Do You Believe in Man-Made Climate Change?

[Infidel Dog]

Thanks for the link.

I like the title.

It's the [Climate Policy] Stupid!

So are you beginning to figure out why Mitigation versus Adaptation belongs in a discussion about what they're calling "climate change?"

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

So are you beginning to figure out why Mitigation versus Adaptation belongs in a discussion about what they're calling "climate change?"

Not at all.  I always knew.

[Infidel Dog]

Let's stop pretending.

Here's what we're really arguing about.

The question in the title asks "Do you believe in Man-Made Climate Change?"

The answer is, yes, of course, the climate changes. The sun rises in the east and sets the west, the sky is blue, and climate changes.

Is that change man-made?

Now the question is getting deceptive because what's really being asked is "Do you believe man is changing the climate by using fossil fuels for energy and will that ultimately lead to catastrophe.

The answer to that is we don't actually know how much influence man has on the climate or how much or even if it will cause any damage that can't be dealt with by simply adapting to it as we always have.

When politicians come at you suggesting you react like this  demanding more money and control they're not to be trusted. And you telling people they're not to discuss that angle of the question should be immediately mocked and discounted.

And yes you did say that, or I wouldn't be objecting to it.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

1. And you telling people they're not to discuss that angle of the question should be immediately mocked and discounted.  And yes you did say that, or I wouldn't be objecting to it.

 

 

1. Wording counts.  If people say that "it's all bullshit" or somesuch then, yes, I come back at them.

[Infidel Dog]

I believe what started it was somebody (me actually) noticed Greta and Gore were full of said Bullshit. I believe this is what set you off on your jihad to stop anybody from bringing up the political element of the climate scare.

I still consider the Greta and Gore observation factual and relevant BTW, if you'd still like to as you say "come back at me."

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. I believe what started it was somebody (me actually) noticed Greta and Gore were full of said Bullshit. I believe this is what set you off on your jihad to stop anybody from bringing up the political element of the climate scare.

2. I still consider the Greta and Gore observation factual and relevant BTW, if you'd still like to as you say "come back at me."

1. Well ... isn't hating on a little girl more of a jihad than whatever I do ?  Answer: It is.
2. Sure.  Greta has a long life ahead of her as an activist and you and the Pippi Longstockings haters are increasing her fame along with your own blood pressure.

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well ... isn't hating on a little girl more of a jihad than whatever I do ?  Answer: It is.

I'm not sure hate is the right word. I think mocking would be more accurate. And it's more like mocking the kind of stupidity that is influenced by said little girls irrational, politically inspired fears.

Nobody is "stealing Greta's childhood" by heating their houses, or driving their car or enjoying a fossil fueled lifestyle in general.

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. I'm not sure hate is the right word. I think mocking would be more accurate. 

2. Nobody is "stealing Greta's childhood" by heating their houses, or driving their car or enjoying a fossil fueled lifestyle in general.

1. Ok, that's a relief.  Is there a right wing child and are they mocked?

2. That's a relief.

[Infidel Dog]

Again the mocking is directed more at the idiots who take a know-nothing kids fear based opinions as something they need to act on. 

But yeah, to do so you'd have to notice the poor kid is clueless.

She knows less about climate science than you do and that's saying something.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

She knows less about climate science than you do and that's saying something.

I find it weird that you feel a need to insult my knowledge level and yet you are engaging me ?

Also I have stated several times that I'm not an expert.  I do know a bit about math and that's what I used to critique the physicist who challenged that the public doesn't use fractions.

[Infidel Dog]

Not sure what you're talking about, but I would like to see the argument you had with the physicist. Give me the page number.

 

[DogOnPorch]

It's all a crap-shoot. The Sun goes through both regular and irregular cycles as a Type G dwarf. During the Middle Ages, something weird in the Sunspot cycle caused a mini-Ice Age. The channel froze over on several occasions.  

Of course humans can affect climate...especially 8 billion of us. But unless one plans on some drastic birth control for EVERYBODY...no exceptions...there WILL be 12 billion...and 20 billion...and ????...of us

We're an infestation, frankly. You'd grab the spay-bomb if you found 8 billion anything behind the sofa.

[Michael Hardner]

29 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Not sure what you're talking about, but I would like to see the argument you had with the physicist. Give me the page number.

 

No - I refuted the 'whole number' argument you posted from wattsupwiththat.  I'm sure you think I did so inadequately, but I did it.  The point being that I never said I was a climate expert.  I'm a member of the public and I understand the basics, and they make sense to me.

