What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?

May 21, 2015
Formation of a heat wave. Credit: U. S. National Weather Service

Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint, according to the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change by researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), and others. The new study examines scenarios for the energy, economy, and environment that are consistent with limiting climate change to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and compares them to scenarios for limiting climate change to 2°C.

"Actions for returning global warming to below 1.5°C by 2100 are in many ways similar to those limiting warming to below 2°C," says IIASA researcher Joeri Rogelj, one of the lead authors of the study. "However, the more ambitious 1.5°C goal leaves no space to further delay global mitigation action and emission reductions need to scale up swiftly in the next decades."

The authors note, however, that the economic, political, and technological requirements to meet even the 2°C target are substantial. In the run-up to in December 2015, such information is important for policymakers considering long-term goals and steps to achieve these goals.

Key elements: accelerated energy efficiency gains and CO2 removal

The study identifies key elements that would need to be in place in order to reach the 1.5°C target by 2100. One fundamental feature is the tight constraint on future carbon emissions.

"In 1.5°C scenarios, the remaining carbon budget for the 21st century is reduced to almost half compared to 2°C scenarios," explains PIK researcher Gunnar Luderer, who co-led the study. "As a consequence, deeper emissions cuts are required from all sectors, and global carbon neutrality would need to be reached 10-20 years earlier than projected for 2°C scenarios."

Faster improvements in energy efficiency also emerge as a key enabling factor for the 1.5°C target. In addition, all the scenarios show that at some point in this century, carbon emissions would have to become negative at a global scale. That means that significant amounts of CO2 would need to be actively removed from the atmosphere. This could occur through technological solutions such as bioenergy use combined with carbon capture and storage—a technology that remains untested on a large scale, increases the pressure on food supply systems and in some cases lacks social acceptance—or through efforts to grow more forests, sequestering carbon in tree trunks and branches. Afforestation, however, just like bioenergy plantations, would have to be carefully balanced against other land use requirements, most notably food production.

Overshooting the limit—and declining to 2100

In contrast to many scenarios examined in recent research, which set 2°C as the absolute limit and do not allow temperature to overshoot the target, the current set of scenarios looks at a long term goal, and what would need to happen to get temperature back down to that level by 2100.

"Basically all our 1.5°C scenarios first exceed the 1.5°C temperature threshold somewhere in mid-century," explains Rogelj, "before declining to 2100 and beyond as more and more carbon dioxide is actively removed from the atmosphere by specialized technologies".

The recent IPCC fifth assessment report did not describe in detail the critical needs for how to limit warming to below 1.5°C as the scenarios available to them did not allow for an in-depth analysis. Yet over 100 countries worldwide—over half of the countries in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least-Developed Countries (LDCs)—have declared their support for a 1.5°C target on . The target itself is also up for debate at the upcoming climate negotiations. This new study fills this gap.

The authors make clear that an increase of international efforts to curb greenhouse gases is imperative to keep the 1.5°C target achievable.

"The 1.5°C target leaves very little leeway," says Luderer. "Any imperfections - be it a further delay of meaningful policy action, or a failure to achieve negative emissions at large scale - will make the 1.5°C target unattainable during this century."

What do you mean by "scenario?"

Scenarios, like the ones described in this study, are not predictions or forecast, but rather, stories about potential ways that the future might develop, with specific quantitative elements and details about how sectors such as the economy, climate, and energy sector interact. By looking at scenarios, researchers look for insight into the paths and circumstances that might lead us to specific objectives.

Explore further: Action by 2020 key for limiting climate change, researchers say

More information: Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K. (2015). Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change. 21 May 2015. DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2572

Related Stories

Success of climate talks vital for 2 C target

November 15, 2013

This is shown by the first comprehensive multi-model-based assessment of so-called Durban Platform scenarios, conducted by a team of international scientists led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) ...

Heat still on despite warming slowdown

April 23, 2015

The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.

Recommended for you

The sound of a healthy reef

August 26, 2016

A new study from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) will help researchers understand the ways that marine animal larvae use sound as a cue to settle on coral reefs. The study, published on August 23rd in the ...

148 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Joker23
2.3 / 5 (21) May 21, 2015
And, what exactly will happen if it turns out to be unnecessary.....or.....what if it precipitates a new ICE AGE that was predicted back in the '70's?????? (likely by people of the same ilk) Are the authors looking to promote a "New Program" just to keep their jobs?
ThomasQuinn
3.1 / 5 (26) May 21, 2015
@Joker23:

That has to be among the silliest reasonings I've ever heard. Hey, these chemical vapours drifting past our house smell kinda funny...maybe we should close our windows, they might be harmful. Ahh, but what if they AREN'T harmful, or if by closing our windows we miss out on a great free recreational drug? No, we shouldn't close our windows until people in the house start dying.

Are you being paid by someone to come up with this nonsense, or do you fail to see that limiting our POLLUTION would be a good thing even if it WASN'T necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, which is what there is an ALMOST UNIQUELY COMPLETE CONSENSUS about among scientists in relevant disciplines worldwide? Do you simply *like* sniffing exhaust fumes or something? Or are you just pathologically afraid of any kind of change, regardless of what it is? What is your problem?
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015
Note that few, if any, scientists predicted an ice age in the '70s. The great majority predicted that CO2 would generate more warming than the cooling caused by pollution. And, of course, after the Clean Air Act was passed, the chance of cooling disappeared. As for being unnecessary, the energy efficiency bit is going to happen whether you like it or not. It has to unless you think we'll be headed back to pre-industrial times. So you can pay for energy efficiency now or pay for energy efficiency plus adapting to higher temperatures later. If you want to save money, you'll try to prevent the warming.

As for causing an ice age, energy efficiency won't cause cooling - we have to get CO2 out of the atmosphere to do that. And that takes a lot of energy. So stop the CO2 sequestration machines before we reach pre-industrial levels of CO2 and you won't have an ice age (for ~50000 years or so).
denglish
2.3 / 5 (16) May 21, 2015
Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.

Thinking that we can control, or affect, the climate is preposterous.

Guaranteed that in order to save the world, corporations and citizens will be taxed mightily.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (23) May 21, 2015
We can live without money, as we did for a million years.

But we cannot exist without a supportive environment, to clean our water, make our Oxygen, and provide us with food.

Try it.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015
Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.

So...only monkeys that lack brains can arrive at the correct conclusion, that they are not the centers of the universe? Perhaps I'd be able to understand your reasoning if I actually didn't possess a brain.
Thinking that we can control, or affect, the climate is preposterous.

Well, there are these things called aerobic bacteria, and they happened to alter the Earth's climate simply by existing, WITHOUT building machines to aid them in the process. See http://en.wikiped...n_Event.

Please learn how green house gases work, how much extra we pump into the atmosphere, and maybe some basic critical thinking skills.
ThomasQuinn
2.8 / 5 (22) May 21, 2015


Thinking that we can control, or affect, the climate is preposterous.



Thinking we can conrol, or affect, the spread of infections is preposterous is pretty much what was said to Ignaz Semmelweis. And then Pasteur discovered penicilline.

Remarks such as yours are not simply ignorance - they are misanthropic excuses for cowardly or lazy inaction.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015


Thinking that we can control, or affect, the climate is preposterous.



Thinking we can conrol, or affect, the spread of infections is preposterous is pretty much what was said to Ignaz Semmelweis. And then Pasteur discovered penicilline.

Remarks such as yours are not simply ignorance - they are misanthropic excuses for cowardly or lazy inaction.


