palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
My favorite quote of the entire thread! "...depending on what you care to believe." Science, it seems, cannot prevail in the face of belief, whether we like it or not. Whether fact or fiction, we ultimately get to decide what is true for ourselves. Even in the face of blindingly obvious evidence, we can still choose not to believe. It's frustrating, this whole being human thing. How are we to convince anyone of anything when they can ultimately play the human card and flatly deny what most consider solid, undeniable evidence? Wish I knew.
From your post, I am not quite sure where you stand on the issue...Do yo believe AGW is actually happening? If you do, and you are suggesting that there is "blindingly obvious evidence" perhaps you could answer the few very basic and straight forward questions I asked above...I will repeat them for you here.
- Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?
- The claim that mankind is altering the global climate which must mean that climate science is able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. They must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence can you provide that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.
- The climate is a chaotic system. Do you believe that climate science can state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? They would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.
- Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Do you believe climate science can state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do they base their claim?
- This action that climate science wants for me to take based upon their claim is going to cost money...and if they want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now.... pollution, habitat loss, etc. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that they want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless they can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action they want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can they give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.
If I misread the intent of your post and you are not an alarmist warmer, then my bad. Disregard the questions above.