Climate Change

2014 One of the Warmest Years, But Maybe Not the Warmest, Say U.K. Climatologists

The British data best describe a constant global average temperature for the past 18 years, says Global Warming Policy Foundation

|

Best Thermometer
Dreamstime

Last week headlines proclaimed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. This was based largely on temperature data released by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In fact, there is 38 percent chance that 2014 was warmer than 2010 or 2005 in the NOAA records. Even if 2014 was the warmest year, global mean temperature averaged only 0.04 degree Celsius higher than the average for those two years. It is true that the last decade was warmer than the 20th century average.

The Berkeley Earth group reported:

The global surface temperature'average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can't be certain it set a new record.

Now the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit have released their temperature data and the conclusion is a more measured: 2014 one of the warmest years on record globally. From the Met Office:

The  HadCRUT4 dataset (compiled by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit) shows last year was 0.56C (±0.1C*) above the long-term (1961-1990) average.

Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.

Colin Morice, a climate monitoring scientist at the Met Office, said: "Uncertainties in the estimates of global temperature are larger than the differences between the warmest years. This limits what we can say about rankings of individual years.

"We can say with confidence that 2014 is one of ten warmest years in the series and that it adds to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last two decades."

The folks over at the Global Warming Policy Foundation who are skeptical of climate model predictions of future catastrophic man-made warming noted:

With the release of the 2014 HadCRUT4 data by the UK Met Office, and the previous release of global temperature data by Berkeley Earth, Nasa and Noaa, the main conclusion to be drawn from the data is that 2014 was a warm year, but not statistically distinguishable from most of the years of the past decade or so meaning that the "pause" in global annual average surface temperatures continues. …

2014 fits in perfectly with the suggestion that for the past 18 years HadCRUT4 is best represented by a constant temperature.

In other words, it's hottish, but hasn't got a lot hotter lately.

The World Meterological Organization will issue its verdict on the rank of 2014 next week.

NEXT: U.S. No Longer Slides in Economic Freedom Ratings, But Still Only 'Mostly Free'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You don’t get massive wealth redistribution engineered by being wishy-washy.

  2. Oh goody, a climate change thread. Cue Tony bloviating about AGW and how libertarians are evil for questioning its premise in 3…2…1…

    1. Not evil, stupid. Completely indistinguishable from creationists and their relationship to the science of evolution. Thus worthy of being ignored on any and all subjects requiring actual thought.

      1. Yeah. People who actually understand science are stupid, while those who parrot what they don’t understand are the smart ones. Sure, Tony. Whatever you say.

        1. You don’t understand fuck-all about anything.

          1. Shorter Tony: Polly wanna cracker!

          2. Completely indistinguishable from creationists and their relationship to the science of evolution.

            I love this rhetorical tactic by Carbon Clowns. They inadvertently admit they put the likes of Michael Mann’s hockey shtick on the same pedestal of intellectual credibility as evolution – one of the true All Stars in the scientific pantheon, up there with Archimedes and Einstein.

            Silly Carbon Clowns.

          3. I understand that it was snowing across the US until late May, in the same year all of the “smart” people insisted we would never see snow again.

            1. Yep, just came in from blowing the global warming off my driveway. Frankly, I would love it if winter was another 10 degrees warmer in the Mid Atlantic states. If the Batavi in pre-historic Netherlands could cope with rising sea levels, then perhaps modern man could too.

            2. No they didn’t. Surely you know that “it’s cold where I live right now” is truly the lamest of all denier lines.

              1. Jeezus Tony,

                It’s cold in the same spots where, wait for it, it is always cold this time of year. Winter is not a phenomenon; it’s an annual occurrence, despite the predictions of a snowless future from your side. One of those issuing that dire prediction works for the same East Anglia University unit that embarrassed itself with those pesky emails.

              2. You are right. I was taken in by Tacitus. Here’s what Wiki says: “The first dikes were low embankments of only a metre or so in height surrounding fields to protect the crops against occasional flooding. Around the 9th century the sea was on the advance again and many terps had to be raised to keep them safe. Many single terps had by this time grown together as villages. These were now connected by the first dikes.

                After 1000 AD the population grew, which meant there was a greater demand for arable land but also that there was a greater workforce available and dike construction was taken up more seriously. The major contributors in later dike building were the monasteries. As the largest landowners they had the organization, resources and manpower to undertake the large construction. By 1250 most dikes had been connected into a continuous sea defense.” So, I would think that a thousand years later, if and when the seas rise, mankind is technologically ready to save those coastal areas that require saving.

              3. Who is “no they didn’t”

                Every major advocate of Global Warming has been saying for the last 10 years that snow would soon be a thing of the past.

                They were wrong, wildly wrong. Now, that doesn’t prove anything one way or another I realize this…But why should I take them at face value now? If they were wrong about this, what else might they be wrong about? Maybe that Global warming is actually something to be concerned about?

                The epochs of Earth history where life flourished the most on this planet were also the times when it was significantly warmer than now, and with a much higher carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Was that some strange coincidence? Or maybe, just maybe, a warmer planet with more life giving carbon in the air is actually a good thing.

                1. The epochs of Earth history where life flourished the most on this planet were also the times when it was significantly warmer than now, and with a much higher carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere.

                  Yeah. They called those epochs Climate Optimums, as in the optimum climate for life on Earth.

                  Now as it looks like we’re heading into another one, the AGW cultists are screaming about how all life is going to end. Yet they are the ones who claim to have science on their side.

              4. No they didn’t. Surely you know that “it’s cold where I live right now” is truly the lamest of all denier lines.

                Yet you and your fellow cultists will scream from the rooftops whenever there is a heatwave or hurricane, claiming that it’s a climate event and proof that global warming is real.

                Then again it’s not like leftists are known for being logically consistent. Or honest.

              5. I find it tedious, but it’s a response to every other extreme weather event being touted as PROOF of climate change.

      2. So you are here ignoring us?

      3. Re: Tony,

        AGW is real. Humans are contributing to the change in the level of greenhouse gases on the Earth.

        This is true. I have relented on that. Maybe not 97% of climate scientists agree this is so but there are enough to sway a reasonable person. So, I am swayed.

        Now explain to me why AGW is a bad thing. No bloviation, no “coulds”, no “mays”, no “possibly”, not “weather is not climate except when it is,” not “but how could it not possibly be a bad thing?” and no appeals to ignorance or the “precautionary principle”, which is intellectual chicanery. I want to know WHY warming of the planet is a bad thing.