No, he's absolutely correct. We are delusional to believe we have the understanding and power necessary to control the climate. Even if we DID have it, it would be incredibly unethical to wield it. Mankind attempting to play God pretty much never turns out well.
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (17) May 21, 2015
We are delusional to believe we have the understanding and power necessary to control the climate. Even if we DID have it, it would be incredibly unethical to wield it.


Nobody is claiming to control the climate. If we could control the climate, AGW wouldn't be a problem. A more accurate description would be affecting the climate, and that we certainly are able to do, and have been doing adversely.

Mankind attempting to play God pretty much never turns out well.

This is one of the most myopic tropes I've ever heard. It's not even close to correct. What do you think we did when we made vaccines, eradicated small-pox, created national electric infrastructures, went into space, landed on the moon, developed sexual reassignment surgery, and so on?

More often than not, playing God benefits us rather than harms us.
jeffensley
2.5 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015
When do you get to decide whether these things are beneficial or not? Right after a disease is "eradicated" or when a new, potentially more aggressive/lethal version comes along due to the pressures we put on it? It's also a little ironic to use electrical infrastructure as an example considering it's electrical generation that has supposedly put us in this climate change "fix". I've said it many times and I'll say it again, I'm all for efficiency, using fewer resources, reducing dependency on fossil fuels, etc. We just needn't assume that it's going to have any impact on the climate.
denglish
2 / 5 (16) May 21, 2015
Wow, so much hate. Perhaps this topic is divided along party lines?

Drawing correlations between disease control and climate control is a very far reach.

Speaking of critical thinking, I encourage all of you to explore what the other side is saying. The conflict between the two sides, the scandals in the AGW camp, the prophesies not happening, the effort to cripple economies (perhaps to expand the dependent class?) and the colossal money grabs should be enough to give anyone pause.

Anyway, the ball is rolling. I fear the AGW hoax will not end peacefully; by then it will be too late for the common man to avoid the damage done by a select elite intent on global government.

denglish
2.1 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015
Here's something to chew on. Do you dare to think critically?

The mean rate of warming on the terrestrial datasets since 1979 is 0.14 degrees. On the satellite datasets, 0.11 degrees. In the oceans, we don't know: the measurement method that immediately preceded the ARGO network, the XBT network, showed ocean cooling and had to be adjusted to make it fit the story-line. Same with the ARGO network, which originally showed cooling and had to be adjusted. Even then, it only shows warming at a rate equivalent to a quarter of a degree per century.

Anyone got the guts to figure anything out for themselves, or do you want to take what your masters hand out to you?
denglish
2.1 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015
Here's more for you guys. Suspicious yet?

Al Gore said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Vicky Pope of the Wet Office said in 2009 that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014.

2015. We still got LOTS of ice.

hmm...critical thinking...hmmm
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (17) May 21, 2015
Wow, so much hate. Perhaps this topic is divided along party lines?

Humanity's future is in danger, and a bunch of stubborn who are in control of how much our future's going to suck have their heads in the sand, at best, or are trying to actively block any efforts to fix the problem, at worst. Maybe you should fact that into your conjecture.
Drawing correlations between disease control and climate control is a very far reach.

That was in only in response to Jeff's claim that playing God tends to be harmful.
Speaking of critical thinking, I encourage all of you to explore what the other side is saying.

See, that's the problem. There isn't actually another side, unless you wish to treat overwhelming objective evidence, and wishful thinking with smattering of contrary expert opinions as being equivalent.

the prophesies not happening

Umm, sorry to burst your bubble but the climate has been warming at a dramatic rate, which is what was predicted.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015
Anyway, the ball is rolling. I fear the AGW hoax will not end peacefully; by then it will be too late for the common man to avoid the damage done by a select elite intent on global government.

Do you have enough tinfoil on that hat? Where's your evidence of this? And I don't mean anecdotes and vague "evidence" wildly open to subjective interpretation.

Meanwhile, we have a very good paper trail of how powerful multinational corporations like Exxon-Mobile actively work to stymie any useful mitigation of AGW (see http://www.skepti...eat.html as it hurts their short term bottom line.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015
thefurlong:

See, that's the problem. There isn't actually another side, unless you wish to treat overwhelming objective evidence, and wishful thinking with smattering of contrary expert opinions as being equivalent.

A little bit of searching will show you that respected institutions (some of them actually (mis?) quoted by the AGW side) are putting up data that is damning for AGW folks Are the sources on this page a trifling?

http://wattsupwit...erature/

Umm, sorry to burst your bubble but the climate has been warming at a dramatic rate, which is what was predicted.

No, its not. Since 1979, mean temperature has gone up .35 of a degree, C:

http://www.drroys...5_v5.png

Perhaps the University of Alabama isn't a reputable source.

denglish
1.9 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015
Do you have enough tinfoil on that hat? Where's your evidence of this?

No evidence. Just a personal fear. I suspect that when the common man finally figures it out, those who benefited in power and treasure from this hoax will be very hard to usurp.

I don't care about Exxon. If they broke the law, let them go to prison. If they offend the sensibilities of special-interest groups like the AGW'ers, then good - perhaps it will awaken a few of them.

btw, why hasn't the ice gone away as predicted? Tinfoil hat? No...a willingness to sniff out lies and fear-mongering.
thefurlong
3.9 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015
Here's something to chew on. Do you dare to think critically?

Oh s***t, mofo's gonna drop some knowledge on my ass. What is a google search savvy layman to do?

Before we begin with said knowledge dropping, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what's called the Gish Gallop (http://rationalwi..._Gallop) and ask yourself if that's what, in fact, you are doing. See, being a non-expert in the subject, I can't reasonably be expected to address every single small (likely spurious) claim you make. However, being fully acquainted with the power of the Internets, I can easily perform a 1-minute google search the quickly check each claim. It will just take a while.

Case in point, it wasn't that the XBT network had to be adjusted to show cooling. Indeed, XBT showed a significant warming bias, which climate scientists recognized, and accounted for. (to be continued)
thefurlong
4 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015
(continued)
Furthermore, you are referring to the 2008 paper by Loehles, and another, by Willis in 2009, which both show a short term cooling trend in the ocean. That's right! A short term cooling trend. And furthermore, another paper, by Leuliette in 2009 actually uses the same data from the ARGO network to show a warming trend! Finally, Cazenave stepped in to try to referee the results and guess what he found after analyzing all papers involved, and eliminating certain systematic errors. That's right! Warming! Now, there's a lot more to this, which hearkens back to my point that it is simply unreasonable to address every claim a denier makes. I will simply direct you and others interested to http://www.skepti...php?a=67

So, here's what you need to do. Instead of throwing easily refuted factoids at me, perhaps you could explain to me why I should trust inaccurate naysayers like you, or 97% of climate scientists who study this stuff for a living?
denglish
1.9 / 5 (13) May 21, 2015
Sorry, but the sources I pulled from in order to draw my own conclusions are pretty reputable:

Many Universities, NOAA, NODC, Danish Meteorologic Institute, Naval Research Laboratory, NASA, Hadley Center...

Gish Gallop is a creationist. If he lies about the origin of the universe, think he may lie about other things? :)

Anyway, one can now see why this is such a contentious issue. We have strong believers on both sides, and the both sides believe strongly in their facts.

Where can we differentiate the two? How can we figure out who is looking out for us, and is giving us the correct info? Predictions not coming true? Using the narrative to take money? Using the narrative to control economies? Not following their own advice?

I referred to no papers.

Easily refutable? You didn't refute one of the graphs (hard data) I pointed you to.

