Yes, Increasing CO2 Causes a Warming Tendency in the Climate System… So What?

[Deluge]

Exactly. So what? 

I like this guy already! 

Read on:

"In my experience, much of the public has splintered into tribal positions on climate change: We either believe increasing CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) has no effect, or we believe it is causing an existential crisis. There are a smaller number of individuals somewhere in the center (climate independents?)

But there is a lot of room between those two extremes for the truth to reside. Among other things, our report presents the evidence supporting the view that (1) long-term warming has been weaker than expected; (2) it’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; (3) there are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity; (4) there have been no long-term changes in severe weather events than can be tied to human GHG emissions; and (5) the few dozen climate models now being used to inform policymakers regarding energy policy are not fit for purpose...."

https://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Exactly. So what? 

I like this guy already! 

Read on:

"In my experience, much of the public has splintered into tribal positions on climate change: We either believe increasing CO2 (mainly from fossil fuel burning) has no effect, or we believe it is causing an existential crisis. There are a smaller number of individuals somewhere in the center (climate independents?)

But there is a lot of room between those two extremes for the truth to reside. Among other things, our report presents the evidence supporting the view that (1) long-term warming has been weaker than expected; (2) it’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; (3) there are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity; (4) there have been no long-term changes in severe weather events than can be tied to human GHG emissions; and (5) the few dozen climate models now being used to inform policymakers regarding energy policy are not fit for purpose...."

https://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

I think that's a false binary. ie. Whether it's happening vs whether it will end us.

The true binary, for years, was whether warming was actually happening, believe it or not.  Then it was whether CO2 was to blame.  Then it was how MUCH CO2 was to blame.  At the end of it will be "well, we can't do anything now".

Those of you who have changed your positions from "it's not happening" please raise your hands.

The idea that it's the end of existence for humans isn't provable, but the idea that we COULD mitigate this is realistic.  What is the cost we're willing to put into mitigating that ?  Low single digits of GDP ?

And let's not conflate the economic troubles of the masses with Climate Change moderation - there are plenty of folks who are doing great and could afford to guarantee their continued presence as our economic overlords.  (Nudges Elon)

Edited August 20, 2025 by Michael Hardner

[Nationalist]

38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that's a false binary. ie. Whether it's happening vs whether it will end us.

The true binary, for years, was whether warming was actually happening, believe it or not.  Then it was whether CO2 was to blame.  Then it was how MUCH CO2 was to blame.  At the end of it will be "well, we can't do anything now".

Those of you who have changed your positions from "it's not happening" please raise your hands.

The idea that it's the end of existence for humans isn't provable, but the idea that we COULD mitigate this is realistic.  What is the cost we're willing to put into mitigating that ?  Low single digits of GDP ?

And let's not conflate the economic troubles of the masses with Climate Change moderation - there are plenty of folks who are doing great and could afford to guarantee their continued presence as our economic overlords.  (Nudges Elon)

No

 Let's do conflate the financial troubles with climate activism. Only an id1ot doesn't understand that forcing the price of energy up, is destructive to these poor and middle-class folks you Libbies profess to represent. 

Your point here is so far off base that I must surmise you're willing to sell any old bullshit to the masses in order to maintain a boot on the throat of...

The masses. 

"AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!"

pfft...

Edited August 20, 2025 by Nationalist

[Deluge]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that's a false binary. 

That's nothing new. You think everything that doesn't agree with leftism is false. lol

[SpankyMcFarland]

Are you coming up with these pensées in Canada? If so, I suggest you take a trip to your nearest wildfire. 

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 Let's do conflate the financial troubles with climate activism.  

Let's talk about alarmism on YOUR position now.

Climate activism is CAUSING our economic problems ?

That would be tough for you to prove now, wouldn't it ?

[Michael Hardner]

57 minutes ago, Deluge said:

That's nothing new. You think everything that doesn't agree with leftism is false. lol

 No, I said that the way YOU framed it is a false binary.  There's a difference.