        Proceed.

        1. Satellite data completely contradicts ground station data. It was thrown out by climate scientists as being unreliable. But these same scientists were insisting just a few years ago that we should use the satellites because they are more reliable.

          What they meant was, temperature records are only reliable if they feed the global warming narrative.

      4. Has it occurred to you that someone can look at the same evidence and legitimately reach a different conclusion?

        1. Just as long as you understand what the evidence says to the near-unanimous majority of the people studying it and you put contrary claims in the proper context.

          1. The popularity of bloodletting in the classical Mediterranean world was reinforced by the ideas of Galen, after he discovered that not only veins but also arteries were filled with blood, not air as was commonly believed at the time. There were two key concepts in his system of bloodletting. The first was that blood was created and then used up; it did not circulate, and so it could “stagnate” in the extremities. The second was that humoral balance was the basis of illness or health, the four humours being blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile, relating to the four Greek classical elements of air, water, earth and fire respectively. Galen believed that blood was the dominant humour and the one in most need of control.

            1. But… But that was like 100 years ago, and he probably had slaves!

          2. Science is not a consensus! 1, 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 people agreeing something is true does not make it true.

            1. “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

  3. *Looks at the blizzard outside. Chuckles.*

    Yeah, I know weather isn’t climate. Except when it is (climate events).

    1. Weather is only climate when it supports the narrative. (See: hurricanes, tornado’s, floods, etc.)

      1. Exactly. A blizzard is just weather, but a hurricane is a climate event.

  4. The GWPF is an outfit whose purpose is to propagate climate-change denial and has no place in science reporting. Anyone accusing actual science of having an agenda surely must conclude that a think tank with a stated agenda is not to be trusted.

    1. Anyone accusing actual science of having an agenda surely must conclude that a think tank with a stated agenda is not to be trusted.

      Like the IPCC?

      1. The IPCC’s stated aim is to assess the scientific information relevant to climate change.

        1. Mm hm. That may be their stated agenda, but anyone with any reasoning skills (that leaves you out) can see what their actual agenda is.

          1. And what pray tell is that?

            1. It’s obvious to anyone with a functional brain (that leaves you out). And I have discovered that it’s a waste of time to point out the obvious to someone who can’t see it. If they can’t see it on their own, then they never will.

              1. Well, you’re a tiresome idiot.

        2. the GWPF’s stated aim is to “analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.”

          1. It’s not a scientific body. It’s a propaganda outfit, otherwise known as a think tank. It cherry picks papers that support its preconceived conclusions (if it ever finds any). It applies skepticism only to the climate change consensus in science. I’m just saying, note the difference between science and not-science.

            1. I’m simply quoting their stated aim- which you did the same for the IPCC.

              So, why would your argument for taking the stated aim work but mine doesn’t?

              1. Because he’s a dishonest piece of shit.

            2. That sounds like a near perfect description of the IPCC.

            3. It applies skepticism only to the climate change consensus in science. I’m just saying, note the difference between science and not-science.

              Haha, classic.

              They’re skeptical of orthodoxy! So recognize that what they’re doing is not-science.

        3. Which is why they include studies from activist groups like the WWF and Greenpeace.

          They looked a little silly after that Himalayian glacier claim, didn’t they now?

        4. Possibly, but the IPCC sure seems political.

    2. But they used the Church of Carbontology’s own data. If you think their summary of that data is wrong, then state why.

      1. They say, according to standards they just made up I guess, that 2014 is not “statistically” distinguishable from the rest of the decade, then slip in a bit about how that means, by some yet-unexplained phenomenon, the “pause” is still happening. But they’re only talking about a decade, which is of course too short a period to do anything but cherry pick start and end dates to support a preconceived conclusion, which is what the “pause” horseshit has always been about.

        1. The pause has been going on 18 years now, which, incidentally is one year longer than what James Hansen said would be necessary to make it significant.

        2. “which is of course too short a period to do anything but cherry pick start and end dates to support a preconceived conclusion,”

          Epic projection. Just epic.

        3. The IPCC timestamp for establishing ‘trends’ from noise in climate back in 1997 was fifteen years. Now its twenty. Funny that.

        4. T: I am reading and reporting two new papers from the literature that both accept the “pause” as real and needing explanation. See “The recent global-warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?” and “Regions of significant influence on unforced global mean surface air temperature variability in climate models.”

          The Duke U press release accompanying the second article notes:
          “The inconsistencies [between the 34 models studied] existed only in terms of the model’s ability to explain decade-to-decade variability, such as why global mean surface temperatures warmed quickly during the 1980s and 1990s, but have remained relatively stable since then.”

          Shorter: There is a pause in global mean temperature increases.

          1. Are the flagrant science deniers here not worthy of your attention because you think they’re too silly to respond to, or some other reason? I understand the context of the “hiatus,” that we’re talking about a slowdown in the rate of surface warming in the relevant timespan (depending on the start and end dates chosen), but not a slowdown in arctic sea ice decline or seal level rise, and that the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society have said explicitly that, especially once you include arctic data, there is “no pause.”

            But the relevant point is of course not the interesting if over-hyped information science has uncovered about the “hiatus,” but the fact that this has been trotted out by science deniers ad nauseam as some kind of proof that warming isn’t happening at all and the whole thing is a scam.

            1. the “deniers” are pointing to the pause chronicled in teh two papers Ron cites, the same pause that you are saying is not a real. Guess that makes you the denier.

              1. No, you’re waving around a bit of data and saying it is proof of a giant global conspiracy. You are not entitled to the claims you want to make.

                1. The only ones arguing a global conspiracy are the voices in your head

                  You are not entitled to the claims you want to make.

                  Self awareness is not your strong suit

                2. actually, Ron is waving two bits of scientific data that counter your claims regarding this pause. Conspiracy is your word, and with good reason.

                  1. The pause is not what you think it is.

        5. Tony, you ingnorant slut!
          You say “statistically” like that doesn’t mean anything, which shows you to be an ignorant fool who has no ability to even understand what is being discussed. Bottom line: There has not been a big enough change in yearly averages for the past 18 years for anyone with an understanding of even the simplest of basic statistics to call a CHANGE in temperature. The only ‘yet-unexplained phenomenon’ going on here is how you manage to not drown yourself in the shower every morning; maybe you don’t bathe?

        6. When does the blip become a real pause? Where are the goal posts?

          1. There’s never going to be a pause in warming significant enough to prove that the greenhouse effect was a hoax all along. This “pause” stuff is seriously overblown and you need to understand the facts before you let it become a catchall excuse for climate change denial.

