JoeWeber

Brent, this when you need to say, O.K, there is more to this than I thought.

That is the whole point, catastrophic AGW is predicted on the notion that once CO2 was all in, then other mechanisms would kick in and feed the feedback loop. Well that hasn't happened. So.... Now that's the problem with bottom fishing: you never know what you're gonna catch. That reply was not for you. I'm not going to continue this endless debate with you, Brent. I think I know where you are coming from and I simply have a different, and equally stubborn, view. From what I can tell what you say hasn't happened yet is now happening. You think otherwise. Let's count our chips later on when history is over.

I take no offense, far from it. I do not argue there is an equivalency, it was simply a clumsy use of a current term. I was told this picture was from the day they bombed Bad Vöslau, Austria.

Thank you. I fixed it for readability. "In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of feed back loop interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the not necessarily compounding feed back loop effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2."

Not me. I definitely hope he gets blown up.

Not my position. A warmer climate causes CO2 and Methane to be released from thawing permafrost, for example. Let's continue the blanket analogy a bit further. At 800 blankets you'll have long since been suffocated by the sheer weight of them all. And depending on how gently each was laid you might never notice it was happening until it was too late.

Well, it must count a little that he was wronger in 2012 then in 2019. I don't think Brent is right on the issues. In fact I'm often baffled by the fact that a former bank officer who would never deny the effects of compound interest persistently denies, or simply ignores, the compounding effects of rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2. He's got a shit happens way of looking at the thing that is bothersome. But he's right, shit does happen. For example methane seeps from thawing underwater permafrost is todays happening shit. The point is that even were you to achieve the impossible and get him to agree that the entirety of the increase since 2010 was caused by burning fossil fuels he would still think it's peachy. I say he's not a denier because I believe he knows AGW is real. He just doesn't want this generation to pay for fixing the problem.

On August 27 he wrote this in reply to BIGUN: "I don’t deny climate change; I don’t deny that CO2 has some role. I question that a slightly warmer planet with CO2 levels that are well within pre/historical norms will result in an imminent existential catastrophe. I further question the efficacy of any attempts of mitigation." I think he might have said something similar to me that was also buried in the avalanche of crap that follows. I concede in advance that these sorts of statements by Brent are few and far between, but in fairness (and FUN!) he is under constant attack. He's just not the sort to yield an inch of ground in battle.

I'm not sure Brent is fairly characterized as a denier, even as regards AGW. He might argue degree, if you will, but not whether human caused CO2 emissions are contributing to an accelerated warming of the planet. As am I, he's more of a change is good and who knows what tomorrow will bring sort of guy. Where we differ is that where I've become quite comfortable with geologic time he sees no reason to wait for whats coming anyway, especially if it cuts into his fun today. He also simply rejects the idea that it's our hands on the thermostat. I refuse to say he's right, but he is definitely not incorrect. Leaving the Paris Accords was double down dumb for many more serious reasons than the futility of the effort. I'm not sure he sees that. Also, just saying that 500, 600, or even 800ppm of CO2 will be the bees, we then no longer have, knees doesn't begin to address how the holy hell we stop the accelerating increase once we arrive at happily ever after. To my mind that's the fatal flaw in the do nothing argument not which paragraph was missed when skimming the latest paper on the subject. Specifically, I'd argue that until we have the instructions, let's not take the goddamn planet apart.

There's just no way to sugar coat this: I agree with Brent. Do you now see what you've done John? It's not right. Hopefully those near you can do an intervention. Maybe forcing you to binge watch all 45 Monty Python episodes, except Jabberwocky obviously, would help. Maybe a little dress up for a Rocky Horror Picture Show? That sort of thing. That sort of anything. We're here for you. You can trust us.

They'd paint her a cultist in no time flat. I think this parsing of how many would vote for this person who is a _______________ , fill in the blank thing, is wrong. The majority will vote for a hetero white male. Now that's flat out stupid on so many levels, no question. But the only social wrong we should be focused on righting is the 2016 election of Donald Trump. If we can get rid of him there's a chance to get back on track. If we don't we're ______________ fill in the blank.

I'm thinking it will come down to a referendum on the Left. So far, we suck. We knew on day one how he won and how he would win again if we played the same ball game. Well, we are playing the same game and losing again. We do not yet have Trump on the ropes, but that won't stop the Dem's from ripping at each other at the next debate. It's never too late to make the right decision even if you're sure you're going in. And it's still not too late for a truly electable D Candidate to enter the race. But instead it's Gramps, Gramps and the school Marm heading down the stretch. Not good.

Winning. Right now we have Trumps potential impeachment to make us feel smart and the current field of Democratic Presidential hopefuls to make us feel stupid. Rather than either we should have focused on finding, and rallying around, a centrist candidate who could beat Trump.

I'm convinced he's right; I've been beating that drum all along. But who? Michael Bloomberg? Sherrod Brown?

You have no reason to make apologies. It's this ability that sets apart the keen intellect from the blunt one. Sadly, it's also why we have moderators.

10,000 posts is a hell of a career and, for retiring, a nice round number. Of course you could hang on for another 16 years and go out at 20,000. And who knows, maybe by then 14 people will think what you write makes sense.

Yes, it's an issue of global concern. But considering the Maldives are scheduled to be in the first round to go I would be less surprised if they were doing the screaming. Of course with over a third of their economy dependent on burning fossil fuels they are in a bit of a tight spot.

".....our Swedish Professor saying...." I understand why the Maldivians are freaking out over climate change, but the Swedes? I forgave them for giving us IKEA but a flow of deranged energizer bunnies ain't gonna cut it.

I'm not going to watch the video because it's intent seems obvious. But in all fairness, she doesn't have the years on the planet to express the level of presumption and intensity she projected at the UN. And that is my sole and only bitch with her. Well, that and she does a fantastic impression of a Rock Dassie when she's torqued.

Excuse me, Professor, I stupidly assumed your post was in the context of the thread. Lesson learned. It's pedestrian, I know, but sometimes people just like having a little fun even if it's with someone who has opinions they might find disagreeable. Humor breaks down more barriers than it raises. Just sayin'.

Well, her parents are in show business.

I get it that she has a certain good fortune that allows her green escapade. But, considering that she sailed here as a passenger on a professionally crewed $5 Million dollar IMOCA Class 60 racing yacht I definitely find the whole sailing here because airplane travel is so polluting schtick somewhat galling. Again, I'm no denier but to me this was definitely a case of right church, wrong pew.

Ken, I'm no denier and she pissed off me. Scolding adults in the brash, insulting way she did at the UN was out of line.

It hasn't and likely never will but that's simply because we give lip service only to International Conventions. Some nations take such things seriously. I would howl with laughter if some innocent world leader was sent swirling down the Trump Toilet just from taking his call.

And why not? When the President does it that means it's not illegal. Well, that is when our President does it. Some of those other world leaders, in particular those whose countries don't flip the bird at the International Court of Justice, should brush up on the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty, which in part states: "no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state . . ."