AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[waldo]

Why is it necessarily bad?

why are floods or droughts necessarily bad? Really? Oh wait, you mean you're questioning the "badness" only if it's holding an attached attribution causal tie to anthropogenic sourced CO2? Do you offer further qualification if that causal tie attribution is partial versus whole?

in any case, for the second time, I'll suggest you take your obvious want to discuss extreme weather attribution to an appropriate thread. Thanks in advance.

[-1=e^ipi]

why are floods or droughts necessarily bad? Really? Oh wait, you mean you're questioning the "badness" only if it's holding an attached attribution causal tie to anthropogenic sourced CO2? Do you offer further qualification if that causal tie attribution is partial versus whole?

As expected, the climate change alarmist fails to understand the different between 'change in water distribution' and 'more floods and more droughts'.

See, the claim that there will be more floods and more droughts everywhere actually needs to be demonstrated. Changes in water distribution does NOT logically imply more droughts and floods; that's your deluded climate alarmism talking. Alarmists tend to have this unjustified belief that somehow the Earth was optimal in the 1700s and any deviation from the climate in the 1700s caused by human CO2 emissions will necessarily be bad.

[On Guard for Thee]

As expected, the climate change alarmist fails to understand the different between 'change in water distribution' and 'more floods and more droughts'.

See, the claim that there will be more floods and more droughts everywhere actually needs to be demonstrated. Changes in water distribution does NOT logically imply more droughts and floods; that's your deluded climate alarmism talking. Alarmists tend to have this unjustified belief that somehow the Earth was optimal in the 1700s and any deviation from the climate in the 1700s caused by human CO2 emissions will necessarily be bad.

Have you ever wondered what happens to a glacial fed river when you bring the overall ambient temperature up to were you melt more of the glacier in summer than you replace in winter? Floods, and then drought. Go tell the people along the Kunduz, for instance, that they shouldn't be alarmed.

[jbg]

Were you drunk or something when you wrote this?

Why? Because of the time it will take for adaptation to occur. How long for example do you think it will take for the Sahara to green up in any way that could be considered meaningful in terms of our present global economy? Overnight, the next business cycle, 500 years...what?

How long do you think even a total shutdown of U.S. and Canadian manufacturing and transport would take to reduce global temperatures? To the 12th of Never?

[Wilber]

How long do you think even a total shutdown of U.S. and Canadian manufacturing and transport would take to reduce global temperatures? To the 12th of Never?

Guess there is no point in trying to slow the process down a bit. Just blunder along and hope for the best. That's a plan.

[-1=e^ipi]

Have you ever wondered what happens to a glacial fed river when you bring the overall ambient temperature up to were you melt more of the glacier in summer than you replace in winter? Floods, and then drought. Go tell the people along the Kunduz, for instance, that they shouldn't be alarmed.

Have you ever noticed that a tropical rainforest is wetter than arctic tundra? Have you noticed that continental climates get more rainfall in the summer than in the winter? Do you not realize that air's capacity to hold water increases as a roughly exponential function of temperature?

But instead you focus on the negatives, claim that the net effect is overall negative without sufficient evidence and insist the world should implement severe CO2 emission mitigation policies, rather than take a more reasonable position like 'there are positives and negatives, and it would be sensible to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis before determining what policy is best.

[jbg]

Guess there is no point in trying to slow the process down a bit. Just blunder along and hope for the best. That's a plan.

Is blind panic a plan either?

[On Guard for Thee]

Have you ever noticed that a tropical rainforest is wetter than arctic tundra? Have you noticed that continental climates get more rainfall in the summer than in the winter? Do you not realize that air's capacity to hold water increases as a roughly exponential function of temperature?

But instead you focus on the negatives, claim that the net effect is overall negative without sufficient evidence and insist the world should implement severe CO2 emission mitigation policies, rather than take a more reasonable position like 'there are positives and negatives, and it would be sensible to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis before determining what policy is best.

Having been many times in all those places, I have noticed those things. Now, what does all that gibberish have to do with receding glaciers causing rivers to flood? You do understand that once the glacier is gone, the river level gets pretty low.