Critical thinking...where will it lead us?
thefurlong
4.1 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/global-weather-climate/global-temperature/

Nope! Not gonna play this game. See my last comment.

Also, LOL, at providing me a link from Anthony Watts, a man with no academic training in climate science. I will not argue with whatever effluent is on that page, I will only drop this http://rationalwi...ny_Watts and this http://www.source...y_Watts, and suggest that you at least start off by citing people who are actually accredited climate scientists.

No, its not. Since 1979, mean temperature has gone up .35 of a degree, C:

Supposing that this is correct (which I don't know since your veracity record has been questionable at best), 0.35 degrees over 36 years is still pretty high. Do you understand that in 100 years, that would mean at least a rise in 1 degree mean global temperature, which would still be bad?

(to be continued)

thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015
Furthermore, at least according to this chart, the trend has been for much longer than 36 years. Indeed, https://www2.ucar...1312.png and a cursory calculation, once again, indicates a temperature rise in 1 degree, in the next 100 years. Again, this is a very bad thing, and that's assuming that the rate of warming won't increase, which we already know to be false.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (16) May 21, 2015
Sorry, but the sources I pulled from in order to draw my own conclusions are pretty reputable:

Well, I don't know whether you actually pulled from reputable sources, since I don't have time to check every one, but I can tell you that the conclusions you draw are incorrect, and it speaks volumes that you would think that Anthony Watts' opinion IS worth listening to on this subject.

Gish Gallop is a creationist. If he lies about the origin of the universe, think he may lie about other things? :)

lol. Gish Gallop isn't a creationist. The Gish Gallop is a strategy named after a creationist, Duane Gish. And it's what you are currently doing. BTW, reading is fundamental.

Anyway, one can now see why this is such a contentious issue. We have strong believers on both sides, and the both sides believe strongly in their facts.

It has nothing to do with belief, bucko. It has everything to do with people like you denying established scientific results.
Bongstar420
2.1 / 5 (11) May 21, 2015
What..only 1 degree? Shit, I hope not. I'm cold

Furthermore, at least according to this chart, the trend has been for much longer than 36 years. Indeed, https://www2.ucar...1312.png and a cursory calculation, once again, indicates a temperature rise in 1 degree, in the next 100 years. Again, this is a very bad thing, and that's assuming that the rate of warming won't increase, which we already know to be false.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (14) May 21, 2015
We can live without money, as we did for a million years.

But we cannot exist without a supportive environment, to clean our water, make our Oxygen, and provide us with food.

Try it.
http://www.spreadshirt.co.uk/heather-grey-money-talks-and-bullshit-walks-by-wam-men-s-t-shirts-C4408A11415670#/detail/11415670T963A251PC145413782PA2065
denglish
2 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015
And there you have it sports fans. Call 'em like you see 'em.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (18) May 21, 2015
I want to see the folk who think they can live without an environment.

I'll bet they are looking it up on wiki right now, . . .
Ironwood
2.7 / 5 (10) May 21, 2015
"Scenarios, like the ones described in this study, are not predictions or forecast, but rather, stories about potential ways that the future might develop...

The above is the money quote from the entire article, er, story.

denglish
2 / 5 (12) May 21, 2015
thefurlong, I took your feedback and re-looked up Gish gallop. Interesting, I've never heard of it before.

No, I don't think I'm employing it. I'm simply providing another set of data points that support "the other side".

btw, one of the things I find very interesting is that the best physics forum I've found touches on everything BUT AGW. these guys know their shat.

https://www.physicsforums.com/

You may be interested as to why:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/climate-change-global-warming-policy.757267/

leetennant
3.7 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015
We already have a 1 degree increase. I find it extremely unlikely, with the current level of denial and lack of political will, that we will limit to 1.5 degrees. I think 2 degrees is overly optimistic. We're looking at 4-7 and yes, that will pretty well mean the end of humanity as we know it.
zz5555
3.9 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015
No, its not. Since 1979, mean temperature has gone up .35 of a degree, C:

http://www.drroys...5_v5.png

Perhaps the University of Alabama isn't a reputable source.

The Univ. of Alabama might be reputable, but Spencer's not. Look at your graph. It's a very noisy graph. Taking the starting point and the ending point of a noisy graph and claiming that you can get the rise in temperature by subtracting the end point from the starting point is about as good a way to lie as I can think of. Spencer knows this. So why was he lying about the data? In addition, he's using satellite data with a built in cooling bias which means he's underestimating the warming. Looking at ground data, the trend over that period is ~.156C/decade. So for a 35 year period, that means an increase of over .5C - which is an enormous increase in a short period. And keep in mind, we still have ~1C of temperature rise built in even if we don't raise CO2 levels any more.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015
Oh, and remember that Spencer's a creationist, so he's quite happy to ignore data that disagrees with his philosophy.
A little bit of searching will show you that respected institutions (some of them actually (mis?) quoted by the AGW side) are putting up data that is damning for AGW folks Are the sources on this page a trifling?

http://wattsupwit...erature/

Can you point out any data here that is "damning for AGW"? All of this seems to agree with the science and what the scientists are saying. Look at the cooling in the stratosphere. This is a particular prediction by the science and confirms that the warming isn't due to the sun. Or look at the ocean heat content - confirmation that the warming has continued. I'm surprised that WUWT has compiled so much data confirming climate science. This is very damning for those that oppose science, but nothing bad for science.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2015

The Univ. of Alabama might be reputable, but Spencer's not.


The University of Illinois is another one that's being badly verballed by this lot. They take a graph from some obscure section of their website, decontextualise it to remove the metadata and then make an extreme claim about what it says. If you actually go back to look where the graph came from, what it's actually representing and the metadata around it, you then miraculously discover it shows the exact opposite of what Spencer or Taylor or Heartland are claiming.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (15) May 21, 2015
Here's more for you guys. Suspicious yet?

Al Gore said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Vicky Pope of the Wet Office said in 2009 that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014.

2015. We still got LOTS of ice.

Can you find a quote by Gore saying that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013? (Hint: You can't, it was made up. Next you'll be saying he bought water front property, another "fact" that was made up.)
Can you find a quote by Pope (from the Met office) saying that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014? (Hint: You can't, it was made up. In fact, she said the exact opposite.)
Returners
2 / 5 (8) May 21, 2015
It would take an act of congress. Hehehe.

btw, I'm not voting for Rand Paul if for no reason other than his fake filibuster. I got other reasons, but I don't need them now.

We need more spying in America, not less. A family of 4 gets murdered in broad daylight in their own home and not a clue to find them. If there was more spying that might not have happened.

Big Brother isn't good enough. I want Big Brother and Big Sister, and Big papa and Big Mama too.
howhot2
4.1 / 5 (13) May 21, 2015
Here's more for you guys. Suspicious yet?

Al Gore said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. Vicky Pope of the Wet Office said in 2009 that all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014.

2015. We still got LOTS of ice.

Can you find a quote by Gore saying that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013? (Hint: You can't, it was made up. Next you'll be saying he bought water front property, another "fact" that was made up.)
Can you find a quote by Pope (from the Met office) saying that the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014? (Hint: You can't, it was made up. In fact, she said the exact opposite.)
Yeah @zz. The quote is a piece of propaganda from the bought and paid for coal industry operatives http://www.truth-...ion-2013
It comes from the rightwing. They also claim that Secretary of State John Kerry said the same thing. If he's lying about that, then you can be certain he's lying about everything!
jeffensley
2.2 / 5 (10) May 21, 2015
We already have a 1 degree increase. I find it extremely unlikely, with the current level of denial and lack of political will, that we will limit to 1.5 degrees. I think 2 degrees is overly optimistic. We're looking at 4-7 and yes, that will pretty well mean the end of humanity as we know it.