            1. the pause is either real or a form of denial. It cannot be both. Pick one. And, as a bonus, answer HM’s question upthread: even if you are totally correct, what is the harm of a slight warming?

            2. I don’t think it’s a hoax, but I think it’s overblown and exaggerated to aggrandize the State. You seem to be saying that there isn’t a goal post, though, that there isn’t any evidence that will change your mind or at least introduce doubt. That’s one problem I have with CAGW–that it’s not falsifiable. All conditions support it, and it can predict anything (but only after it happens).

              1. How is it not falsifiable?

                1. How is it not falsifiable?

                  becuase the hypothesis of AGW does not consider the possibility that whatever is occurring would be occurring irrespective of man. In fact, it hinges on man as the culprit.

                  1. No it doesn’t. Climate scientists have most certainly studied natural factors. It’s just that they’ve ruled them all out. Sometimes scientists do know what the fuck they’re doing.

                    1. It’s just that they’ve ruled them all out.

                      bullfuckingshit. From global warming to climate change to whatever other euphemism you want, the enterprise has always rested on man as the cause. Man has always been the focal point of the hypothesis; man has never been viewed as a variable.

                    2. Climate scientists have most certainly studied natural factors. It’s just that they’ve ruled them all out.

                      Bullshit. They can’t define or explain “natural” climate variability, so they can’t even reach the conclusion that what we see today is outside the range of natural variability.

                      Meaning, they can’t rule out “natural” factors.

                    3. T: Actually the two papers I referenced in my response above are trying to take climatic factors into account that have evidently been missed by the models. See also my post, “Do Researchers Really Know Why Global Warming Is On Pause and When It Will End?

                2. What conditions would convince you that CAGW is overblown? You said a 100 year pause wouldn’t even do it. If the GAT went down slightly for 50 years, it’d still be a blip.

            3. There’s never going to be a pause in warming significant enough to prove that the greenhouse effect was a hoax all along.

              The breadth and depth of Tony’s thinking on the topic in one sentence.

              1. Pulled directly from Tony’s climate model/sphincter.

        7. Toney, you know fuck all about statistical analysis or ‘cherry picking’ or anything else for that matter.

    3. Anyone accusing actual science of having an agenda surely must conclude that a think tank with a stated agenda is not to be trusted.

      So . . . close.

      But none of the CAGW outfits have an agenda. Nope. Pure, 100 quill science there.

      1. By “CAGW outfits” you mean the entire scientific community of the planet earth?

        1. Well, yeah. When a condition of being accepted as a member of “the entire scientific community” is being a disciple of the AGW cult, then of course they’re all going to agree. Anyone who can’t see that is pretty fucking stupid. Like you.

          1. Isn’t that cute, it thinks the entire scientific community thinks CAGW is real.

            Newsflash to the retarded, that 97% number you throw around is from a poll of climate scientist, not all scientist.

            1. Well, a lot of other scientific associations have endorsed it too.

            2. Actually, the 97% number is from a review that committed egregious misconduct.

        2. By “CAGW outfits” you mean the entire scientific community of the planet earth?

          Nope. We mean ‘CAGW outfits.’ 97% of politically aligned self-appointed climatologists (there is no degree available in ‘climatology’) agree the government needs to do something. That is the alignment.

          Take for instance John Holdren, the President’s science advisor. He’s been on every doomsday eco-bandwagon going back to the seventies. The trendy doomsday scenario he’s promoting always changes – but Holdren’s prescription is always the same: Statist shit.

          Its the only constant in that political cottage industry.

      2. So . . . close.

        It just goes to show how people like Tony have absolutely zero reasoning ability.

        They’ll shout from the rooftops that studies funded by corporations can’t be trusted because of their profit motive, but can’t make the leap of logic to see that studies funded by governments can’t be trusted because of their power motive.

        1. Nobody cares what you have to say. You’re hurting their cause rather than helping it because you’re vulgar, stupid, and never say anything of substance.

          1. Tony,

            you’re surely better than that, right? I mean, come on.

            1. There is no evidence of that Spencer.

              1. you’re right. i’ve assumed too much.

            2. All sarc ever does is call names.

              1. Show us on the doll where Sarc poked his finger.

          2. I always get a laugh when a stupid person calls a smart person stupid because the stupid person is too stupid to understand what the smart person is saying.

            1. It’s great you can laugh at yourself like that.

              1. And this is why an ever growing crowd ignores you.

                1. Stop crying Swiss Miss

      3. You’re missing his point too though, which is that if we’re skeptical of mainstream science organizations we should be equally so of think tanks, unless it’s the conclusion that’s agreed with more than anything else.

        1. Don’t put fucking words in his mouth, that isn’t what he said or tried to say or even implied.

          He said we should trust one because their motives are pure and the other has ulterior motives.

          1. Bobarian,

            He will team up with Tony when it allows the maximum trolling – just let ‘im go seek attention elsewhere.

          2. Nope, maybe that’s what you understood, but what he said was

            Anyone accusing actual science of having an agenda surely must conclude that a think tank with a stated agenda is not to be trusted.

            1. ‘Actual science’ has nothing to do with what Tony talked about, it has to do with the organizations he gets his talking points from.

              Swiss is right, you’re as bad as Tony.

              I keep forgetting that your entire reason for being seems to be to argue over inconsequences.

        2. bullshit, Bo. Tony has NEVER advocated, hinted, or in any implied that skepticism of alarmist organizations is rational. To the contrary; he is consistent in calling such skepticism denial.

          1. The prime directive of my life is to proportion my beliefs to the evidence. I get that libertarians can’t do that, since they are required to believe a bunch of stuff that isn’t so.

            Unlike you I do read both/all sides (on this and every issue). Deniers are not convincing when weighed against the scientific evidence. It’s mostly BS talking points meant to confuse people. I know this because I pay attention. How much time do you spend reading the actual scientific literature (or summaries thereof) on this topic?

            1. you’re not reading both sides if one is reflexively dismissed as deniers. You have to explain why warming would be a bad thing or what govt could actually do about it, let alone showed a singe piece of evidence that documents a causal link between man and any change that is occurring.

              That last point, by the way, is what people mean about the hypothesis not being falsifiable. If you insist that your key variable is inviolate, then you are not conducting science. You’re looking for data that supports the conclusion.

