Stumpy 284
billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> But the warming has been marginal, will continue to be minor . . .will not be
>remotely disastrous
You're committing the same fallacy that you accuse others of, using subjective terms to describe an objective event. And that is trivially easy to argue, said argument to commence the next time a heat wave kills a few hundred people somewhere. Then you will have to fall back on "well, climate change had nothing to do with that" "OK it had something to do with it but it only accounted for 25% of the deaths" or (more likely) "there's just no way to know so we can't say anything for sure."
And that disconnect - "we know it will be minor" to "there's just no way to know" - will continue to marginalize even the more thoughtful skeptics.
If you want alarmists to stop using the word "major" because it's a subjective and emotional word, you have to stop using "minor."
>remotely disastrous
You're committing the same fallacy that you accuse others of, using subjective terms to describe an objective event. And that is trivially easy to argue, said argument to commence the next time a heat wave kills a few hundred people somewhere. Then you will have to fall back on "well, climate change had nothing to do with that" "OK it had something to do with it but it only accounted for 25% of the deaths" or (more likely) "there's just no way to know so we can't say anything for sure."
And that disconnect - "we know it will be minor" to "there's just no way to know" - will continue to marginalize even the more thoughtful skeptics.
If you want alarmists to stop using the word "major" because it's a subjective and emotional word, you have to stop using "minor."
rhaig 0
winsor******By a senior fellow of the heartland institute. Nice try though, at least you are now admitting that global warming exists - thats progress at least.
So what you're saying is that the data cited is what it is, and the interpretation is unimpeachable. The only thing you have to attack is to attack the person offering the opinion.
This is prettymuch what I've been saying for years. Because I look at the data and look out the window. The earth is warming. Human activity plays a role in it. But the warming has been marginal, will continue to be minor, and well-within human and natural ability tro adapt and will not be remotely disastrous, except to those who have a short memory about what is precedented.
Even the deniers aren't really deniers. Sure, they do deny that we will die in fire and brimstone under a mile of liquid water by 2070. Which is the actual dividing line in this whole debate.
Heresy! Burn him!
He's a witch!
He turned me into a duck!!
--
Rob
Rob
From the article:
[Reply]The analysis showed what [I] might be looming for the country. And that would be a plethora of sweltering summer days.
Phoenix currently averages 16 days above 110°F each year. By 2100, that number will be more than 101 days above 110°F. In other words, the mercury [I]could top 110°F nearly every day in June, July and August in an average summer. Even by just mid-century, Phoenix [I]could see 53 days a year above that threshold, if emissions continue to increase rapidly.
[Reply]The analysis showed what [I] might be looming for the country. And that would be a plethora of sweltering summer days.
Phoenix currently averages 16 days above 110°F each year. By 2100, that number will be more than 101 days above 110°F. In other words, the mercury [I]could top 110°F nearly every day in June, July and August in an average summer. Even by just mid-century, Phoenix [I]could see 53 days a year above that threshold, if emissions continue to increase rapidly.
This is the purest example of why alarmists are screwing themselves. Italics are all qualified statements. Alarmists focus on climate projections: those things for which there are no observationsm. Climate projections are hypotheses.
But there was something nice here: an actual prediction that was not qualified. I bolded it. So there is a benchmark that was predicted with certainty.
The 2041-2060 scenarios. I'm looking forward to not seeing them happen. I'll bet they don't. Because even with all that CO2, the US has spent the last couple of years setting more cold records than hot records.
The alarmists used to focus on observational data. Back when it supported them. Now they put their heads in the sand, saying that if all of the hydrate goes then...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
DanG 1
QuoteSo what you're saying is that the data cited is what it is, and the interpretation is unimpeachable.
Nowhere did Stumpy say that.
I think the interpretation is highly impeachable. As do most people, quite obviously, or we wouldn't be having this debate.
- Dan G
billvon> But the warming has been marginal, will continue to be minor . . .will not be
>remotely disastrous
You're committing the same fallacy that you accuse others of, using subjective terms to describe an objective event. And that is trivially easy to argue,
Guilty as ccharged.
[Reply]said argument to commence the next time a heat wave kills a few hundred people somewhere.
That's the alarmist: will argue the rare bad thing and not the vast periods of time in between. Another week without a heat wave. After a showing itself for a few days in Japan, heat wave disappeared again due to AGW. With one appearance in Australia in Jannuary, killer heat wave's periods of extended absence has been blamed on man made global warming.
I don't wait until the bad things happen to point the finger. Man made global warming is with us every day, including since 2005 (the last time a Cat 3 hurricane made landfall in the US). So the alarmists will look at the first cat 3 or stronger hurricane to hit the US (it's going to happen sometime) and blames man made global warming for it.
[Reply]Then you will have to fall back on "well, climate change had nothing to do with that"
Probably. Echoing the line of climate science consensus that no individual event can be attributed to climate change. Because I'm all about science, yo.
[Reply]"OK it had something to do with it but it only accounted for 25% of the deaths" or (more likely) "there's just no way to know so we can't say anything for sure."
Imore likely to say that heat waves have been pretty nasty in the past and will be nasty in the future.
[Reply]And that disconnect - "we know it will be minor" to "there's just no way to know" - will continue to marginalize even the more thoughtful skeptics.
Right. Because looking at the past paints a picture. Alarmists marginalize observations in favor of predictions. Skeptics say "look what is happening" all the time. Alarmists used to. But then "look hat's happening" didn't turn out too well.
[Quote]If you want alarmists to stop using the word "major" because it's a subjective and emotional word, you have to stop using "minor."
Opinions are fine. When they pain opinions as facts is when I have a problem. Facts don't have probabilities assigned in nonquantum settings. That's why "we may have sea level rise of two meters by 2100" is just a spin way of saying, "we probably won't have sea level rise anywhere near that."
A few months ago I posted this: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4613621#4613621
A leading climate scientist demonstrated why it is that models show such great warming planned for the future. By assuming constant 1370 watss per square meter (8 or 9 watts per square meter of insolation more than is actually happening and higher than ever actually recorded), assuming bottom-end albedo, assuming a catastrophic (exponential) drop in tropospheric aerosols (already near pre-industrial levels) and an ECS of 2.5.
Of course it's going to get way hot. Nobody here responded that my reading as wrong. In fact, bill, you posted something about houses buckling on melting permafrost due to global warming. Even though you know damned well that the heat transfer of the houses themselves melted the permafrost. Show awful images, blame global warming, and do it even though you KNOW that CO2 didn't cause it. And the climate scientist knew it, too.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Right. Because he cited to evidence. What a subjective prick! Again, you don't challenge what he put out there. Just him.
Got any substance? That guy actually gave loads of it. How about some counterpoints other than being pissed that the guy put his opinion in an opinion piece?
Seriously - if you have any challenge put it out there.
Here you go - something equally valid and evidence based:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/87-cities-4-scenarios-1-really-hot-future-for-u.s-17866
I wouldn't necessarily take that as any more valid than the heartland piece. I tend not to devote too much time to an author like James Taylor whose opinion has already been bought and paid for. I'm a scientist (Biology) by training and I tend to go with the scientific consensus. Even the Creationism groups can create pseudoscientific nonsense that sounds credible unless you understand the science behind it. I'll be the first to say I'm no climate scientist - but I tend to listen to those that are, and the consensus there is overwhelming, despite what those on the right and in the energy industry would have you believe.