And there's a vast ocean between the two options you put forward.  That's why it's a false binary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

Quote

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise.

ex: EIther you're a socialist or extremely right-wing.  

That's not generally true, there are lots of other options.  ( Although not so much on this board it seems. )

[robosmith]

Climate Misinformation by Source: Roy Spencer

 

Quote

 

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite.  He is known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal [Wikipedia]. 

Dr. Spencer suggests that global warming is mostly due to natural internal variability, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy.  He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank.  Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization [DeSmogBlog].

 

Quotes		Articles		Arguments		Blogs		Links		Search
Favorite climate myths by Roy Spencer Below are many of the climate myths used by Roy Spencer plus how often each myth has been used. Climate myths by Spencer What the Science Says Usage "Roy Spencer finds negative feedback" Spencer's model is too simple, excluding important factors like ocean dynamics and treats cloud feedbacks as forcings. 6 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. 4 "It's cooling" All the indicators show that global warming is still happening. 3 "It's a natural cycle" No known natural forcing fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 2 "It's freaking cold!" A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures. 1 "2009-2010 winter saw record cold spells" A cold day in Chicago in winter has nothing to do with the trend of global warming. 1 "It's internal variability" Internal variability can only account for small amounts of warming and cooling over periods of decades, and scientific studies have consistently shown that it cannot account for the global warming over the past century. 1 "IPCC is alarmist" Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response. 1 "CO2 limits will harm the economy" The benefits of a price on carbon outweigh the costs several times over. 1 "CO2 limits will hurt the poor" Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change. 1 "Al Gore got it wrong" Al Gore's book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books. 1 "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????" Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was the hottest recorded. 1 "CO2 is plant food" The effects of enhanced CO2 on terrestrial plants are variable and complex and dependent on numerous factors 1 "CO2 is not the only driver of climate" Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change. 1 "Ocean acidification isn't serious" Ocean acidification threatens entire marine food chains. 1 "It's El Niño" El Nino has no trend and so is not responsible for the trend of global warming. 1 "Infrared Iris will reduce global warming" The iris hypothesis has not withstood the test of time - subsequent research has found that if it exists, the effect is much smaller than originally hypothesized, and may even slightly amplify rather than reducing global warming.

 

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No

 Let's do conflate the financial troubles with climate activism. Only an id1ot doesn't understand that forcing the price of energy up, is destructive to these poor and middle-class folks you Libbies profess to represent. 

Your point here is so far off base that I must surmise you're willing to sell any old bullshit to the masses in order to maintain a boot on the throat of...

The masses. 

"AHHH! WE ALL GONNA DIIIEEE!"

pfft...

^Hyperbolic BULLSHIT OPINIONS without EVIDENCE.

[Deluge]

16 hours ago, robosmith said:

Climate Misinformation by Source: Roy Spencer

 

^Hyperbolic BULLSHIT OPINIONS without EVIDENCE.

There is no evidence. There's just a bunch of woke a$$holes trying to cram their dystopia down the public's throat. 

You really need to go f*ck yourselves.  

[Deluge]

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think that's a false binary. ie. Whether it's happening vs whether it will end us.

The true binary, for years, was whether warming was actually happening, believe it or not.  Then it was whether CO2 was to blame.  Then it was how MUCH CO2 was to blame.  At the end of it will be "well, we can't do anything now".

Those of you who have changed your positions from "it's not happening" please raise your hands.

The idea that it's the end of existence for humans isn't provable, but the idea that we COULD mitigate this is realistic.  What is the cost we're willing to put into mitigating that ?  Low single digits of GDP ?

And let's not conflate the economic troubles of the masses with Climate Change moderation - there are plenty of folks who are doing great and could afford to guarantee their continued presence as our economic overlords.  (Nudges Elon)

I don't know that CO2 has anything to do with harm, so let's start there. 

From the article:

"(1) long-term warming has been weaker than expected; (2) it’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; (3) there are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity;"

Point out where you think this guy is wrong, because that makes a lot more sense to me than the noise you moonbats have been making. 

