The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The church of man made global warming says "trust us our computer modeling is flawless" and here we are nearly 25 years later and every computer model I am aware of has failed.
They all said it was supposed to get warmer and warmer and that the rate of warming was supposed to increase, the ice was supposed to melt faster and faster, there would be less an less ice.
No one said anything about the ice loss slowing, reversing, this is supposed to be the death spiral and they should be saying "I told you so".

I have many of the actual,peer-reviewed research papers,published in SCIENCE and NATURE,by the actual researchers.
The first thing they write about in the preamble of each paper is what could be wrong with their science.
And in the conclusions,what they believe should be the next step in research.
I've never read where a scientist said 'trust us.' Scientists don't do that.
From their data emerge dots,which the perspicacious can connect into patterns,trends.Extrapolating the trend leads to concern.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

What would getting off the planet accomplish? Attempting to send 200 people to die on Mars is a huge waste of talent and capital.
.
There is no Planet B.

which was the whole premise of AeroStealth's book,Takopia-IV

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Go on YouTube and search "al gore" and you can watch him for hours talk about how the polar ice caps are going to melt by 2010 and flood the world.

So the computer model source data is publicly available?
The antartic has not been gaining ice?
Which of the computer models have been correct?
If all these computer models were correct then why did the ipcc say that all the models were failing because they were over estimating the effect CO2 was having by double what it was.
Where is the death spiral we were promised?
Why isn't the plant warming faster?
That sure is a lot of blind faith for something that isn't a religion.

The poles are melting.And technically,if we were to lose Greenland and Antarctica we'd be looking at 220-feet of seal-level rise.No one can predict if and when this might happen.So Gore gets a FAIL.
The Arctic is losing ice 'volume'.
Greenland is losing ice ;volume.'
Antarctica is losing ice 'volume'.
'Extent' is meaningless with respect to ice loss.
The IPCC reports are conservative,have caveats,and are under- reporting what is actually happening.
You see glimpses of the death spiral with heat deaths,flood victims,refugees,wild fire victims,tropical disease victims,tornado victims,hurricane victims,species loss,crop failures,drought,it just goes on and on.
Earth's average temperature will go up over a degree as soon as the coal-fired power plants are shuttered.It's their sulphate's albedo keeping a lid on some of the de facto warming.
Since around 1661,when 'fact' started to enter natural philosophy,modern science was born,and we've been perfecting, it in fits and starts ever since.
I doubt that you'd be alive today without it.You may not want to slam it too hard.

[freebeard]

Nine posts in eleven minutes? I'm starting to worry. I can add this comment before the edit tag times in.

I have many of the actual,peer-reviewed research papers,published in SCIENCE and NATURE,by the actual researchers.

Probably respectable, but there is a problem with bogus papers passing peer review in lesser journals (See the video below (first half)), as well as the Replicability Problem.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Now I know how all that political thing rapping started. Left used ecology to attack right wing captalism and rightr reacted and stated that ecology was bull sh...t.
....
Freedonmia???

Thanks for your perspective. All I got was 'obvious point is obvious'. Here's your reward: I'll name my own social-anarchism eutopia for you — under Creative Commons CC0 so you can use it, just don't claim it: Fremania.

Originally Posted by Sendler

It is a good, optimistic pep talk. But he has, like so many others, failed to grasp the scale of our total primary energy consumption and what it would take to replace it. 17 TeraWatts. Without major socio-economic change, we will come up short.

For me it's simply — the hippys were right.

We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden

Woodstock by Joni Mitchell

Here's a video that Youtube wanted me to see: Greenpeace Founder Debunks Climate Change! (Dr. Patrick Moore Uncut) | Louder With Crowder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vqlq3wsWrI

Seems ontopic.

[oil pan 4]

I would simplify "passionate exaggerating" to "lie".

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by niky

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ic...elt-gore-2014/

He is referring to sea ice.

And the possibility that sea ice will disappear within the next few years.

We're still on track to get there, eventually.

-

Again, howeer, Al Gore is NOT a scientist. He is almost as guilty of misreading the data analyses as deniers are.

If Gore is limiting his comment to the Arctic Ocean,in the summer time,then there are plenty of climatologists that will back him up on that claim,including the Pentagon.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I seem to remember al gore saying "the artic could be ice free in 5 years" in his retarded movie that came out in 2006.

He said it, it didn't happen.

Don't let the guy get to you.He may feel that he's got to do the shock and awe treatment just to get his audience's attention.I don't mind him,or his exaggerations.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Orderly transition to what? What type of social/ economic system do you see coming in 30 years when critical demand for liquid fuel will still be high but price will be 4X? How will we repay all of this current debt. And make a complete industrial, agricultural, infrastructure, transportation, transition to full electrification with full storage?

It will be something beyond my security level and pay grade.
The very fact that you can list such things is evidence that these are considerations,leading to the highest levels of the intelligence community and think tanks.
Stability will be the byword.We're not going to have anarchy in this country.
Since debt is a legal fiction,erasing debt is a matter of rearranging the ink on a piece of paper.
We like capitalism here,I suspect that this is what we'll have,although it may be a hybrid form, with some command and control.My college sociology professor talked about this.
New generations born into this world will take whatever they see as 'normal.'They'll have nothing to compare to.
At 30-years out,that's a lot of time,with slow,steady,incremental change along the timeline.That's all they've ever allowed before.
I likely won't be around.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I would simplify "passionate exaggerating" to "lie".

I support your right to think it,say it.I don't like to be duped.
And Gore may have done as much damage as he may have helped.

[freebeard]

Stability will be the byword.We're not going to have anarchy in this country.
Since debt is a legal fiction,erasing debt is a matter of rearranging the ink on a piece of paper.
We like capitalism here,I suspect that this is what we'll have,although it may be a hybrid form, with some command and control.My college sociology professor talked about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists hold that in the absence of statute (law by arbitrary autocratic decrees, or bureaucratic legislation swayed by transitory political special interest groups), society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilize through the spontaneous and organic discipline of the free market (in what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[1][2]
[snip]
This pact would recognize self-ownership, property, contracts, and tort law, in keeping with the universal non-aggression principle (NAP).

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small Jeffersonian night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals and their properties from foreign and domestic aggression; and from other anarchists who seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of private property and the flow of capital.