Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 3:31:52 PM UTC-4, slurp wrote:

Polls don't mean a thing when it comes to science.

Then that poll of 97% of "climate scientists" is irrelevant. It's good that you admit that; you're making a very small amount of progress.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 2:41:46 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 10:52:03 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 1:42:56 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:52:22 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 11:03:37 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you took a poll you would find that my views are in the majority. So
you believe that the majority of people are fools but you aren't?

If you took a poll among climate scientists, you'd find they all
disagree with you.

So? He probably doesn't think certain types of music are any good, and musicians who perform those types would certainly disagree with him.

Please, you're too stupid to engage in this discussion.

Discussion? Harnagel is providing the facts, you, the opinions, peterson.

How do you keep the drool from shorting your keyboard?

I push the dog away from the laptop. Now, about your opinions and your hypocrisy, peterson....

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 12:42:56 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:52:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 11:03:37 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you took a poll you would find that my views are in the majority. So
you believe that the majority of people are fools but you aren't?

If you took a poll among climate scientists, you'd find they all
disagree with you.

So? He probably doesn't think certain types of music are any good, and musicians who perform those types would certainly disagree with him.

Please, you're too stupid to engage in this discussion.

He has managed to combine all of the self sustaining qualities of a mushroom farm inside the bony box of a his skull. You know what goes in and his words come out.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:03:37 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you took a poll you would find that my views are in the majority. So
you believe that the majority of people are fools but you aren't?

If you took a poll among climate scientists, you'd find they all
disagree with you.

If you took a poll of people in prison they would believe the laws are
unjust. The climate scientists owe their livelihood to promoting GW, and
AGW in particular. They are true believers.

Yes, most certainly ever person who believes as you do is a fool.
Whether it's a majority is debatable, however.

Yeah, right, the high priests are not to be questioned by the rabble. Your
elitism is obvious and it is contrary to the spirit that created the USA.
An example of your snotty behavior:

"Please, you're too stupid to engage in this discussion"

'Nuff said.

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:03:37 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you took a poll you would find that my views are in the majority. So
you believe that the majority of people are fools but you aren't?

If you took a poll among climate scientists, you'd find they all
disagree with you.

If you took a poll of people in prison they would believe the laws are
unjust. The climate scientists owe their livelihood to promoting GW, and
AGW in particular. They are true believers.

Yes, most certainly ever person who believes as you do is a fool.
Whether it's a majority is debatable, however.

Yeah, right, the high priests are not to be questioned by the rabble. Your
elitism is obvious and it is contrary to the spirit that created the USA.
An example of your snotty behavior:

"Please, you're too stupid to engage in this discussion"

'Nuff said.


You are confusing "argument from authority" - like papal infallibility or
government proclamations with argument from knowledge. You can't seriously
be accusing most climate scientists and almost every scientific
organisation in the world of being involved in a giant conspiracy to save
their jobs. If you know anything about science you will understand that the
road to any Nobel prize in science is innovation or the overthrow of a
theory.
Yet you seem to think that the oil and coal industries are paragons of
virtue who would not put out false information for such a a selfish motive
as saving their jobs and profits. After all the tobacco industry wouldn't
have done such a thing would they.
And the Enron affair has shown how the oil industry is concerned with the
good of mankind not the profit motive.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 9:03:37 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:46:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you took a poll you would find that my views are in the majority. So
you believe that the majority of people are fools but you aren't?

If you took a poll among climate scientists, you'd find they all
disagree with you.

If you took a poll of people in prison they would believe the laws are
unjust. The climate scientists owe their livelihood to promoting GW, and
AGW in particular. They are true believers.

Okay, so now you're firmly in the crank category. No reason to
continue this. See a doctor.

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

The basic facts are (1) that the earth is in a warming trend, (2) CO2 levels
have been increasing, (3) CO2 levels have been more than an order of magnitude
higher in the past than they are now, (4) temperatures have also been much
higher in the past and (5) CO2 levels in the past have trailed the rise in
temperatures in the past.

Yes...

There are also miscellaneous facts, such as a disconnect between rising
CO2 levels and temperatures, and the fact that climate has ALWAYS been
changing. And we have the new fact that a critical factor in computer
models has been wrong, emphasizing the FACT that computer models are
not "facts."

Oh, that's true.