Edited August 21, 2025 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

53 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I don't know that CO2 has anything to do with harm, so let's start there. 

From the article:

"(1) long-term warming has been weaker than expected; (2) it’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; (3) there are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity;"

Point out where you think this guy is wrong, because that makes a lot more sense to me than the noise you moonbats have been making. 

It's an opinion.

I can't speak for his assessment of the risks.

And once again you feel it necessary to insult people.

I think that I have been fair on this.  And you seem to have accepted my suggestions somewhat.  That's a good sign.

[Deluge]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's an opinion.

2. I can't speak for his assessment of the risks.

3. And once again you feel it necessary to insult people.

4. I think that I have been fair on this.  And you seem to have accepted my suggestions somewhat.  That's a good sign.

1. So is climate scare. 

2. Then it's best not to speak at all. Democrats lose elections because of jackassery like climate scare. 

3. No, it's just fun. I enjoy insulting people - especially when they get belligerent.  

4. You've been one-sided Mike, and that's it. I've been the same way because we're both convinced that the other guy is wrong. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. So is climate scare. 

2. Then it's best not to speak at all. Democrats lose elections because of jackassery like climate scare. 

3. No, it's just fun. I enjoy insulting people - especially when they get belligerent.  

4. You've been one-sided Mike, and that's it. I've been the same way because we're both convinced that the other guy is wrong. 

 

1. Actually, yes.  And we debate the basis for our conclusions.  I can't point out where he's wrong, as you asked, because that wasn't provided.

2. Well I can say... 'please show your reasons '

3. I don't think I have been belligerent.

4. I want to look at reasons.  I accept points all the time.

[eyeball]

Yes, Increasing CO2 Causes a Warming Tendency in the Climate System… So What?

On 8/20/2025 at 7:47 AM, Deluge said:

Exactly. So what? 

I like this guy already! 

It's just another mealy-mouthed way of asking who gives a fùck.

Rising sea levels...more wildfires...stronger storms...mass extinction...it's all good.

[robosmith]

On 8/21/2025 at 9:05 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Actually, yes.  And we debate the basis for our conclusions.  I can't point out where he's wrong, as you asked, because that wasn't provided.

Thee is a whole list of where Spencer has been wrong here.

[Nationalist]

On 8/20/2025 at 4:24 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Let's talk about alarmism on YOUR position now.

Climate activism is CAUSING our economic problems ?

That would be tough for you to prove now, wouldn't it ?

Ok let's do that.

My position, as you and I have discussed recently, is that the planet's climate does appear to have warmed a small amount. Yet nothing anyone has observed, leads to the conclusion that we have a crisis that requires mitigating actions that drive inflation. Which is exactly what has happened. The politicians and institutions have made a mountain out of a molehill in order to generate more funds.

So yes Mike...climate activism is simply a panicked response to something we have observed but can't pinpoint the cause of, because of the excessive number of variables. 

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

1. The politicians and institutions have made a mountain out of a molehill in order to generate more funds.

2. So yes Mike...climate activism is simply a panicked response to

3. something we have observed but can't pinpoint the cause of, because of the excessive number of variables. 

1. Why generate more funds when you're also spending the revenue?

2. I'm not commenting on "activism", so let's leave it out.

3. We can never "pinpoint" the cause but we can be confident.  This is the essence of risk management: determine what might happen and spend a commensurate amount to mitigate.

 

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Why generate more funds when you're also spending the revenue?

2. I'm not commenting on "activism", so let's leave it out.

3. We can never "pinpoint" the cause but we can be confident.  This is the essence of risk management: determine what might happen and spend a commensurate amount to mitigate.

 

1. That's Socialism Mike. Take in $10 and spend $50.

2. Well I am. And to be clear, I define an activist as one who supports and defends the imposition of financial penalties and restrictions on fossil fuels.

When there exists a reliable and reasonable alternative...THEN we'll talk about replacement. 

3. This commensurate amount, along with over bearing regulations, is causing inflation. It needs to stop.

[Deluge]

On 8/20/2025 at 2:24 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Let's talk about alarmism on YOUR position now.

