The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The argument to take action sooner rather than later certainly makes sense.

Your analogy doesn't hold though, as the consequences of a fall, or the consequences of malignant tumors are very well understood and clearly dangerous.

Global warming affects absolutely everything, and not necessarily in a negative way. There are some clear negative consequences, such as oceans inundating low-lying land, or polar bears losing habitat. What isn't clear is the practically infinite positive and negative ways other things will be affected.

That said, what is known is that adaptation and preparation is made easier when there's more time, and rapid change puts more pressure on creatures (including us) attempting to adapt. The question then becomes whether we get more bang for the buck delaying the rate of change, or by preparing for it.

Though I'm no expert, it seems more straightforward to me to build something that accommodates current and future weather than to keep what I have built and try to manipulate the outdoor thermostat. This especially when the timescale we're talking about is still many generations. We're not even talking about us having to build a new home for ourselves, but perhaps great grandchildren needing to build elsewhere, or fortify against future weather.

I don't believe you understand the scale of the changes that we've already locked into the pipeline.There are hundreds of dynamics that have been set into motion.The non-linear amplification feedback loops are what's going to end life as we know it.Some already hover precariously on the tipping point.
We're talking about this generation.You'd know that if your sources had been different.Pity!

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So we've got liars on one extreme end, and liars on the other.

"don'T rump", making excuses for white nationalists who killed a woman in Charlottesville, said there were good people on both sides.....along with his other 10,000 plus lies.
P.S. update: A news-person just now, numbered the lies of "don'T rump", in excess of 12,000.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So we've got liars on one extreme end, and liars on the other. More likely though is ignorance, since having a full understanding of the implications of global warming is impossible.

I'm not sure the Duncan Hunter comment is a lie though. There are scientists that have suggested we're still benefiting from warming, and may continue to benefit until 2080.

Humanity has indisputably benefitted from the warming from the last ice age that began 20,000 years ago. If we have benefited from the warming that began 20,000 years ago, when did we stop benefiting from the continued warming? In other words, at what temperature were we on the whole worse off than better off?

If we haven't reached that temperature yet, what temperature is it, and when are we likely to reach it?

Nobody has ventured an answer to my repeated question.

Hunter would be a generalist.He's not even qualified to address the topic from a base of knowledge.And like anyone else,he's had as equal access to the science as anyone else.Does he argue with his brain surgeon?
I'd say we began to not benefit as soon as warming exceeded natural variability,in late 20th-century.
No one argues that individuals may experience local and regional benefits,at the cost of other locals.
We're on our way to 560ppmv carbon dioxide,and that will be 3-C.Oceans will be 80-feet higher.In some places,merely going outside will be a death sentence.
Watch the mountain glaciers in the tropics,and watch the polar ice.These will be the harbingers.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I don't believe you understand the scale of the changes that we've already locked into the pipeline.There are hundreds of dynamics that have been set into motion.The non-linear amplification feedback loops are what's going to end life as we know it.Some already hover precariously on the tipping point.
We're talking about this generation.You'd know that if your sources had been different.Pity!

Of course I don't understand the scale, as nobody does. My understanding is much worse than those who are devoted to studying the changes. That said, most that study the issue are looking for a problem, which is much different than looking to merely quantify predicted changes. If you're looking for a problem, and especially if your financial backing is predicated on finding a problem, the probability of finding a problem is extremely high, along with the incentive to overstate the problem while completely ignoring any evidence that would support improvement in living conditions, large and small.

Losing species is not good, and it's something to be avoided, but it isn't at the top of my priority list, as our species is most important to me. We've already impacted species more directly by displacing their natural environments and inserting our preferred species. It's disrupted life more than global warming has, or at least impacted them in a shorter period of time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

... and at a foot of rise per century, that would take much longer than civilized humans have existed to happen (27,000 years). We're on target for about a foot of sea-level rise over 100 years, or about 1/8th inch per year.

Not good, but people are capable of adapting to 1/8th inch per year.

As a tangent thought, has anyone ever contemplated that it's the year 2019, which is a very small number? Considering geologic and cosmic time, 4000 or so years of civilization is an instant. We very well might be living much closer to the beginning of history than the end of it.

14,000-years ago,sea-level increased 3-feet per 20-years,for 400-years,or,15-feet per century. The US ARMY Corps of Engineers can't do anything about something lake that.
We're staring down the double-barrel of a 100-year ocean heating delay cycle,plus a near-term sulfate aerosol-induced parasol-effect,amplification doubling of warming.There's no way to engineer for it.There's not enough money on Earth to pay for it if they could.
The IPCC is being very kind not to melt down Wall Street,by not talking about the other warming scenarios which escape media.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Climate gate 1 and 2.
Then there was climate gate 3 but that was down graded to gross scientific misconduct.
Any belivers who haven't heard of any of these chose to bury their heads in the sand and pretend everything is perfect.
Even if you ignore the fraud there is the funding bias, where it's been proven by the sugar industry of all places that scientific studies are more likely to end with favorable results to the entity that supplied the funding.

Again,you'll better argue your case if you provide us with the prima facie evidence.
Who,what,when ,where,why,and who paid for it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Of course I don't understand the scale, as nobody does. My understanding is much worse than those who are devoted to studying the changes. That said, most that study the issue are looking for a problem, which is much different than looking to merely quantify predicted changes. If you're looking for a problem, and especially if your financial backing is predicated on finding a problem, the probability of finding a problem is extremely high, along with the incentive to overstate the problem while completely ignoring any evidence that would support improvement in living conditions, large and small.

Losing species is not good, and it's something to be avoided, but it isn't at the top of my priority list, as our species is most important to me. We've already impacted species more directly by displacing their natural environments and inserting our preferred species. It's disrupted life more than global warming has, or at least impacted them in a shorter period of time.

I'd like to know why you believe this,or if there was a particular event,speech,document,whatever,which convinced you that 'most' scientists were doing this,or are motivated this way.
I do know that S.Fred Singer was paid $60,000 a year,plus expenses, by the fossil-fuels industry to sow doubt about climate change science.What a coincidence that all his scientific conclusions were favorable to the fossil-fuels industry!There must be something about the water in Virginia.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The IPCC is being very kind not to melt down Wall Street,by not talking about the other warming scenarios which escape media.

I'd argue the opposite, that it would be unkind to preemptively destroy in anticipation for possible future destruction.

We're all better off for having not nuked the Soviets preemptively.

Causing death and destruction now is not the answer to possibly stemming death and destruction in the future, especially when the specifics of future loss are so poorly understood, and the specifics of current loss relatively well understood.

I consider even severe death and destruction in the future due to climate change to be more acceptable than even slightly less severe death and destruction now at the hand of socialist dictatorship. We know the evil of socialist dictatorship, and would do well to steer a wide berth around it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'd argue the opposite, that it would be unkind to preemptively destroy in anticipation for possible future destruction.

We're all better off for having not nuked the Soviets preemptively.

Causing death and destruction now is not the answer to possibly stemming death and destruction in the future, especially when the specifics of future loss are so poorly understood, and the specifics of current loss relatively well understood.

I consider even severe death and destruction in the future due to climate change to be more acceptable than even slightly less severe death and destruction now at the hand of socialist dictatorship. We know the evil of socialist dictatorship, and would do well to steer a wide berth around it.

How did that ever enter the conversation?

[redneck]

Originally Posted by freebeard

As one who insults, you're not that good.

This just went live at noon Eastern time

>