              1. The field of research is many decades old and the evidence is long-established that human activity is causing warming. If you can’t even accept that much, then you’re not interested in having a mature and honest conversation, so one about policy is not possible.

                1. You mean that evidence that said if CO2 goes up to “this”, global average temperature will increase by “this”? Cause even if, as you say, there is no pause, the rate of increase HAS slowed down even as CO2 output (from other countries) has increased.

                  And one other thing: We’ve already reduced our carbon output to pre-Kyoto levels. If you want carbon rationing and other such bullshit, you better get Obama to force it down China and India’s throats cause we’ve already done our motherfucking part.

            2. The prime directive of my life is to proportion my beliefs to the evidence.

              Phhhbhhhahhahahhahahhhaaaahahaha

              *has heart attack and dies knowing that we have reached peak derp*

          2. What he said was IF one is skeptical of scientific orgs because of suspected indirect factors pushing towards bias then they should be biased of an actual ideological think tank.

            And unlike a lot of what I’ve heard him say that actually is sensible

            1. most folks here don’t have an issue being skeptical of anyone, as you ought to know by now. Pity Tony does not practice what he preaches.

    4. Tony what do you think about the solar atmosphere/sunspot hypothesis? You call people who ignore the carbon hypothesis deniers but aren’t people who ignore the sunspot hypothesis also deniers?

      Carbon (and methane) are a tiny % of total greenhouse gases, yet it’s plausible changes in carbon levels from human activity can change the climate even if carbon is a marginal greenhouse gas as even small % greenhouse gas increases matter.

      Yet the earth is so close to the sun it’s strongly affected by sunspot activity which affects the formation of clouds. Clouds account for a huge % of total greenhouse gases; even slight changes in cloud formation patterns will have a greater effect on the climate than a large change in CO2.
      There’s even this one British guy who’s accurately predicted the climate based solely on sunspot activity.

      If man-made co2 global warming is a plausible hypothesis then wouldn’t the sunspot hypothesis be just as plausible? Why is this always ignored by left-wing environmentalists?

      1. my guess is he doesn’t think about it at all.

        1. Tony doesn’t know how to think. It’s too hard.

          But he sure knows what he feels!

      2. Just remember to remain skeptical.

        “The AR5 draft report states that although there is “some evidence” that solar activity combined with cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds, and therefore temperatures, but the phenomenon is “too weak” to influence the climate in any significant way.

        The other major problem with the sunspots idea is that solar activity has largely flat-lined over the past 50 years, whereas average global temperatures have continued to rise, the IPCC report says.”

        Or was there some more recent sunspot-related shenanigans you’re referring to?

        1. was that a sarcastic remain skeptical?

          Because if it wasn’t my brain might explode.

          1. Didn’t some ass-hat say something a few posts back about cherry-picking data..?

            Fucking exasperating!

        2. average global temperatures have continued to rise

          Until about 15 years ago.

      3. It is always ignored because it can’t be used as a pretense to steal. Tony and his ilk are fucking thieves, straight up. They are running a con, and like any con they ignore anything that doesn’t support the narrative they have invented.

        1. Wait til someone says we need taxes to build a screen protecting us from solar flare ups

          1. That sounds far too productive. The new tax money will be scammed or frittered away on nonsense.

      4. If man-made co2 global warming is a plausible hypothesis then wouldn’t the sunspot hypothesis be just as plausible? Why is this always ignored by left-wing environmentalists?

        Why? Because the watermelons haven’t figured out a way to blame sunspot activity on capitalism – that’s why.

    5. Yes, people that disagree with your views must be stupid or evil. I think you’re just a step away from suggesting re-education camps.

      1. And nobody here is suggesting the supporters of AGW are evil???

        1. the supporters of AGW ARE evil because their prescriptions invariably involve some loss of liberty. The skeptics are not trying to tell you how to live. See if you notice a difference.

          1. “Yes, people that disagree with your views must be stupid or evil”

            1. no, just the people who wish to use force on me to adapt to their way of doing things. But you keep on mischaracterizing things that others say.

            2. “Yes, people that disagree with your views and want to impose their will on the rest of humanity must be stupid or evil”

              FTFY

        2. Bo, shut the fuck up. Your pathetic existence is based on nothing more than distinguishing yourself as ever more fairer than thou.

    6. So Tony. Are you going to answer OM’s question ?

    1. Oh, I see Tony beat me to the punch. And he’s serious!

      1. Welcome to the party, pal!

  5. ton is such a parody of himself at this point

    1. Tony*, dumb phone

      1. He’s too busy to answer right now

  6. what’s the margin of error on these measurements? The one listed is ?0.1C*

    That’s pretty significant when talking about a 3 degree increase over a period of decades, no?

    1. S: 0.3 degree increase. Just noting.

      1. sorry, yes. but, would a .1 degree margin of error be huge, then, when talking about such increases?

  7. 2014 One of the Warmest Years, But Maybe Not the Warmest, Say U.K. Climatologists

    So we’re doomed, right?

    1. Just you, OldM, but for entirely different reasons.

    2. So we’re doomed, right?

      It says right there, ‘Maybe’.

  8. You know, I’ve found that advocating for unrestricted ownership on fully-automatic weapons gets me a considerably warmer reception on average than anything that hints of the slightest doubt that industrial civilization and mankind are killing Gaia with their evil polluting ways and they must repent for their climate sins.

    1. just wait until those weapons are linked in increased global temperatures.

      1. Latest Brady Campaign studies:

        1)Smokeless powder shown to be a significant source of greenhouse gases.

        2)Bullets flying west to east are causing the rotation of the earth to slow, resulting in longer, warmer days.

        3) Black Assault Weapons are acting as a heat sink, hiding the actual increase in global temperatures. Magazine clips and bayonet lugs act as a confounding effect to suppress voices of reason.

        4) Increases in AR production strongly correlated to decreased polar ice-caps.

  9. I post it here in case you miss it.

    Re: Tony,

    AGW is real. Humans are contributing to the change in the level of greenhouse gases on the Earth.

    This is true. I have relented on that. Maybe not 97% of climate scientists agree this is so but there are enough to sway a reasonable person. So, I am swayed.

    Now explain to me why AGW is a bad thing. No bloviation, no “coulds”, no “mays”, no “possibly”, not “weather is not climate except when it is,” not “but how could it not possibly be a bad thing?” and no appeals to ignorance or the “precautionary principle”, which is intellectual chicanery. I want to know WHY warming of the planet is a bad thing.

    Proceed.