Wow, 3 5-star ratings for a post that says we're doomed. And you think skeptics are the ones with a death wish.
AZWarrior
1.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015
Would be helpful if China, India, Russia and the Third World Nations would participate.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) May 22, 2015
What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?
How about nothing? ...nothing at all...

http://woodfortre....3/trend

ThomasQuinn
3.1 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015
What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?
How about nothing? ...nothing at all...

http://woodfortre....3/trend



God will take care of us! Just pray and do what your priest/vicar/parson/pastor/etc says. Don't believe science, scientists all work for the devil! Ignore the facts as they are accepted by >95% of scientists in relevant disciplines, because the <5% are speaking the Word of God which is Truth.

Advocates of doing nothing are wrong on every count. They hate progress.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (15) May 22, 2015
God will take care of us! Just pray and do what your priest/vicar/parson/pastor/etc says. Don't believe science, scientists all work for the devil! Ignore the facts as they are accepted by >95% of scientists in relevant disciplines, because the <5% are speaking the Word of God which is Truth.

Advocates of doing nothing are wrong on every count. They hate progress.


It's more like, scientists are correct until they disagree with my world view. Then, suddenly, there's a worldwide conspiracy among scientists, (because we know they're a greedy, unsavory bunch).

Also, somehow, multi-billion dollar multi-national oil and chemical corporations, who have monetary interest in not reducing their emissions, for which WE ACTUALLY HAVE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of their meddling can't possibly be blamed for sowing seeds of doubt into public discourse.

As for evidence against the lyin' liar scientists, denglish put it best:
No evidence. Just a personal fear.
RealityCheck
2.9 / 5 (19) May 22, 2015
Hi denglish.
Call 'em like you see 'em.
That's exactly what the science is doing, mate. :)

That was what the science was doing about dangers of Asbestos, but denial/obfuscation by those in that industry and in govt allowed them time to create dummy companies offshore to hide away the money and frustrate litigation claims/damages against them.

That was exactly what the science was doing about dangers of smoking, but Tobacco industry/govts denied/obfuscated for decades to avoid damages/legislation against their business product/model.

That was what science was doing about the Ozone Layer problem and its causes, but industry/govts denied/stalled necessary measures for decades while Ultra Violet Radiation levels rose and cancer rates soared.

That is what science is doing NOW about causes/exacerbations of Greenhouse Gas induced Climate Warming/Changes, but now UNholy Alliance of ideological/political/mercenary denying/lying.

As usual: deniers, liars, crims & idiots.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) May 22, 2015
PS: Guess which category that Uncle Ira bot-voting troll falls under? Yep, you guessed it folks...."All of the above"...with special credit for outstanding effort and success in that last category....for which he has already won the Internet Village Idiot Competition every year since he started his malignant trolling and mindless bot-voting campaign here at phys. Way to go, Idiot Ira! :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (17) May 22, 2015
PS: Guess which category that Uncle Ira bot-voting troll falls under? Yep, you guessed it folks...."All of the above"...with special credit for outstanding effort and success in that last category....for which he has already won the Internet Village Idiot Competition every year since he started his malignant trolling and mindless bot-voting campaign here at phys. Way to go, Idiot Ira! :)


@ Really-Skippy. I have not even posted up anything about this article. So why you want to drag me into this with more calling me names? Why you don't at least wait until I say something? I am for limiting the changing of the climates, it's going hit us worst first down where I live.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) May 22, 2015
You pathetic idiotic excuse for a human being and waste of space. You said it all in the thread at... http://phys.org/n...sar.html When you stop being and acting as such, you have no-one else to blame but yourself for being exposed and called out for what you are: an insensible dummy who can't see why what you are doing deserves contempt from all ethical objective thinkers. Ira Idiot still playing with his pointy hats and frothing at the mouth...
https://www.psych...-sadists

Duh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) May 22, 2015
PS: Above two links repaired, respectively:

http://phys.org/n...sar.html

and

https://www.psych...-sadists
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) May 22, 2015
Advocates of doing nothing are wrong on every count. They hate progress.
Only a fool would say this. Doing nothing is often the best policy. It's even part of the Hippocratic Oath, to whit:

"I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

philstacy9
1 / 5 (5) May 23, 2015
Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C can be easily done by preventing liars from altering temperature data and discarding politically motivated climate modeling designs.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) May 23, 2015
Hi uba. :)
Doing nothing is often the best policy. It's even part of the Hippocratic Oath, to whit: "I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."
Think of it in terms of 'prevention is better than cure', mate. Or treat the situation like one of 'epidemiology' which affects more than just an individual but a wider population. Get the difference? Also, 'A stitch in time saves nine' is a powerful and commonsense approach for this situation which will spiral out of any possibility of prevention/remediation once the triggers reach tipping point stage where all sorts of further complications/exacerbations will unfold irrespective of what we do 'too little and too late' THEN.

Drop one dimensional, facile, misleading rationalizations for not doing something significant to solve/prevent the problem from getting out of hand BEFORE it's too late. You advise unreasoning inaction. Bad.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Was it in 2007 when Al Gore said all the Artic ice would be gone by 2014?

Look. There's only one way to save the planet:

Give the AGW Terrorizers all of your money. Shut down your economy. Take your food stamps from the New World Government.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Was it in 2007 when Al Gore said all the Artic ice would be gone by 2014?

No, because it never happened. How does making things up help your case?
Give the AGW Terrorizers all of your money. Shut down your economy. Take your food stamps from the New World Government.

Ah yes, more of your belief that thousands of scientists are in on a conspiracy to take over the world. You must be fascinating at parties. ;)
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Can you find a quote by Gore saying that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013? )


Here you go.

https://www.youtu...D8aylRiw

Notice how he hangs his hat on it, but leaves room for deflection? Typical liberal politics.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Ah yes, more of your belief that thousands of scientists are in on a conspiracy to take over the world. You must be fascinating at parties. ;)


Perhaps thousands. There's also thousands of scientists on the other side too.

So, which ones are right?

The ones taking our money and trying to crush our economies, or the ones saying..."hey folks hang on a minute...let's look at this again".

I don't go to parties. I have to work the next day. I don't depend on government handouts. I enable them.
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015
Here you go.

https://www.youtu...D8aylRiw

Notice how he hangs his hat on it, but leaves room for deflection? Typical liberal politics.

Did you listen to it? At no point did he say it would be gone in 7 years. He quoted a model that indicated it could be gone in 7 years (I think the model was actually 7 years +/- 3). He also quoted scientists who said it could be gone in 22 years. Are you aware of the difference between "could" and "would"? So you admit that you made up your comment. As far as using "could", this is how scientists talk. You've admitted that you don't know much of anything about science, so this could be new to you. (Not that I think Gore is a scientists - he's a politician, which means I don't think much of him.)
Perhaps thousands. There's also thousands of scientists on the other side too.

Oh, I doubt you could scrape up even 100 of actual scientists on "the other side".
zz5555
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015
So, which ones are right?

Well, since you've seen that all the data supports the side of science, I guess it's the thousands.