Climate activism is CAUSING our economic problems ?

That would be tough for you to prove now, wouldn't it ?

There is no alarmism without climate alarmism. You clowns started it. 

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, Deluge said:

There is no alarmism without climate alarmism. You clowns started it. 

No, the panic button was part of the general mass media strategy, weaponized by Freedom Party know-nothings who think that expertise isn't a thing.

[Deluge]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, the panic button was part of the general mass media strategy, weaponized by Freedom Party know-nothings who think that expertise isn't a thing.

"Expertise" isn't shit without compelling results. In other words, NYC would have to be up to its ass in sea water to make believers out of us. 

I know that doesn't sound right to a delicate tree worshipper like yourself, but that's how sure we are that the idea of man-made climate change is bullshit. 

Edited August 24, 2025 by Deluge

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. "Expertise" isn't shit without compelling results.

2. In other words, NYC would have to be up to its ass in sea water to make believers out of us. 

3. I know that doesn't sound right to a delicate tree worshipper like yourself,

4. ... but that's how sure we are that the idea of man-made climate change is bullshit. 

1. Experts have indeed produced results.

2. You conflate every opinion on the side of anthropogenic climate change as an expert.  It's not so.

3. You mischaracterise me and insult me.  You can't make an argument without doing that it seems.

4. Who said NYC would be under water by now?  

 

 

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Experts have indeed produced results.

2. You conflate every opinion on the side of anthropogenic climate change as an expert.  It's not so.

3. You mischaracterise me and insult me.  You can't make an argument without doing that it seems.

4. Who said NYC would be under water by now?  

 

 

1. I said compelling results - Like NYC going under water. 

2. I don't have to be an expert to see what's going on, which is nothing. You people have had almost 200 years, and we're STILL not buying it. 

3. My argument is based on YOUR lack of results. The notion of man-made climate change stinks of bullshit. 

4. Because the world's been pumping shit into the air since the start of the industrial age, and NYC is still there, beaches and all - as if nothing ever happened.

200+ years of pumping indistrial shit into the atmosphere and everyone's still here just doing our thing. 

[robosmith]

On 8/24/2025 at 7:22 AM, Deluge said:

1. I said compelling results - Like NYC going under water. 

2. I don't have to be an expert to see what's going on, which is nothing. You people have had almost 200 years, and we're STILL not buying it. 

3. My argument is based on YOUR lack of results. The notion of man-made climate change stinks of bullshit. 

4. Because the world's been pumping shit into the air since the start of the industrial age, and NYC is still there, beaches and all - as if nothing ever happened.

200+ years of pumping indistrial shit into the atmosphere and everyone's still here just doing our thing. 

You know, it's REALLY STUPID to put your head in the sand and say I don't see ANYTHING, until DISASTER STRIKES.

WE HAVE SCIENCE to help PREVENT DISASTER. When it STRIKES, IT'S TOO LATE. Duh.

People with BRAINS understand that incremental less expensive measures over the long term is MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT.

That LEAVES YOU OUT. 

[Michael Hardner]

On 8/24/2025 at 10:22 AM, Deluge said:

1. I said compelling results - Like NYC going under water. 

2. I don't have to be an expert to see what's going on, which is nothing. You people have had almost 200 years, and we're STILL not buying it. 

3. My argument is based on YOUR lack of results. The notion of man-made climate change stinks of bullshit. 

4. Because the world's been pumping shit into the air since the start of the industrial age, and NYC is still there, beaches and all - as if nothing ever happened.

5. 200+ years of pumping indistrial shit into the atmosphere and everyone's still here just doing our hing. 

1. They have produced accurate results.  Compelling is a personal and subjective opinion.  I think you've described the criteria you're looking for, and to it's not practical.

2. That wasn't my point.

3. My point was your name-calling reveals a lack of arguments.

4. You're revisiting an old point.  You said something like you want to wait until disaster is imminent before we act.

5. Not relevant.