    1. Thank you for being reasonable.

      If you’re looking for absolute certainty in predictions, you’re not asking for a scientific answer. Here is one of many discussions on negative consequences of global warming to be found by googling your question.

      1. Jesus, they slapped together 25 worst case scenarios regarding weather, and you think this is proof we need to act?

        Probabilities? One would think the scientific community could do a slightly better job in explaining what is most likely to happen instead of brain dumping a nunch of apocalyptic stuff.

        1. I think the argument that the status quo (which is actually a continued positive, radical change to the environment against the will of property owners worldwide) is something we have to accept as a default is completely wrongheaded. Not acting is not the same thing as doing nothing. Not acting is, in a real way, the most radical action possible.

          The short-term effects are going to be arguably positive in some localities and negative in others. The long-term effects are almost certainly going to be catastrophic. The point is, you don’t have a right to force your policy of inaction on everyone else if nobody voted for you to take that action.

          1. What radical change? The pause is real, and scientists have acknowledged it.

            “The long-term effects are almost certainly going to be catastrophic.”

            What long term effects? The everything but the kitchen sink list you posted?

          2. The point is, you don’t have a right to force your policy of inaction on everyone else if nobody voted for you to take that action.

            shorter version: Inaction is policy action force nobody voted…derp

          3. Re: Tony,

            I think the argument that the status quo (which is actually a continued positive, radical change to the environment against the will of property owners worldwide) is something we have to accept as a default is completely wrongheaded.

            Why? Based on what?

            I’m asking a very simple question: Why is AGW a bad thing?

            The long-term effects are almost certainly going to be catastrophic.

            Why? What’s the evidence?

            You seem not to understand the problem, Tony. The evidence for AGW is historical. You can make an inference based on historical temperatures obtained from ancillary places and correlate with CO2 emissions. That much is clear. But the theory itself is not predictive save for falsifiable information, in that one does not expect the temperatures to suddenly FALL with all other things being equal. That is as much as you can predict. You can’t predict badness with that theory.

            you don’t have a right to force your policy of inaction on everyone else if nobody voted for you to take that action.

            Not acting is not force. Instead of answering the question, now you’re engaging in changing the meaning of words.

      2. When will we see some of the negative consequences? I mean something incontrovertible, not something nebulous like “polar ice melts slightly! or “slightly larger hurriance!”? I agree you can’t pump Co2 into the air without something happening (much as you can’t pull money out of the private economy without something changing), but I’m not sold on the “C” in CAGW. I can’t get worked up over a 0.002 degree increase in this or that, especially not to the point where I need to sacrifice more to the State.

        1. This is a frog-in-a-pot-of-boiling-water problem. Humans are not naturally inclined to notice changes that happen over the course of a couple generations. It’s entirely likely that the best time to act (meaning costing us the least with the biggest impact) has long passed, and that the longer we wait the more radical the action will have to be. So maybe it is a good idea to get worked up, even if you think that walking outside and still being able to breathe means there’s no problem.

          1. The president isn’t even worked up, he just proposed to open up offshore drilling from VA to GA.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..orgia.html

          2. I agree, but shouldn’t we have seen something significant by now? I’ve been hearing about this for 40 years.

            1. Almost every new year setting climate records doesn’t do it for you? Remember, this article is about whether 2014 was *the* hottest or “merely” one of the few hottest on record.

              1. Almost every new year setting climate records doesn’t do it for you?

                WTF are you talking about? The number of records is not getting larger. Second, no it doesn’t do it for me. There must be negative consequences. Drought, hurricane, and tornadoes aren’t getting worse.

                1. CNN had a funny list about all the bad things:

                  Floods! Droughts! Crops failing! Weeds out of control! Whiole countries submerged!

                  It almost seemed…biblical. Funny that.

    2. I’d have to say if you currently own property that would be underwater due to warming that could be a problem.

      1. Not if you sell it in time. And, at current rates of sea level “increase”, you’ve got decades, if not centuries.

        Besides, coastal land disappears all the time. Its called “erosion”.

        1. Sure, but we are not usually this casual about property rights. If government were doing something that would ruin people’s land, but over decades, we wouldn’t accept such a response

          1. Sure, but we are not usually this casual about property rights.

            Who is being casual about property rights?

            “Sell what you got, if you’re so scared” denies no one’s property rights.

            As for current beachfront property getting submerged, it happens all the time now. Its called erosion. Its one of the risks of beachfront property. If you don’t like it, don’t buy beachfront property.

      2. I’d have to say…

        No, you really don’t

        1. No, I had to, but if it’s going to upset your little girl nature you don’t have to read it.

  10. You’ll be a real boy some day, Tony.

  11. Nobody cares what you have to say. You’re hurting their cause rather than helping it because you’re vulgar, stupid, and never say anything of substance.

    Somebody needs a fresh diaper and a nap.

  12. I find it hard to take warnings of rising sea levels seriously when St Gore the Cereal owns beach front property.

  13. Tony, I think the many scientists who say AGW is likely occurring are probably right. I’d note that what they say is not what many alarmists have to say, that there seem great uncertainty about any meaningful solutions, and that most solutions involving restricting freedom also seem to be far outweighed in that they will cause economic retardation.

    Having said that, we’ve had some famous examples is supposed scientific consensus used by political actors to restrict freedom have had the science later fall flat. People here have some reason to be skeptical.

    1. 10 out 9 eugenicists agree…

      The earth is no longer flat.

      1. I was thinking the population bomb stuff, but yes eugenics works too

      2. Why does eugenics come in here?

        Eugenics–human husbandry–works.

        We just don’t do it because it has seriously disgusting aspects.

        But the idea that humans alone, of all animals, are immune to guided selective breeding is just stupid.

    2. I’m apparently the only one here who doesn’t equate “restricting freedom” with “cutting into oil profits.” Otherwise, I don’t even know what you guys mean when you say this. Subsidizing a clean energy infrastructure is restricting freedom? How is that different from subsidizing a transportation infrastructure or something like that? Seems that on the contrary it would be a great boon to freedom to mitigate catastrophic environmental change and to invest in sustainable energy. There have been various cost calculations, and I know you guys don’t like paying any taxes at all, but the longer we wait the more radical the collective action will have to be, so it might be smart to get over the paranoia sooner rather than later.

