West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[One Brow]

So there is the core of the issue, to me. 97% is not good enough to make sweeping changes that may cripple the US or even world economy. But what exactly is the 97% evidence that warming in and of itself is a bad thing?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

By the way, this starts to sound religious. The atheist asks for proof that God exists. The religious person says that the evidence they see makes them 97% certain and drives their belief, the atheist says that just isn't good enough, and will not even consider the possibility that God exists.

The global warming skeptic asks for proof that global warming is a bad thing. The global warming alarmist says that the evidence they see makes them 97% certain and drives their belief, the skeptic says that isn't good enough to create problems to try to fix one that isn't even certain.

The big difference in that example, imo? With personal belief, it is personal. Believe or don't believe and it doesn't really affect your neighbor (not of course taking the fanatics into account). But with global warming making knee jerk decisions when we cannot even clearly define the danger nor the probability of that danger the potential exists to do a lot of damage for what might amount to nothing.

I guess in that sense you could say that I am the atheist who views the global warming alarmists who want to change the world RIGHT NOW as religious fanatics just itching to send in that suicide bomber.

The difference here is that the religious person has no objective evidence. There are no predictions to be made, no observations that can be measured, no external validations. The religious person asks the atheist to accept a 97% assurance based on subjective, internal, immeasurable evidence. By contrast, climate scientists offer objective evidence; there are successful predictions, objective observations, and external validations.

Also, there is no suicide bomber equivalent being proposed by climate change realists.

 

[One Brow]

Just to be clear, the illness in question is the danger to the human race posed by global warming. If no danger has been shown to exist, there is no disease. Global warming in and of itself is not an issue worth worrying about unless we can ascribe to it a danger factor. If this cannot be shown to exist beyond opinion and baseless claims, then it is not worth taking the medicine, at least not in the doses the panic-mongerers endorse.

At the site I linked to in the previous response, check the "Intermediate" tab for some of the actual threats to humans.

At the very lest, we are talking about severe changes in our ability to produce food and about global migrations. We use medicine to alleviate pain and suffering, even when the disease is not fatal.

 

[Deleted member 848]

No, it would not be enough to "reverse global warming", or even the possible/likely anthropogenic portion of it, which I believe it not the major cause of it.

It would be better use of our time, energy, resources, and intelligence to do things on large scale that will help us to cope with it if not prosper with it. But hey, our leading "intellectuals", or as Franklin would put it, our "elite intelligentsia", are paid through the political influence if not the outright private money of our cartelists, and all they really care about is locking up the resources and shutting down the influences of all possible competitors. As Robert Redford with his little Sundance Ski Resort shows by his example, after having his little heaven, by opposing every other proposed development of Utah snow resources. . . .

Somehow, I hope folks like OB will eventually realize their caring is being diverted from actually beneficial action. . . . .

A very, very ill-informed post. Sorry, babe.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Just to be clear, the illness in question is the danger to the human race posed by global warming. If no danger has been shown to exist, there is no disease. Global warming in and of itself is not an issue worth worrying about unless we can ascribe to it a danger factor. If this cannot be shown to exist beyond opinion and baseless claims, then it is not worth taking the medicine, at least not in the doses the panic-mongerers endorse.

Not sure what is more embarrassing-- this post, "carbon neutrality is a farce", or the notiob of a country crippling when we stave off fossil fuel dependence.

 

[Stoked]

Not sure what is more embarrassing-- this post, "carbon neutrality is a farce", or the notiob of a country crippling when we stave off fossil fuel dependence.

Depending on how it is done it might very well be crippling. To much to fast, without time to adapt, and you do lasting harm.

 

[LogGrad98]

Interesting read, especially if you use google afterward.

From the skeptical skeptic website:

Agriculture
Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts

https://earthsky.org/earth/frank-wentz-will-global-warming-bring-more-rainfall

But that is one negative scenario. Even though in general, over the whole planet you get more rain, what happens is in the wet areas where they really don’t need more rain, they get a lot more rain and meanwhile the dry areas become drier. Now whether or not that will actually happen, I don’t know. But that is in the realm of possibilities. The other possibility is that there will just generally be more rain and it will be beneficial.