Furthermore, you and I barely differ on the facts of this situation.  Next steps would be for you to explain mitigation/adaptation as you see it.  That will be a better conversation because I know about it but not the latest news.  I'm always eager to learn.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

1. It's all a crap-shoot. The Sun goes through both regular and irregular cycles as a Type G dwarf. During the Middle Ages, something weird in the Sunspot cycle caused a mini-Ice Age. The channel froze over on several occasions.  

2. Of course humans can affect climate...especially 8 billion of us. But unless one plans on some drastic birth control for EVERYBODY...no exceptions...there WILL be 12 billion...and 20 billion...and ????...of us

3. We're an infestation, frankly. You'd grab the spay-bomb if you found 8 billion anything behind the sofa.

1. That's a good theory actually.
2. We don't need to do that.  People aren't born with gas engines strapped to them.
3. That's anti-human and not very conservative really.  I think capitalism and humanity are still good options for our future.

[Infidel Dog]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No - I refuted the 'whole number' argument you posted from wattsupwiththat.  I'm sure you think I did so inadequately, but I did it.  The point being that I never said I was a climate expert.  I'm a member of the public and I understand the basics, and they make sense to me.

Furthermore, you and I barely differ on the facts of this situation.  Next steps would be for you to explain mitigation/adaptation as you see it.  That will be a better conversation because I know about it but not the latest news.  I'm always eager to learn.

So wait...are you thinking I'm this "physicist" you say you "critiqued" then "refuted?" Thanks for the complement but I have to deny both the idea I'm a physicist and the joke that you refuted anything.

I remember I came in about page 9 where you suggested man alone bears responsibility for the change in climate. Then you boasted about all this data you said you had that showed it but we've yet to see any. At least that's the way I remember it.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Even what I would call the politically charged IPCC can only dare to claim 50% of the change in climate as man-made and that's only since the 1950s.

If you'd watched the video I gave you that showed the rational arguments against the hysteria you'd know that.

This one...

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. So wait...are you thinking I'm this "physicist" you say you "critiqued" then "refuted?"  

2. ... you suggested man alone bears responsibility for the change in climate.

3. Then you boasted about all this data you said you had that showed it

4. ...but we've yet to see any. At least that's the way I remember it.

 

1. No
2.Well man isn't 100% to blame but he is to blame for the recent change over the past century and such.
3. Boasted ? ?
4. I don't think we need to go there since you basically agree that the recent change is likely man made.

[Infidel Dog]

2. Not sure why you want to disagree with the IPCC on that (the most they say they can find is 50% since the 50s) then claim there's no debate.

3. Would you prefer "claimed?" Either way we still haven't seen any of this data you claimed you had before I challenged you to see it.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Not sure why you want to disagree with the IPCC on that (the most they say they can find is 50% since the 50s) then claim there's no debate.

2. Would you prefer "claimed?" Either way we still haven't seen any of this data you claimed you had before I challenged you to see it.

1. Don't know.  
2. Data that says temperature change correlates to human-created carbon increases ?  Is that what you are talking about ?  There are lots of graphs but why are we talking about this ?  

[Infidel Dog]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Data that says temperature change correlates to human-created carbon increases ?  Is that what you are talking about ?

How much human-created temperature change. How unchallenged is that. and why do you seem confident you can predict climate catastrophe out of what you think you've seen. That's what I'm asking for.

Feel free to produce these graphs you say you have on that anytime you're ready.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. How much human-created temperature change. How unchallenged is that.
2. ...and why do you seem confident you can predict climate catastrophe out of what you think you've seen.
3. That's what I'm asking for.
4. Feel free to produce these graphs you say you have on that anytime you're ready.

1. Probably a lot.  
2. I never did that.
3. I don't know the answer
4. I don't have graphs on the impact.  I don't know how you would even do that.

[Infidel Dog]

Quote

2. I never did that.

Wait, are you ready admit now that you can't do this?

Quote

predict climate catastrophe out of what you think you've seen.

Fine then. My job is done.

Oh wait...are you also ready to admit that Warmiacs like Extinction Rebellion, Greta, and Gore and for that matter the EU, The United Nations and Biden can't either and that matters.

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

Sorry.  Mean.

Edited January 29, 2021 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

1. Wait, are you ready admit now that you can't do this? predict climate catastrophe out of what you think you've seen.

2. Fine then. My job is done.

3. Oh wait...are you also ready to admit that Warmiacs like Extinction Rebellion, Greta, and Gore and for that matter the EU, The United Nations and Biden can't either and that matters.

 

1. No, we can only talk about risk.
2. I said so awhile back.
3. They are sure of the future, but that's their thing.  We can only talk about risk.

[Cannucklehead]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

Of course deniers won't believe it until it's too late.  It wouldn't matter if we have a culling, the lifestyle we've become accustomed to is toxic.