West Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Doomed

[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.

 

[LogGrad98]

So I'll just bow out here. You can have the last word.

 

[The Thriller]

I think we should do nothing.

And continue to drill baby drill.

Let china continue to develop green energy. They're investing twice as many dollars into green as we are.

I'm sure that won't mean anything 20-30 years down the line...

I mean, just look at how stupid we looked after investing into the space program! Or into the Internet!

Such terrible investments...

 

[One Brow]

Can you prove scientifically that those storms would have never happened if the earth had been cooler?

You can't prove scientifically that gravity from the earth's mass makes an apple fall.

However, the best evidence is that climate change contributes to the strength of these storms, and by claiming we don't know this, you are denying evidence.

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.

People in the denialist camp keep pulling claims from their rectums and attributing them to climate change realists.

People had lung cancer and emphysema who never smoked. Tobacco companies used that for years to claim cigarettes didn't cause smoking. The tactics never change.

 

[♪alt13]

You can't prove scientifically that gravity from the earth's mass makes an apple fall.

However, the best evidence is that climate change contributes to the strength of these storms, and by claiming we don't know this, you are denying evidence.



People in the denialist camp keep pulling claims from their rectums and attributing them to climate change realists.

People had lung cancer and emphysema who never smoked. Tobacco companies used that for years to claim cigarettes didn't cause smoking. The tactics never change.

lol