By the way, I've noticed that your anti-science side likes to make things up a lot. You have Curry and Christie as scientists who've lied to congress in an attempt to refute the science. Pielke, Jr. misled congress (does that constitute lying?). And all sorts of fake skeptics who claim that the warming has stopped, or it's cooling, or the oceans are cooling, or etc. Can you say why you believe that lying is a good policy?
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Did you listen to it? At no point did he say it would be gone in 7 years. He quoted a model that indicated it could be gone in 7 years (I think the model was actually 7 years +/- 3). He also quoted scientists who said it could be gone in 22 years. Are you aware of the difference between "could" and "would"?


That is a typical liberal ploy.

He hung his hat on the studies, yet left room for deniability.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Can you say why you believe that lying is a good policy?


No.

#climategate

zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015
I don't go to parties. I have to work the next day. I don't depend on government handouts. I enable them.

Uh-huh, sure you are. And in real life, I'm Batman. ;)
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015
He hung his hat on the studies, yet left room for deniability.

And, yet, you lied about his comment. So is lying a typical conservative ploy?
#climategate

Ah, yes, a few out of context emails. Of course, the people that stole the emails had to remove the context so the intellectually lazy among us wouldn't know that nothing wrong happened. So would you say that being intellectually lazy is a conservative trait? Personally, I find both conservatives and liberals to both have this fault, but maybe you disagree?
denglish
1.6 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
Uh-huh, sure you are. And in real life, I'm Batman. ;)


Mocking those who allow the govt to provide "free stuff". Nice.

And, yet, you lied about his comment. So is lying a typical conservative ploy?

I did not lie. He said it, I exposed it as a typical liberal political ploy to claim something but leave a backdoor.

Ah, yes, a few out of context emails.

That's the way it came out. Think they may have dodged a bullet? I do.

So would you say that being intellectually lazy is a conservative trait?

Laziness does not know political boundaries. However, any political message that promotes big govt is advocating laziness.

I think its a crime that some people have chosen to profit by making the masses fear Earth's normal fluctuations.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015


He quoted a model that indicated it could be gone in 7 years (I think the model was actually 7 years +/- 3).


Another thing just occurred to me.

In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true come under extreme scrutiny in their next endeavor. In fact, with a claim that big, and the damage it did, they would be lucky not to lose their jobs and careers.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
I did not lie. He said it, I exposed it as a typical liberal political ploy to claim something but leave a backdoor.

Ah, so you now claim you have the moral right to have lied about what he said. Don't bother denying about the lie, you're own evidence proved that. So are you now claiming that conservatives have the moral right to lie?
That's the way it came out. Think they may have dodged a bullet? I do.

Ah, so you admit that there's no evidence of scientists lying. So you had to lie to make your claim. Do you think you had the moral right to lie about that? You're revealing all sorts of interesting things today. ;)
I don't depend on government handouts. I enable them.

You've admitted that you lie (even if you think you have the moral right to do so). Why should we believe this?
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true come under extreme scrutiny in their next endeavor. In fact, with a claim that big, and the damage it did, they would be lucky not to lose their jobs and careers.

Can you point to a claim of Gore's that didn't come true? He said it could - that's how science talks. But I'm sure he used to make his point. Most people were skeptical of the study about melting ice, so I for one would have preferred him to say something like "this is preliminary so let's see". But, as you showed, he didn't lie. So hate Gore. He's a politician, I'm sure that plenty of people hate him. I'm betting he doesn't really care.

Instead of talking about Gore, why not discuss the science (which is pretty solid on the basics)? Why do you come to a science site to discuss politics?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
Was it in 2007 when Al Gore said all the Artic ice would be gone by 2014?

Look. There's only one way to save the planet:

Give the AGW Terrorizers all of your money. Shut down your economy. Take your food stamps from the New World Government.


So, you're a wingnut. And you think that the big gubment is trying to put everyone on food stamps. What a surprise.

You think that Obama's a muslim socialist, too, don't you?

You know what? Don't answer that. The concentration of stupidity in the atmosphere is already at the 400 ppm tipping point. We don't need it going up any further.

By the way, here's a clue to how misinformed you are. Nobody else cares about what Al Gore has to say about climate science but climate deniers. The rest of us listen to these people who study climate for a living. They're called experts. Maybe you've heard of them.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
denglish:
One other thing: You say you don't like being lied to. Yet you've seen that Spencer and Monckton and the person or persons who stole the emails for "climategate" lied to you. And, yet, I haven't heard you direct any anger towards the anti-science people that have perpetrated these lies on you, or even something along the lines of "Hey, it's the anti-science people that I know have lied. Maybe I should actually try to learn about the science so they can't lie to me anymore." As far as I can tell, you're content to being lied to as long as the lies conform to your version of politics. Is this common among political radicals such as yourself?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true come under extreme scrutiny in their next endeavor. In fact, with a claim that big, and the damage it did, they would be lucky not to lose their jobs and careers.


Saying something COULD happen is not the same as saying something WILL happen. I know you are terrible at scientific reasoning, and all, but part and parcel of science is this thing called uncertainty. Everything we measure is done within a margin of error.

Thus, models often make predictions that fall within two extremes. A scientist's duty is not to simply ignore extreme possibilities, but to report on them, just in case.

And yes, I am being condescending, because you are a buffoon.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Was it in 2007 when Al Gore said...
@denglish
gore is not a scientist, he is a politician
politicians are not necessarily scientifically literate, even though some feel compelled to act upon a possibility that may happen, or has the possibility of existing

just because a political hack pushes an agenda doesn't mean the entire thing is correct OR incorrect

gore is an idiot... true
i personally don't like him at all, nor will i ever "follow" his "politics"
that is one reason i suggested keeping the politics out and concentrating on the science, or physics... whatever you want that actually has merit

leave the "political grandstanding" to those who like it

regardless of the politics, there IS a problem, and the science is pointing with overwhelming data to certain areas
and like anything, we CAN make a difference, with small changes that lead to better info, etc
cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
@denglish cont'd
There's also thousands of scientists on the other side too
adn we already had this discussion in another thread... for every three scientists that side with your POV, there are 97 that disagree with your POV... http://iopscience.../article

but even given that you will argue that point... lets try another tactic: furlong and zz are well versed in physics (i know furlong is VERY well versed) so the simplest approach is thus:
- present the studies which undermine all the present worldwide knowledge which proves AGW is not real

taking them on a case by case basis, we can then either find refutes or discuss the specific data

and i suggest staying away from monckton (you did not do that in another thread but using monckton is like quoting charlie brown - comical and equivalent to used-toilet paper WRT the subject, NOT science)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015
last point @denglish
In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true
you should read up on science and how science expresses things
start with statistics and probabilities
just because science says it CAN happen, doesn't mean it WILL happen
science/physics/astrophysics says it is possible that a huge 10+ miles wide meteor CAN hit us any day... but it has NOT happened today
that doesn't mean it CANNOT happen, just that it HASN'T happened

learn to read the probabilities of outcomes re: studies before falling into that trap that is abused by the anti-AGW/global warming crowd... it is a tactic used to great effect among the scientifically illiterate
I don't go to parties. I have to work the next day. I don't depend on government handouts. I enable them.

Uh-huh, sure you are. And in real life, I'm Batman. ;)
@zz5555
OMG!
REALLY!
can i get your autograph?

anything you need to tell us now furlong?
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
you should read up on science and how science expresses things
start with statistics and probabilities
just because science says it CAN happen, doesn't mean it WILL happen


Yep, but lets get rich and enforce our global agenda anyway.

You're an apologist for evil. May not feel like it, but you are.
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
There's also thousands of scientists on the other side too adn we already had this discussion in another thread... for every three scientists that side with your POV, there are 97 that disagree with your POV... http://iopscience.../article


Ah yes, the populist argument.

