotope monitoring of C13/C12 ratios has shown conclusively that the additional CO2 has been man made. References: Bousquet et al. (2000), Regional changes of CO2 fluxes over land and oceans since 1980, Science, Vol 290, 1342-1346. Ciais et al. (1995), A Large Northern Hemisphere Terrestrial CO2 Sink Indicated by the 13C/12C Ratio of atmospheric CO2, Science, Vol 269, pp. 1098-1102. Keeling, Piper and Heimann (1996), Global and hemispheric CO2 sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric O2 concentration, Nature, Vol 381, 218-221. McNeil et al. (2003), Anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean based on the global chlorofluorocarbon data set, Science, Vol 299, 235-239. Takahashi et al. (2002), Global sea-air CO2 flux based on climatological surface ocean pCO2, and seasonal biological and temperature effects, Deep Sea Research, Vol 49, 1601-1622. There have already been proven costs of biodiversity. Ocean acidification and rising oceans alone pose a serious threat as can be seen here: http://www.env.duke.edu/solutions/documents/Oppenheimer_ONeill.pdf So yes, the human increases in CO2 have been harmful and if the THC shuts down, as it will at high CO2 concentrations there is only a modest probability of "unmanageable outcomes." Quite the dice roll. Clearly we already did control it so your thought that we can't control it is false. So now we have to reduce the impact of these emissions as much as possible.
This illustrates the problem. Bigdave actually seems to think his post rebutted the three questions. Now he will post for 20 pages saying he rebutted them. In reality, he reached into his data base of talking points and tossed out a few non sequitors.
Here are the points he made: "1. We have to have real evidence that we are causing global warming and the human induced GW has to be significant. This has not be demonstrated." Massive evidence has been supplied. " 2. It has to be shown that the human induced increase in temp is harmful. I have not seen any evidence of this. Why we assume we know the optimal temp of the Earth is beyond me." This is addressed in the paper linked. I can happily go into more detail, as the IPCC dedicates entire pages to what constitutes a dangerous level of CO2 and why. " 3. It has to be shown that we can actually control it. I have seen zero evidence to suggest that we have any way to change the climate in a way that we see as beneficial." Since we already have controlled it, it is obvious that we can and did control it. Would you like to clarify, AAA, what exactly you feel I missed?
I actually thought it would take more than a few minutes for him to start claiming he rebutted the unanswered questions, but maybe it is a slow day for interns at the DNC. Dave, sorry but citing IPCC reports is not proof. They are deeply flawed political documents, disavowed by some of the more prominent scientists who participated. There are no credible studies proving CO2 has caused any rise in temps. How could there be when temps have declined over the past ten years and maybe longer? Citing a few scare articles about loss of "biodiversity" likewise proves nothing. We know the planet has flourished in the past with higher temps. Change is inevitable in any case. You seemed to have totally missed the point of his third question. Your answer is a non sequitor. He is asking what proof is there that if we do everything nutcases like hansen and obama want that there wil be any effect on global temps? Particulalry when the chinese have already blown us off on doing anything themselves? Clearly the answer is we will have destroyed our economy and caused people massive burdens for no discernible reason, except to give democrats total control over the economy. It's become increasingly obvious that is the only point of this entire exercise.
Actually I just listed five studies from five different sets of authors, none of which were the IPCC report. I haven't cited it, but your claim is irrelevant as at least 97% of specialists in the field endorse the report and its conclusions. No measure of any reasonable sample size has indicated that temperatures have declined. You can see the data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#sr05 You may wish to note that the dinosaurs are dead. There are multiple possible outcomes, each scenario according to the IPCC is equally likely. The world goal seems to be to try to keep the temperature increases worldwide to 2 degrees above current levels. The article that I linked to analyzes the probabilities. You may wish to read it. You're right that the US is no longer a world leader and that China is, but some of us still hold out hope that this will change. Yes, if you ignore all available evidence, a massive panel of scientists, the fact that hundreds of other countries have signed on and the Democrats aren't in other countries, then yes, it's obvious.
1. I see a lot references to CO2 and very few references to temp. My claim made zero references to CO2 so I don't know why you brought it up. My argument is strickly based on temp. Since GW is about the temp, lets start there. 2. There have been max extinctions way before we came along and countless species which have gone extinct since humans were around but before the burning of fossil fuel. It happens. The warming of the Earth can have positive AND negative effects. When all you do is spew the negative, you come across as a doomsdayer and the doomsday scenerio as put forth forth by the GW alarmist has ZERO credibility. 3. We control it? Its a chaotic system. Please show where we controlled it. We don't control the climate and we can't control the climate. This claim stinks of pure arrogance.
1- Dave's an idiot. CO2 effects are log, not linear. Even his beloved IPCC agrees to this. 2- yup. References to mass extinctions are again idiotic when all they do is enforce the correct view that these happened without our influence, and in fact had little to do with any global warming. 3- it stinks of pure dogma. Dave's views: temps are increasing long term and CO2 caused it. None of this is proven. One lie depends on the other. Solar radiation controls the earth's temp through increased water vapor. Water vapor is dependent on temps, and has 95% of the heating effects on us. The IPCC and most others ignore this. End of story. But dumbass Dave replied to me that it couldn't be cuz we're at a solar minimum, which has an 11 yr cycle. An 11 yr cycle is insignificant if you're trying to disprove the solar influence on long term temp changes. It's garbage. Meanwhile, Dave's beloved NASA has been measuring solar radiation since the mid 70's, and they say it's been going up. Now watch, Dave will ask for links, proving that he doesn't even know what the evidence he's arguing against. Typical useful idiot. Trying to show him that there's another side to the story is about as fruitless as showing "9/11 was an inside jobby job" wackos the truth. They have no interest in even knowing what the objections to their stupidity is........