The climate guys can't even agree.

 

[One Brow]

The climate guys can't even agree.

I don't think anyone claims to know with certainly what the future rainfall patterns will be. Very few of them result in an overall increase in human water supplies.

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't think anyone claims to know with certainly what the future rainfall patterns will be. Very few of them result in an overall increase in human water supplies.

Point is there is still dissent in the ranks. If the alarmists can't even agree on what the models are telling them (please note models absolutely do not equal evidence, they are an attempt to interpret evidence) the risks are then why should we make knee jerk reactions that could cause real lasting harm when we can't even accurately identify the real risks? That is like having a non-specific pain in your arm that a couple of second opinions cannot agree on, so you just go ahead and amputate the arm just to be safe.

 

[One Brow]

Point is there is still dissent in the ranks. If the alarmists can't even agree on what the models are telling them (please note models absolutely do not equal evidence, they are an attempt to interpret evidence) the risks are then why should we make knee jerk reactions that could cause real lasting harm when we can't even accurately identify the real risks? That is like having a non-specific pain in your arm that a couple of second opinions cannot agree on, so you just go ahead and amputate the arm just to be safe.

Inflating minor disagreements into major disagreements is a classic denialist tactic.It was used by tobacco companies; when scientists weren't sure which which tobacco components were carcinogens and to what degree, the tobacco companies used this to claim that tobacco didn't cause cancer. You are using the same tactic.

What's really depressing is that you take metaphorical equivalent of wearing a brace and equate it to amputation.

 

[LogGrad98]

Inflating minor disagreements into major disagreements is a classic denialist tactic.It was used by tobacco companies; when scientists weren't sure which which tobacco components were carcinogens and to what degree, the tobacco companies used this to claim that tobacco didn't cause cancer. You are using the same tactic.

What's really depressing is that you take metaphorical equivalent of wearing a brace and equate it to amputation.

So the difference is we saw cigarettes kill people, in huge numbers. We haven't yet seen global warming listed as one of the top killers worldwide. Also, the effect of going after the cigarette companies was very minimal globally speaking. The effect of taking a panic approach to curbing global warming has the potential to be far worse for the world economy, and especially harsh for developing nations.

I think we are closer on this than you think. I am arguing against taking wide sweeping fanatical action to stop global warming, and I think what we are doing now is good but absolutely could be ramped up somewhat. I don't think you are fanatical about it, but I could be wrong. You called yourself a global warming realist indirectly. If so you would see that realistically we can do more, but to take measures the fanatics would espouse would be devastating globally far in advance of any issues global warming may or may not cause.


edit: But to clarify, I do not think the focus should be stopping global warming, but rather cutting the cord to fossil fuels. We need clean energy sources for many reasons. You could argue that global warming is among those reasons but IMO it is far from the most important reason.

 

[One Brow]

So the difference is we saw cigarettes kill people, in huge numbers. We haven't yet seen global warming listed as one of the top killers worldwide.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Among other things, global warming contributes to the destructive capacity of ocean storms, such as those that recently battered NY/NJ.

The effect of taking a panic approach to curbing global warming has the potential to be far worse for the world economy, and especially harsh for developing nations.

Who's advocating for a "panic approach"?

... but to take measures the fanatics would espouse would be devastating globally far in advance of any issues global warming may or may not cause.

By definition, fanaticism is not rational.

 

[LogGrad98]

See it just goes in circles. Can you prove scientifically that those storms would have never happened if the earth had been cooler? You can speculate but how can you prove no one would have been killed or that the storm wouldn't have hit? You know big storms have been killing people for centuries, thousands of years actually. There is absolutely no way to say that X% of those deaths are directly attributable to global warming.

people in the global warming camp start looking like the guy who only has a hammer in his tool box....everything starts to look like a nail.