AKA intellectual dishonesty.

It will, one day, be a crime to profit by making people terrified of the earth's natural climatic rhythms. But until then, let's have a party!
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Saying something COULD happen is not the same as saying something WILL happen. I know you are terrible at scientific reasoning, and all, but part and parcel of science is this thing called uncertainty. Everything we measure is done within a margin of error.

If something COULD happen, should you be charged for it?

Thus, models often make predictions that fall within two extremes. A scientist's duty is not to simply ignore extreme possibilities, but to report on them, just in case.

Especially when his well-connected buddies will get rich on it.

And yes, I am being condescending, because you are a buffoon.

Ah, censorship through humiliation. The circled wagons of the AGW crowd. Well played.
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
Yep, but lets get rich and enforce our global agenda anyway.

Umm, the scientists supporting the science aren't getting rich - they just make normal scientist salaries (which I can tell you aren't bad, but they aren't making anybody rich). If you want to make money researching climate change, then the thing to do is to be against it. That way you get a normal salary as a researcher, and you get paid on top of that for opposing the science. And you don't even have to do any research to oppose the science: when you're doing bad science it doesn't matter if your conclusions reflect reality or not.
You're an apologist for evil. May not feel like it, but you are.

Let's see, you're the one that's admitted to lying to try to refute the science. You're the one that's admitted to being lied to by the anti-science group and not being upset. They've lied to you a number of times - what makes you think they're not lying about preventing climate change being bad?
denglish
1 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
denglish:
Yet you've seen that Spencer and Monckton and the person or persons who stole the emails for "climategate" lied to you. And, yet, I haven't heard you direct any anger towards the anti-science people that have perpetrated these lies on you,


Monckton does seem to be on the fringe. Unfortunately, a blind squirrel got a nut in his case vs. AGW.

Re: climategate, I am not angry. I am dissapointed that they got away with it. They were caught re-handed, and the liberal machine got them out of it. And why not? LOTS AND LOTS of money was at stake. The people, and their future, be damned.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
It will, one day, be a crime to profit by making people terrified of the earth's natural climatic rhythms. But until then, let's have a party!

Hmm, you've admitted that the you're not aware of any lies coming from the pro-science side, but that you've been lied to by the anti-science side. Shouldn't it be a crime for the anti-science side to lie just to make a profit?
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
Umm, the scientists supporting the science aren't getting rich

You're suggesting you're a scientist. First: Those that know don't talk like you do. Those that don't know do. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Second, if you really do live in that world, then you would know of the perks re: being on the right side. It is quite lucrative.

Let's see, you're the one that's admitted to lying to try to refute the science.

Huh? LOL...you're reeling.

You're the one that's admitted to being lied to by the anti-science group and not being upset.

man...you are REELING!

They've lied to you a number of times - what makes you think they're not lying about preventing climate change being bad?


Because if it was real, they'd be blowing the horn too. C'mon, Mr. Scientist...what is a theory if it isn't falsifiable? How should a falsified theory be dealt with? Teach us.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015

Hmm, you've admitted that the you're not aware of any lies coming from the pro-science side, but that you've been lied to by the anti-science side. Shouldn't it be a crime for the anti-science side to lie just to make a profit?


You are reeling. Stop...seriously.

Also, show me where the anti-AGW side is profiting. Are they taxing countries and states? Are they inflicting their brand of a New World Order on the common people? Are they destroying economies in order to gain global wealth equity? I bet the anti-AGW people are incredibly frustrated. What a waste of time it is; they could be much more productive than standing up against the AGWs.

If I have said anything, it is that claiming the Earth's climatic cycles are the result of human action is a lie.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
And you think that the big gubment is trying to put everyone on food stamps.

Numbers don't lie.

http://www.trivis...arly.jpg

You think that Obama's a muslim socialist, too, don't you?

Muslim? No. Socialist? Actions speak.

You know what? Don't answer that. The concentration of stupidity in the atmosphere is already at the 400 ppm tipping point. We don't need it going up any further.

Insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

By the way, here's a clue to how misinformed you are. Nobody else cares about what Al Gore has to say about climate science but climate deniers. The rest of us listen to these people who study climate for a living. They're called experts. Maybe you've heard of them.

Liars lie. That's what they do. If it happens once, one must be on their guard. Re: the scientists, its called Conflict of Interest. Re: your argument, its called Expert Fallacy.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015
If something COULD happen, should you be charged for it?

Haha.

What is car insurance, and how does it work?
What is using tax money to pay for national defense in case of an attack, and how does it work?
What is compulsory vaccination, and how does IT work?

Also, to be serious for a moment, I see what you did there. You are conflating the extreme prediction (all polar ice melting in a very short period of time) with a far more realistic prediction. So, yes, for the realistic prediction of us gaining another degree (or more)in mean global temperature or more in 100 years, yes, we would like you to curb your carbon footprint.

Especially when his well-connected buddies will get rich on it.

Well, you admitted to having no evidence for this, so I don't know why you think it's reasonable to--oh right! Wingnut!

Ah, censorship through humiliation.

Or I could be humiliating you for other reasons. Whatever could they be?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
You're an apologist for evil. May not feel like it, but you are
@deng
nope
i also do not assign morality to science
the populist argument
again, you are wrong
it is the power of science... if the world all works on finding out something and 97% find it points one way, that is powerful knowledge, not knowledge by consensus or populist argument
each experiment is being done to try to either outwit or undermine others or find something someone hasn't found yet, but end up supporting the science
If something COULD happen, should you be charged for it?
so you don't believe in keeping car insurance then?
because that is the same thing as paying for something that only has a probability of happening...

i've a driving record that spans more than 25yrs and 2 million miles ticket/accident free... and i get no freebies there
your argument is invalid
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
What is car insurance, and how does it work?
What is using tax money to pay for national defense in case of an attack, and how does it work?
What is compulsory vaccination, and how does IT work?

Precautions taken for things that can arise. Not for threats that have been proven not to have arisen.

Well, you admitted to having no evidence for this, so I don't know why you think it's reasonable to--oh right! Wingnut!

There is plenty of evidence. carbon tax. Cap and trade. Shut down of industry/

Or I could be humiliating you for other reasons. Whatever could they be?

You want me to go away, with all the rest of my type that are saying there's cause for concern coming from the AGW camp. It is best to silence me than to argue.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Numbers don't lie.

http://www.trivis...arly.jpg

Hahaha. How is this supposed to imply that the government is trying to put everyone on food stamps? That's like saying that because there has been an increase in the number of severe weather events over the last 10 years, the government must be trying to control the weather.

Um...also--great big economic collapse of 2008? You know, the one caused by massive deregulation of wall street and the private sector? That might just have something to do with the number of food stamp recipients increasing dramatically like that. Also, you do realize that the Republican controlled government (except for that blackety black guy in the white house) has been actively attempting to gut all the social welfare programs, right?

Man, the Kolmogorov complexity of the frequency domain of your cognitive dissonance must be astronomical.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Ah, censorship through humiliation. The circled wagons of the AGW crowd. Well played.
@deng
i know you are talking to someone else, but you are mixing arguments from various posters and assigning blanket accusations based upon conspiracy theory and your personal ignorance of the science

i can be derogatory, but it won't help

lets try again: you stated in another thread:
The problem is, if people are allowed to spout like that unopposed, then other people may think their views are credible
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

you are doing that here: sharing non-sense and mostly debunked data and calling it science

if you want to argue a point, share some studies that support your conclusions, not political sites, or articles, or conspiracy

you think your view is credible, but you've not been able to provide science supporting it
thefurlong
5 / 5 (7) May 24, 2015
anything you need to tell us now furlong?