The facts aren't in question. What's in question is the relationship of
the facts, IOW, the details. The devil is in the details.

And at this point I will start to object.

Computer models indeed aren't going to provide the exact picture; they're a way
to get some handle on the complex factors at work.

But it isn't reasonable to expect that the likely result of more carbon
emissions will start to become much less than the result of past carbon
emissions. A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation is enough to tell us we're
in deep trouble.

To say that because there is _some_ uncertainty that we have absolutely nothing
to worry about... that's not reasonable at all.

Now, the "Chicken Little" story is quite apt to those who freak out about
AGW, and that's similar to argument-from-authority crowd who try to
intimidate those with differing views and squelch honest discussion.

When most of the "differing views" come from people being paid by oil
companies, and covering up that fact, "honest discussion" is not quite the term
I would use.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 4:24:29 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

If you took a poll of people in prison they would believe the laws are
unjust. The climate scientists owe their livelihood to promoting GW, and
AGW in particular. They are true believers.

Okay, so now you're firmly in the crank category. No reason to
continue this. See a doctor.

See? You refuse to deal honestly, preferring ad homs to real facts. The
CERN work proves that your "experts" are ignorant of a BIG contribution
to the climate, but here you are still fighting the facts.

"Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities� have made
mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there
are experts." -- Carl Sagan

But:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.� -- Richard P. Feynman

Which CERN has demonstrated to be correct.

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 6:42:38 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

The facts aren't in question. What's in question is the relationship of
the facts, IOW, the details. The devil is in the details.

And at this point I will start to object.

Computer models indeed aren't going to provide the exact picture; they're
a way to get some handle on the complex factors at work.

Yes, but what if important contributions are left out?

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

But it isn't reasonable to expect that the likely result of more carbon
emissions will start to become much less than the result of past carbon
emissions. A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation is enough to tell
us we're in deep trouble.

The problem is that such calculations often forget about important factors.

To say that because there is _some_ uncertainty that we have absolutely
nothing to worry about... that's not reasonable at all.

And I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the data is incomplete
and there is no reason to launch a horrific solution at this point.

Now, the "Chicken Little" story is quite apt to those who freak out about
AGW, and that's similar to argument-from-authority crowd who try to
intimidate those with differing views and squelch honest discussion.

When most of the "differing views" come from people being paid by oil
companies, and covering up that fact, "honest discussion" is not quite
the term I would use.

John Savard

There you go again! I can (and have) made the same argument about AGW
enthusiasts. The main view is coming from people who owe their livelihood
to promoting disaster. And Al Gore doesn't help that point of view
because he certainly did line his pockets while promoting AGW.

And do you have any proof whatsoever that oil companies lied? No, the
only "proof" you have is that their studies disagreed with your beliefs.

The CERN information demonstrates that a BIG factor has been ignored,
but the REAL question is, how many other big factors are lying in wait
to bite us in the butt?

I have proposed a way to reduce GW if it needs to be reduced or increase
warming if we go into a downtrend. It's very enlightening to see all
the AGW proponents refusing to admit that it just might be feasible,
that we should study it. No, all I get is a feeble objection and a lot
of name-calling. This implies that AGW is politics, not science.

Gary

On Monday, June 13, 2016 at 11:20:50 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:


You are confusing "argument from authority" - like papal infallibility or
government proclamations with argument from knowledge. You can't seriously
be accusing most climate scientists and almost every scientific
organisation in the world of being involved in a giant conspiracy to save
their jobs.

You are caught inside a bubble of convictions as the principles for planetary climate must include all planets within the solar system and the common traits which allow genuine researchers to distinguish each planetary climate using these dynamical traits.

The idea that climate is represented by long term weather patterns may suit those who have had limited success with short term weather modelling but it beyond silly and the usual overreaching of empiricists.

Modeling climate with computers is not even close to the damage done by a clockwork solar system and the attempt to model planetary dynamics using clocks. Even the very proof that the Earth orbits the Sun using the line-of-sight annual motion of the stars behind the Sun is lost to modeling the planet's daily and orbital motion using circumpolar motion -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

This bloc ideology is dismissed easily as the only role the apparent motion of the stars play is proving the Earth moves around the Sun and that means dropping a rotating celestial sphere -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

It is the joy in recognizing something new rather than contending with people who lack the imagination and the spirit to enjoy astronomy that will win out.