      1. If you cut into oil profits by telling people they can’t make, sell or buy certain things then yes that’s not just equated to restricting freedom it is exactly that

        1. Government can restrict people’s freedom to harm other people. It’s like Libertarianism 101, sentence 1, clause 2. I’m being bombarded for requests for specifics, so how about I get some with respect to the claim that climate change policy will inevitably and intolerably assault people’s freedoms?

          1. Demonstrable harm, Tony. So far, no harm demonstrated.

          2. Government can restrict people’s freedom to harm other people. It’s like Libertarianism 101

            Libertarianism 101 says that it is wrong to initiate force on others. No one is morally free to harm others. Stop being obtuse.

            1. And that’s all I’m talking about. Stopping the massive harm being imposed on billions of human beings by people who burn oil and coal, like you. I’m the one for an optimal market here.

      2. Subsidizing a clean energy infrastructure is restricting freedom?

        yes, it is. It is restricting 1) the amount of my own money I get to keep before govt starts grabbing it for its pet projects, 2) it is restricting the freedom of energy companies to figure shit out on their dime giving favored son status to specific industries, and 3) it is pure force.

        1. What if instead of fighting two pointless trillion-dollar wars we had put that money into R&D for a clean energy program? Would you be neutral? Or is it your libertarian freedom calculation that throwing money into a pit and burning it is more-or-less OK as long as some people get shot in the head in the process?

          1. Posit a false dilemma and then ascribe the worse position to the person you’re arguing with. You use this so much, I’m going to start calling it the Tony Fallacy.

          2. What about we never steal 2 trillion dollars from the American citizens for any reason? Why should the choice be throwing it into either pit and burning it? The libertarian freedom calculation is to allow people to keep their money and not have the government threaten people with rape cages if they don’t support your policies.

          3. false choices for $600, Alex. By the way, one of those wars was going to be fought; even Al Gore would have ordered a strike on the Taliban in Afghanistan, so stop.

            The Iraq war has never resonated here, which even you should know. What if that money had instead been left with those who earned it? I imagine the outcome would have been far more beneficial to the economy that the govt confiscation project you prefer.

          4. I didn’t support the wars. I wouldn’t want the money spent by government at all. Leave it with the private economy.

            1. Actually that’s just what we did, because instead of paying for these wars, we spent even more trillions on tax cuts!

          5. What if instead of fighting two pointless trillion-dollar wars we had put that money into R&D for a clean energy program?

            Then we would have a bunch of crappy, overpriced techno-junk instead of liberated Iraq. In any event, I don’t need your false dilemma: we can refuse to spend the money. Many countries are; renewables subsidies are being slashed.

          6. What if instead of fighting two pointless trillion-dollar wars we had put that money into R&D for a clean energy program?

            Why would the next pile of “clean energy R & D” dollars do any better than the previous piles?

      3. Subsidies are fine (well, wasteful) but the warmists typically want new energy taxes. THESE TAXES WILL BE PAID BY THE CONSUMER. Any statement that the oil companies will somehow pay them is bullshit.

        If you have solutions that don’t involve new taxes levied by corrupt elites, I’m interested.

        1. Why are consumers exempt from taxes? They benefit from the environmental harm too. Maybe we should pay more for energy. Maybe it’s better than the alternative. Being taxed is not the greatest possible harm in the universe, you weirdos.

      4. I want a high flow shower and toilet. I want incandescent lighting. I don’t want ethanol in my gasoline.

        that’s restricting freedom.

      5. You know absolutely nothing about how the electric grid works.

    3. I think the many scientists who say AGW is likely occurring are probably right.

      and it is on this bedrock of certitude that our standard of living should change?

      1. Er

        “, that there seem great uncertainty about any meaningful solutions, and that most solutions involving restricting freedom also seem to be far outweighed in that they will cause economic retardation.”

        1. figure out which side of the fence you are on then. That line from your post mirrors what the true believers like Tony say regularly. When that many weasel words and qualifiers are required, then perhaps massive change is not a good idea.

  14. I’d like to see some, you know, actual adverse effects, controlled for exogenous variables, before I panic.

    1. naw… just panic

      *throws arms in air and runs around the room clucking like a chicken*

      1. Are you imitating a private jet on its way to Davos?

        1. Given the air traffic every time there is a global warming conference, I think we can safely conclude that global warming causes private jets, right?

    2. Hear hear! I need a bit more before I sacrifice more to the state.

  15. The whole thing is idiotic. “Warmest” is a relative not a qualitative term. So what if it was the warmest. That only means something if you know warmest by how much. They never say that because the truth is that it is the “warmest” by a very small amount, so small it is within the margin of error.

    1. “Warmest” is a relative not a qualitative term.

      This year was the warmiest year on record.

      1. Especially if you start your record this year.

  16. I think the argument that the status quo (which is actually a continued positive, radical change to the environment against the will of property owners worldwide) is something we have to accept as a default is completely wrongheaded.

    This is why I can never, ever take you or the rest of Team Chicken Little seriously.

    1. Because you can’t understand the concept that sitting on your ass and doing nothing means the world doesn’t stop spinning? Wait, it’s you. I think you actually do believe that. It’s usually on the gay marriage threads where you express opinions tantamount to “if it’s not happening to me, it’s not relevant to anyone.”

      1. When you can prove that doing something is required then I may consider getting off my ass. Until then fuck off you statist shit.

        1. You are doing something (causing global warming). I’m asking that you stop doing that thing that is harming other people.

          1. And we’re ignoring your request.

            1. Can I ignore your request that I not dump all my trash on your front yard, then?

              1. Can I ignore your request that I not dump all my trash on your front yard, then?

                You can ignore it but I may shoot you for trespassing the next time you do.

              2. Go ahead. Except between your posts and the trash on my yard, I’d have actual evidence that you did harm to my property. Duh.

              3. And since you admitted there are some positivie externalities, can I expect a check since I’m responsible for those results?

                1. I don’t believe in letting accountants do global energy policy. We can’t account for all the externalities, so let’s just focus on the problem. The sooner we act the more just the distribution of outcomes will be.

                  1. “We can’t account for all the externalities, so let’s just focus on the problem.”

                    So you have a problem but with no externalities?

                    You told us to stop because of negative externalities (none of which you can specifically point to). When I pointed out that you also believed in positive externalities, you suddenly drop the concept of externalities and just call the whole thing a problem?

                    Go to bed, you’re drunk.

          2. please prove how he and/or anyone else is “causing global warming.” Upthread you asked about falsification, a term that you clearly do not understand.

          3. Prove that global warming is happening.
            Prove that I am causing global warming and not the natural cycle our planet goes thru.
            Prove that global warming is harming people.