Let's just say I am the best there is at what I do, and what I do ain't pretty.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Also, show me where the anti-AGW side is profiting
@deng
i gave you one study that shows people making a lot of money from anti-agw arguments...

also, for every day that passes that things do NOT change, the power companies, big oil and more make money on not having to change or force change upon future plants or output of carbon etc

there is money in no change... big money, and you should be able to see that considering you are somehow making a claim that scientists are getting rich off of climate change

and although i can't speak for zz, i do know some scientists you've been talking to here on PO who are NOT getting rich working in climate science

you should have read those articles i sent you on conspiracy theory and how to break your cycle of ignorance and faith in conspiracy

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (14) May 24, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true come under extreme scrutiny in their next endeavor. In fact, with a claim that big, and the damage it did, they would be lucky not to lose their jobs and careers.
Do you apply the same standards for all those 'scientists' bought and paid for by the Tobacco Industry, by the Asbestos Industry etc etc who were prepared to make a mockery of the objective Scientific Method/Ethics in order to do exactly what you and your 'mercenary scientists/commentators and shills' are doing right now on this issue? Or is the 'shilling' too good to pass up for such greedy sods prepared to compromise all ethics in their sad grasping for that 'shilling'. Rethink it, denglish, before it's too late for you, your intellect and self-respect. Good luck with that. :)
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
How is this supposed to imply that the government is trying to put everyone on food stamps?

No, it is showing that since 1975, there has been a 100% increase in the number of people on the dole. You started that one.

Also, you do realize that the Republican controlled government (except for that blackety black guy in the white house) has been actively attempting to gut all the social welfare programs, right?

You get what you work for. Imagine that.

Man, the Kolmogorov complexity of the frequency domain of your cognitive dissonance must be astronomical.

Word Salad. No.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
i gave you one study that shows people making a lot of money from anti-agw arguments...

I must have missed it.

also, for every day that passes that things do NOT change, the power companies, big oil and more make money on not having to change or force change upon future plants or output of carbon etc

Good. they are driving our economy and making jobs.

there is money in no change... big money

We need to drive an economy, not an agenda. Wealth distributes via gumption, not AGW.

and although i can't speak for zz, i do know some scientists you've been talking to here on PO who are NOT getting rich working in climate science

I challenge any of these so called scientists to pony up their records. There are not scientists here.

you should have read those articles i sent you on conspiracy theory and how to break your cycle of ignorance and faith in conspiracy

You mean the oil companies aren't engaged in conspiracy?

denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
In the real world, anyone (the authors of the study) that makes such drastic claims that do not come true come under extreme scrutiny in their next endeavor. In fact, with a claim that big, and the damage it did, they would be lucky not to lose their jobs and careers.
Do you apply the same standards for all those 'scientists' bought and paid for by the Tobacco Industry, by the Asbestos Industry etc etc who were prepared to make a mockery of the objective Scientific Method/Ethics in order to do exactly what you and your 'mercenary scientists/commentators and shills' are doing right now on this issue? Or is the 'shilling' too good to pass up for such greedy sods prepared to compromise all ethics in their sad grasping for that 'shilling'. Rethink it, denglish, before it's too late for you, your intellect and self-respect. Good luck with that. :)

Hey, look! An attempt to bring out the straw man! No.
denglish
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015
i can be derogatory, but it won't help

Thank you.

lets try again: you stated in another thread:
The problem is, if people are allowed to spout like that unopposed, then other people may think their views are credible
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

you are doing that here: sharing non-sense and mostly debunked data and calling it science

I'm flattered that you're looking me up.There are differences between the two articles. One is describing an observation, the other is reinforcing a supposition.

if you want to argue a point, share some studies that support your conclusions, not political sites, or articles, or conspiracy you think your view is credible, but you've not been able to provide science supporting it

I did that a long time ago, and it was shouted down. A reasonable doubt is good enough to think again, no?
denglish
1 / 5 (4) May 24, 2015
I don't have time to learn weather science. I am much more interested in General Relativity.

But check out this guy; he seems quite level-headed:

http://www.drroys...dummies/

http://www.drroys...manmade/

http://www.drroys..._v61.png

As you can see, there are *reasonable* doubts.

Bomb away. :-)

zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
You're suggesting you're a scientist. First: Those that know don't talk like you do.

Yes, actually, they do. You've indicated that you have no familiarity with any science, so how would you know how a scientist talks?
Also, show me where the anti-AGW side is profiting.

Interesting. You've never heard of oil and coal companies? You've admitted that the information you've gotten from groups on this side was false.
If I have said anything, it is that claiming the Earth's climatic cycles are the result of human action is a lie.

No one has said that they do. And no one has said that the current warming is due to any climatic cycle. Can you identify a cycle that is causing the warming? Remember, measurements show quite conclusively that the earth as a whole is warming, so the source of the cycle must be outside the earth. And it can't be the sun since we've received less energy from the sun for the last 40 years - during the greatest warming.
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
But if you do come up with a cycle, make sure to have evidence to back it up. As you recall from above, you said that it was ok for you to lie, so no one can trust anything you say.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (13) May 24, 2015
Hi denglish.
Hi denglish....all those 'scientists' bought and paid for by the Tobacco Industry, by the Asbestos Industry etc etc who were prepared to make a mockery of the objective Scientific Method/Ethics in order to do exactly what you and your 'mercenary scientists/commentators and shills' are doing right now on this issue? Or is the 'shilling' too good to pass up for such greedy sods prepared to compromise all ethics in their sad grasping for that 'shilling'. Rethink it, denglish, before it's too late for you, your intellect and self-respect. Good luck with that. :)

Hey, look! An attempt to bring out the straw man! No.
What "strawman"? It's now recorded history, mate. Or are you denying the video-recorded attendances of these 'bought scientists' and criminal frauds before Inquiries which finally proved the lying obfuscation by such so called 'scientists' paid for by their 'owners'? They are doing it again now as we speak. You are complicit. Rethink it, mate. :)
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
Yes, actually, they do. You've indicated that you have no familiarity with any science, so how would you know how a scientist talks?

Wrong. Wrong. A person that is armed with scientific proof does not resort to insult or pejorative.

You've admitted that the information you've gotten from groups on this side was false.

Oh! A conspiracy! Pot, meet Kettle. And you're still reeling about with this "you admit" stuff. Huh?

No one has said that they do. And no one has said that the current warming is due to any climatic cycle.

The earth goes through climatic cycles.

Can you identify a cycle that is causing the warming? Remember, measurements show quite conclusively that the earth as a whole is warming, so the source of the cycle must be outside the earth.

No. Yes, .07 C in many years. What a disaster. Huh?

And it can't be the sun since we've received less energy from the sun for the last 40 years -

I presented an expert's opinion.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
But if you do come up with a cycle, make sure to have evidence to back it up. As you recall from above, you said that it was ok for you to lie, so no one can trust anything you say.

You're reeling.

Ok to lie? More of this admit stuff? What is it leading you to? You are very hung up on it. It is...odd.

I would much rather discuss Planck Stars than climate politics. Therefore, I will fall back on experts.