[Wilber]

Is blind panic a plan either?

Why do you guys always deal in extremes? The fact we may not be able to do something 100% is an excuse to do nothing at all. Is that the way you conduct the rest of your life?

[Mighty AC]

Why do you guys always deal in extremes? The fact we may not be able to do something 100% is an excuse to do nothing at all. Is that the way you conduct the rest of your life?

The status quo is a powerful trap for the aged.

[Wilber]

The status quo is a powerful trap for the aged.

Well, I ain't no spring chicken but one thing I do know is the only constant in life is change. Whether we like it or not.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why do you guys always deal in extremes? The fact we may not be able to do something 100% is an excuse to do nothing at all. Is that the way you conduct the rest of your life?

Yes....when "we" don't care that is exactly what "we" do. Knock yourself out for climate change if you want to.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes....when "we" don't care that is exactly what "we" do. Knock yourself out for climate change if you want to.

Here, let me give you a spelling lesson, it's "oui".

Comprendez?

[-1=e^ipi]

Having been many times in all those places, I have noticed those things. Now, what does all that gibberish have to do with receding glaciers causing rivers to flood? You do understand that once the glacier is gone, the river level gets pretty low.

Wait, I thought you said floods were bad. You make it sound like you want a climate that has more spring floods due to glaciers, not less.

Do you also not understand that a warmer climate due to CO2 is a more uniform climate and will result in far more precipitation at polar latitudes?

Answer me this, if hypothetically you had a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere costlessly, would you reduce it to the extent that you would start a mini-ice age or even a new ice age? Ice age temperatures are only 12 C - 13C, not that much lower than current global average temperatures. Are you against change or just against warming? If warming is bad, is cooling good?

Edited October 6, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Wait, I thought you said floods were bad. You make it sound like you want a climate that has more spring floods due to glaciers, not less.

Do you also not understand that a warmer climate due to CO2 is a more uniform climate and will result in far more precipitation at polar latitudes?

Answer me this, if hypothetically you had a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere costlessly, would you reduce it to the extent that you would start a mini-ice age or even a new ice age? Ice age temperatures are only 12 C - 13C, not that much lower than current global average temperatures. Are you against change or just against warming? If warming is bad, is cooling good?

I did say floods were bad. You got a language problem? I do understand that GW causes more precip at the polls. Part of what's helping the Thwaites slip into the ocean. So I guess you're suggesting the people in the Maldives will then be able to relocate to one of the polls?

[Mighty AC]

Well, I ain't no spring chicken but one thing I do know is the only constant in life is change. Whether we like it or not.

Well said. Though many seem to think that we can pretend away facts and embrace the status quo. The con philosophy really seems to be that 'if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well said. Though many seem to think that we can pretend away facts and embrace the status quo. The con philosophy really seems to be that 'if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true'.

Not really...all that needs to happen is....nothing. Playing "rope-a-dope" with climate change alarmists ensures just that.

[-1=e^ipi]

I did say floods were bad. You got a language problem? I do understand that GW causes more precip at the polls. Part of what's helping the Thwaites slip into the ocean. So I guess you're suggesting the people in the Maldives will then be able to relocate to one of the polls?

1. Average ground elevation in Maldives is 1.5 m. Even without mitigation policies, most of the country will still be above sea level 100 years in the future. Put the rate of change and the timescale of which people are able to adapt into perspective.

2. Maldives is 298 square kilometers in area, Canada is nearly 10 million square kilometers in area. Canada is over 33505 times the size of Maldives. Have you ever thought that a loss of some of Maldives is more than offset by gains in the usefulness of Canadian land? Put things in perspective. If you want to show the net effect is negative then fine, perform a well executed cost-benefit analysis. Don't just look at the negatives of CO2 emissions and ignore the positives.

3. If losing land due to sea levels increasing by like 0.5 m per century is so bad, then why not advocate that we start a new ice age? Think of all the extra land we would obtain! Alaska would be connected to Russia, Britain would be connected to Europe, sea levels everywhere would be significantly lower, and practically all of Canada, Russia, Patagonia and Northern Europe would be under ice...