            When you can prove without a doubt all of the above then I may get off my ass.

            1. Also prove that your solutions will in any way stop said global warming.

          4. How does more arable land harm anyone?

            How does more water added to the water cycle harm anyone?

            How do warmer winters harm anyone?

            How does a longer growing season harm anyone?

            How does greater biodiversity harm anyone?

      2. You just went from “the status quo (which is actually a continued positive, radical change to the environment…” to “This is a frog-in-a-pot-of-boiling-water problem” and “if it’s not happening to me, it’s not relevant to anyone.”.

        You don;t seem to see the problem in simultaneously claiming that we are currently experiencing a radical change to the environment but most people don’t seem to notice.

        1. Yeah. They have been screaming about this being an emergency for 30 years now. Yet, here we are and nothing has really changed and there hasn’t been a single catastrophic result of this, despite their claims that it was sure to happen. When exactly are those islands going to disappear beneath the waves or will New York need a levee system like Venice?

          1. When exactly are those islands going to disappear beneath the waves or will New York need a levee system like Venice?

            After “Peak Oil” for $800, Alex

  17. What I find interesting is that certain gases are called greenhouse gases due to their so called ability to warm a planet. The problem is there are no cooling gases and there are no warming gases. You can have 100% of any gas you wish to list or even all gases at equal parts and absolutely nothing will happen without an external force ie: the Sun or vulcanism or who knows. So the quantities are bogus the problem is there is an outside force causing temperature changes. What the gases should be called is tempering gases since they all keep the planet from massive fluctuations as we see on our nearest neighbor with out any gases, atmosphere, the Moon.

    1. The sun is the source of (practically) all of the energy supplied to the earth. This energy, in the form of visible light, passes through the atmosphere and warms the surface of the planet, which emits some of the energy at a lower frequency (infrared thermal energy). Greenhouse gases keep the surface and lower atmosphere warmer than they would be without them because they absorb that thermal radiation and re-radiate it, much of it going back to the surface. You increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, you get more energy radiated to the surface. And we get a higher concentration of greenhouse gases when we burn fossil fuels and cut down the forests that absorb them.

      1. You increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, you get more energy radiated to the surface.

        Until you reach saturation.

        cut down the forests that absorb them.

        Which, in forestry, then grow back and absorb CO2 more efficiently than the trees they replaced.

      2. That is nice theory, there Tony, one which has not been proven and the sole basis seems to be based on computer models.

        Computer models do what you tell them to do.

        They are proof of absolutely nothing.

        1. This is extremely, extremely basic stuff. That was the point of my posting it. I am genuinely shocked by how much ignorance there is here, even about basic science. Yet everyone seems to have an opinion on the complicated topic of climate change. What a fuckstorm of epic proportions you people are.

      3. You obviously did not read what I wrote or decided to ignore the fact that you can have. I’ll rephrase, you can have 100% CO2 or 100% oxygen in the atmosphere nothing will happen at all Sun or no Sun. All gases are affected by radiations from energy sources and because of this they will all vary the temperature based on energy input. Gases have nothing to do with climate temperature changes. Now if you still want to claim that CO2 is the problem then you have to look at the most basic math and 1st law of thermodynamics which states that for one gas to change another you will have to have equilibrium and hence 400ppm of CO2 divided into one million gives a temperature change of 0.0004? of temperature change this is in a perfect world of 100% energy exchange as in 100% in you get 100% out but since we are only getting the most minute amount of radiation energy transfer the actual exchange rate will be even less significant hence CO2 no matter how you look at it is not the cause of climate temperature variables.

        1. Uh… please find the nearest community college as soon as possible.

      4. Yes, the greenhouse effect is real. No one denies that. What skeptical people (as in people who understand science) question is what other factors affect the climate, if any the greenhouse effect can be negated by other factors such as cloud cover or variability in solar output, and how significant the greenhouse effect is on the climate.

        What stupid parrots like you do is assume that there are no other factors affecting the climate, and that smart climate scientists are like really smart because they’re like smart and stuff and when they like take a vote and stuff that they must be like right and stuff because they’re like really smart and stuff.

        1. Actually, you can really tell a lot about the gullibility of people based on wheter or not they promote the 97% of climate scientists meme.

          Every few years someone comes out with a survey that claims to show this, using every trick in the book to generate the desired result by introducing sampling bias, using excluded middle, leading questions etc.

          Inevitably it gets ripped apart – comically the latest round was ripped apart by Dr Tol – a genuine scientist promoting CAGW – and the kids at Credulous Superstitions called him a denier!

          Anyone who claims to be interested in climate science who cites these studies or the claims of consensus is either
          a) not very studious, or
          b) actively spreading disinformation, or
          c) dumb as a bag of hammers.

          With Bo, it’s A. With tony, I used to think b, but after watching him stubbornly cling to ideas about history, economics and science long after his face has been rubbed in how wrong those ideas are, I think he really is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

          1. I think he really is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

            Tony is someone who will allow himself to be taught if he likes the politics of the teacher, but he is incapable of learning.

      5. Tony. You like many on this board, never bring up the Permian Extinction Event, or the “Snowball” Extinction Event.

        Once life has established itself. It’s almost impossible to eradicate.

        The question you pants shitting types have to ask is, “Do you want to preserve life on Earth, or Do you want to preserve Human Civilization ?”

        Life will go on under runaway climate change. Your political solutions will prevent civilization from adapting to runaway climate change.

        1. Yes, the cockroaches will always be here. And the Tonys of the world would prefer that we live like them.

        2. Individual species, as opposed to life itself, are quite easy to eradicate. Almost all of them succumb at some point.

          I want to preserve human civilization. That’s all. At this point caring about specific nonhuman species is a luxury–of course doing so for many species is vital to preserving human civilization.

  18. Show us, on the globe, where the RADICAL CHANGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT touched you, Tony.

  19. The Church of Carbontology has their last big Carbon Confab this year, in Paris this coming December. Its the last truly big one, because their tool of an American President will be down the road by next one.

    And the Carbon Clowns know that without actual rising temps (.04 is hard sell for marketing dept.), this year is it with their Uncle Sugar soon empowered no more, and Europe’s financial capacity for sugar dwindling by the hour.

    So I expect, and declare, 2015 to be the year of Peak Stupid.

  20. ITT, TONEY demonstrates that he can’t understand sciences or anything else and fails miserably at making a case for trying to stop global warming. You lose Toney.

  21. Re: Tony,

    I think the argument that the status quo (which is actually a continued positive, radical change to the environment against the will of property owners worldwide) is something we have to accept as a default is completely wrongheaded.

    Why? Based on what?

    I’m asking a very simple question: Why is AGW a bad thing?

    The long-term effects are almost certainly going to be catastrophic.

    Why? What’s the evidence?

    You seem not to understand the problem, Tony. The evidence for AGW is historical. You can make an inference based on historical temperatures obtained from ancillary places and correlate with CO2 emissions. That much is clear. But the theory itself is not predictive save for falsifiable information, in that one does not expect the temperatures to suddenly FALL with all other things being equal. That is as much as you can predict. You can’t predict badness with that theory.

    you don’t have a right to force your policy of inaction on everyone else if nobody voted for you to take that action.

    Not acting is not force. Instead of answering the question, now you’re engaging in changing the meaning of words.

    1. For there to even be the slightest chance that CO2-driven warming causes catastrophe, there must be a positive-feedback from water vapour put in the atmosphere by (CO2-driven) warming. CO2 on its own will NEVER get there. There’s no proof this is happening.

  22. Re; Tony,

    I’m apparently the only one here who doesn’t equate “restricting freedom” with “cutting into oil profits.”

    You haven’t been able to say exactly why AGW is a bad thing and you’re already talking about limiting profits? Based on what?

    Subsidizing a clean energy infrastructure is restricting freedom?

    Yes, it is. The subsidies come from somewhere. Capital is JUST AS SCARCE as food or clean water, Tony.

    How is that different from subsidizing a transportation infrastructure or something like that?

    Let’s agree that they’re both immoral. ALL subsidies that exist through the taking of capital by force are immoral. Let’s be consistent for a change, you and I.

    Now, what is your argument going to be?

    Seems that on the contrary it would be a great boon to freedom to mitigate catastrophic environmental change.

    And what if there is NO catastrophic environmental change (whatever that involves)? And why can’t we have the freedom to stem such catastrophe through other means that do not involve subsidizing windmills?

    That is why I am asking you the simple question: Why is AGW bad. Because I now that you cannot show why, only guess that it is.

    1. Let’s be consistent for a change, you and I.

      For Tony to be logically consistent he would have to admit that if he distrusts studies funded by corporations because capitalists are motivated by profits, then he must also distrust studies funded by governments because politicians are motivated by power.

      However he has demonstrated that he is not capable of any logical consistency. He only knows what he feels. Thinking isn’t in his toolbox.

    2. You haven’t been able to say exactly why AGW is a bad thing

      The science does. Why don’t you make an attempt to consult it?

      The subsidies come from somewhere. Capital is JUST AS SCARCE as food or clean water, Tony.

      By “just as scarce” you mean “also scarce.” What’s more important to preserve? Food and water, or a few dollars in millionaire’s offshore bank accounts? Your answer to this question is why your philosophy is psychopathic. And you admit as much when you say that subsidies are immoral. And you, inexplicably and irrationally, don’t count anything as a subsidy if it doesn’t involve a new tax. Paving a road in front of a business is a subsidy to that business. Letting a business inflict harm on property for free is a subsidy. Learn what the word “cost” means, and stop obsessing over the specific harm of government enforcement. Your fantasy utopian bullshit is irrelevant to this discussion.

  23. Why is AGW bad?

    Because people like Tony fetishize stasis. They have some weird belief that nothing should ever change.

    1. And because oil corporations are making yucky profits and stuff. That means global warming is caused by the corporations because they’re making profits and profits are bad.

    2. I posited the exact same question to Jackand Ace and he linked to websites where opinions could be read.

      Jackand Ace and Tony seem to believe that because there is a consensus that AGW exists (and I am more than willing to accept that AGW is real) this in turn means AGW has to be a bad thing. That is one HUGE leap in logic, never mind the lack of evidence.

      If you read about it, you will see the same theme repeating itself: “Could be”, “May”, “We believe”, “It could”, “Possibly”, etc. You see report after report linking a particular event with AGW to prove AGW is a bad thing (never mind proving it exists).

      The agenda is clear in this case: Proving AGW means (somehow) proving it is a bad thing. Except that it DOESN’T. Proving the theory is correct or that it explains the phenomenon only takes you so far. It’s like proving Natural Selection: you know it explains evolution – and that’s it.

      You would need a new theory that links AGW with catastrophic climate change. There ISN’T ONE. So far there are assumptions, speculation, but no theory that says “If X then you have Y”. You do with AGW: If X (man made CO2) then you have a proportional increase of Y (CO2 levels in the atmosphere). The theory can explain that. It can’t say that an increase of Y is a bad thing at such and such proportion. NOBODY can say that.

      1. I think I can help you out OM.

        http://science.nationalgeograp…..xtinction/

        Though it took A Hundred Thousand Years of volcanic activity to create Runaway Climate Change that wiped out almost all life on Earth. This is actual science, and not the pants shitting you are going to get from the like of Tony, and Jack.

        1. Is AGW real? Yes it is.

          Is the second Holocene Extinction Event happening ? Yes it is.

          Should I shit my pants about it, and allow the Tony’s, and Jacks of the world to solve the problem though they have no idea what to do, other than force me to obey what they in their ignorance, think is “right” ?

          Fuck No !!!

      2. By your own very strict beliefs about the sanctity of property and nonaggression, it doesn’t even matter if it’s a good or bad thing (it’s definitely not). Other people don’t have a right to alter your property for any reason unless you give them permission. The status quo isn’t “nothing is changing.” It’s the opposite.

        1. Tony what do you think about the solar atmosphere/sunspot hypothesis? You call people who ignore the carbon hypothesis deniers but aren’t people who ignore the sunspot hypothesis also deniers?

          Carbon (and methane) are a tiny % of total greenhouse gases, yet it’s plausible changes in carbon levels from human activity can change the climate even if carbon is a marginal greenhouse gas as even small % greenhouse gas increases matter.

          Yet the earth is so close to the sun it’s strongly affected by sunspot activity which affects the formation of clouds. Clouds account for a huge % of total greenhouse gases; even slight changes in cloud formation patterns will have a greater effect on the climate than a large change in CO2.
          There’s even this one British guy who’s accurately predicted the climate based solely on sunspot activity.

          If man-made co2 global warming is a plausible hypothesis then wouldn’t the sunspot hypothesis be just as plausible? Why is this always ignored by left-wing environmentalists?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.