4. It took until the last glacial period to end for human civilization to take off. It didn't before then because agriculture was unviable in most parts of the world. Why you continue to think that a tropical species like humans that like temperatures of 23 C would be worse off in a climate that is better for agriculture and with temperatures more suited to human life is bizarre.

5. Maldives is an evil theocracy. The world would be a better place if it did not exist to be honest. Not sure if harming Liberal Democracies to save Theocracies is a compelling argument.

Also, you keep avoiding the main questions. If warming is bad, is cooling good? What do you think the optimal average temperature of the Earth is? 14 C? 15 C? 13 C? 16 C?

Edited October 6, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Yep, Canada will initially benefit in a way due to more of the boreal area becoming warm enough to grow some sort of crops. But hey, you don't get sumpin' for nutin'. Mexican's will be jumping the fence into the US as they lose arrable land and begin to starve at the same time.

[waldo]

Alarmists tend to have this unjustified belief that somehow the Earth was optimal in the 1700s and any deviation from the climate in the 1700s caused by human CO2 emissions will necessarily be bad.

excellent! Continued demonstrations of the fake-skeptic/denier's mindset propensity to recycle past debunked BS! You tried this same crap in another thread where you insisted "alarmists" favoured policies to shift atmospheric CO2 level back to pre-industrial time! I called you on it and continued to press you to name "just who were your alarmists"... to name them, specifically name them. Care to recycle your failed/non-answers as well?

[waldo]

How long do you think even a total shutdown of U.S. and Canadian manufacturing and transport would take to reduce global temperatures? To the 12th of Never?

don't hesitate to qualify your nonsense statement... just who/what is advocating for a total shutdown? In any case, if you can show your self in this thread again, why are you so selective in avoiding the earlier posts challenging you to substantiate your claims concerning your statement about "alleged warming", your apparent questioning of the greenhouse effect, etc.. You certainly have a lot of unsubstantiated denier claims, hey!

[waldo]

But instead you focus on the negatives, claim that the net effect is overall negative without sufficient evidence and insist the world should implement severe CO2 emission mitigation policies, rather than take a more reasonable position like 'there are positives and negatives, and it would be sensible to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis before determining what policy is best.

you didn't fair so well in your previous failed attempt in claiming a positive global CO2 effect will result in increased global crop yields... or your effective claim to present CO2 as nothing more than innocuous plant food! Your latest in these most recent posts of yours is a real hoot... please let me know just how the world's nations will come together and divide up mass forced migration in the form of displaced millions of persons unable to "adapt" to rising sea levels. Your curt and dismissive suggestion that this would be, "offset by gains in the usefulness of Canadian land?" is so open-arms of you... of course, given your past writings concerning muslims there will need to be some selective closing of that open-arms acceptance, hey?

I suggest if you have any more "CO2 positives", the previous MLW thread where this discussion resides awaits your return... just make sure to qualify which derivative umbrella you're plying your comments/claims under, hey!

[waldo]

Yes....when "we" don't care that is exactly what "we" do. Knock yourself out for climate change if you want to.

oh but you certainly do care! You forever care enough to throw down your ever present drive-by insults, to natter on about climate change related topics that you clearly haven't even the most basic understanding of, to forever prowl the worst of denier cesspool blogs to drop your copy/paste "ta da" images/quotes here (while of course showing you know nothing about what you're simply dropping while offering not one iota of your own personal comments or interpretations of what you presume to "contribute"). Oh ya baby, you do care... you care big-time... you care, really big time!

.

[Wilber]

Not really...all that needs to happen is....nothing. Playing "rope-a-dope" with climate change alarmists ensures just that.

In reality you are playing rope a dope with yourself because if there is anything on this earth that never happens, it's nothing.

[bush_cheney2004]

In reality you are playing rope a dope with yourself because if there is anything on this earth that never happens, it's nothing.

Great....then all is well. Let's keep doing that and not change a damn thing. Filler' up !