I left a few level-headed sources for you to view. Did you?
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
Here's an excellent paper. It doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, but the man is clearly an expert.

http://www.drroys...esponse/
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) May 24, 2015
Here's an excellent paper. It doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, but the man is clearly an expert.

http://www.drroys...esponse/


@denglish

You must not know much about Roy Spencer, re your linking to his blog. Didn't think you would be a fan of someone who denies evolution and promotes intelligent design.

http://en.wikiped...ntist%29
thefurlong
5 / 5 (8) May 24, 2015
No, it is showing that since 1975, there has been a 100% increase in the number of people on the dole. You started that one.

Me? All by my lonesome? I am glad you think I wield so much power. And that I time travel. Maybe you mean democrats started that?

Anyway, I see your glib appraisal of the rise in food stamp recipients and raise you an entire article showing how much wages have stagnated since 1975:
http://www.epi.or...gnation/

A website that compares the cost of living in 1975 with the cost of living in 2015
http://carlosrull...e-1970s/

A wage vs productivity chart.
http://cdn.theatl...6c70.png

And some pew research showing how dramatically income inequality has risen since 1980.
http://www.pewres...-income/

Gee. I wonder why people need food stamps.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Also, you do realize that the Republican controlled government (except for that blackety black guy in the white house) has been actively attempting to gut all the social welfare programs, right?


You get what you work for. Imagine that.

1) Focus, man, fooooocusss. I wrote that in response to you suggesting that big gubment is trying to put everyone on food stamps.
2) Actually, you don't get what you work for. Here, let me post that chart again. You're a wingnut, so, your memory is likely very short:
http://cdn.theatl...6c70.png

Word Salad. No.

Haha. Clearly you aren't familiar with computational information theory or fourier analysis. If you did, you'd be dyin' . Oh lawdy!

thefurlong
5 / 5 (9) May 24, 2015
Word Salad. No.

Also, it's cute when wingnuts (and crackpots) attempt to appropriate rationalist nomenclature into their own vernacular.

Case in point: Word Salad is a "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases", which does not describe what I wrote. You see Kolmogorov complexity is a measure of the randomness of a sequence, and frequency domain is a representation of all the frequencies that make up a signal. So, you see, it was a play on wor--oh never mind.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) May 24, 2015
Speaking at failed attempts to appropriate rationalist terms,

Liars lie. That's what they do. If it happens once, one must be on their guard. Re: the scientists, its called Conflict of Interest. Re: your argument, its called Expert Fallacy.

So cute.

Anyway, you are talking about argument from authority, and no, that is not the expert fallacy. You see, there is a reason why they're called experts--because they know more than laypeople do. And when you make a statement that is supported by the weight of 97% of experts on a subject, you bet your glib potential mutton chops that it is (likely) more valid than one made by the other 3%. Otherwise, why have experts?

So, try again. You might actually use a term correctly this ti--.
Hey, look! An attempt to bring out the straw man! No.

Welp, Dr. Suzuki said that every child has a gift. Some just open them sooner than others.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
Oh, the hate!

I love it. I provided a moderate alternative idea, challenged obfuscation and straw man, ad hominen attacks, and what happens, the so-called scientists double down, pejoratives and all.

And look at that...even a liberal attack on work ethic. Perfect.

By your very behavior, you have discredited your position.

Amazing? No. The internet and its anonymity allows it.

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment, I'll see you guys in the next AGW vs. humanity thread.
denglish
1 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
@denglish

You must not know much about Roy Spencer, re your linking to his blog. Didn't think you would be a fan of someone who denies evolution and promotes intelligent design.

http://en.wikiped...ntist%29

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

I don't care about his religious views.

I am drawing on his expertise of climate.

Anyway, cya in the next AGW vs. Humanity thread.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
We need to drive an economy, not an agenda
@deng
so you support the removal of all those pesky trees/ecosystem interfering with agricultural and commercial land use in the amazon, right?
that means you also support over-fishing as well as the eradication of species not useful for food, too

all this is economy based as well as things tried in the past (and still today) and all for money...
so, what happens if you are wrong?
where is the balance?
I challenge any of these so called scientists to pony up their records
then pay attention to what is being posted, and you will find exactly that
that is how i got in touch with several of them
all you need is the attention span longer than 3 minutes and the ability to read above the 7th grade level
I must have missed it.
or you are intentionally ignoring it for your own purposes, like the protection of your delusion, maybe?

conspiracy theorists tend to ignore data that proves them wrong, like religious folk
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
There are differences between the two articles.
@deng
i am not looking you up, you are posting in subjects that i frequent

there is no difference, really
you simply don't like facing the data, and are clinging to anything that will justify your belief system in the conspiracy, just like what is pointed out here: http://phys.org/n...ies.html
read also: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
I did that a long time ago, and it was shouted down
if you shared Monckton, like with me, then for good reason
share some actual science, not articles

share the studies that justify your refusal to accept the bulk of the science out there proving you wrong, and explain why you think you should ignore the overwhelming evidence against you

because the bulk of the science really is against your belief
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 25, 2015
A reasonable doubt is good enough to think again, no?
@Deng
only when the reasonable doubt is based upon sound evidence and principles, not delusions or imagination, otherwise we would be flooded with criminals in the streets
I don't have time to learn weather science. I am much more interested in General Relativity
the physics of a lot of this are the same/similar

now, take what you know about GR and SR... could you say that the aether theory is legit "reasonable doubt" to promote theories like electric universe or creationists dogma?

because it is the exact same as climate science: you are ignoring the basic physics for the unsubstantiated meanderings of someone who is NOT versed in the scientific detail, like monckton or ALCHE

and when it comes to finding "reasonable doubt" or scientific evidence to follow, i stick with studies, not blogs, personal sites or anything else

source and validate all material- that is the investigator in me
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 25, 2015
Wrong. Wrong. A person that is armed with scientific proof does not resort to insult or pejorative.
@Deng
wrong
people are people regardless, and despite your personal belief in the way scientists seem to rise above the norm, they are people too, and when challenged in a subject that they are familiar with, tend to react the same as anyone else

just like you react to things that challenge your world view, so does everyone else. Some, however, choose to follow the evidence rather than make up the opinion first and then find things to support it

following the evidence is the key phrase

just because you can find support for a belief doesn't mean it is true

you can find over a million pages supporting Faeries, too, but that doesn't mean Tinkerbell is going to teach you how to fly

Source and Material is the key
do not consider a blog/article a good source unless there are linked studies that validate the findings, IMHO
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Here's an excellent paper. It doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, but ...
Deng
if it aint peer-reviewed and subjected to the same rigors of the scientific method that a study is subjected to, then it is NOT good information
the likely reason it is published without peer review is because he doesn't want to address any obvious flaws

for instance:
take his paper, then also look at the following
http://www.cawcr....olar.pdf
http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf]http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf[/url]
http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf]http://sun.stanfo....web.pdf[/url]
http://iopscience...4/044022

or read the following articles & references: http://www.skepti...nced.htm
http://www.skepti...ycle.htm

both pages undermine his post with more than just opinion
they use STUDIES and link them to prove their points
read them- they validate the conclusions posted, not spencer
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (11) May 25, 2015
tuturutuuuu... Dong ! ! !..... yup step right up folks we have a new contender (or perhaps just a watermonkey clone ;)

Donglish eagerly showing his eagerness to compete with watermonkeys dumb replies... (and he's adding the coals under the seat in remarkable numbers and for that, earning stellar One out of Fives... ;) )

Captain plays him like a ping pong ball, but he always tries coming back just to look even more stupid... keep it up monkey, while you're at it, bring your antisciencegorilla and watermonkey account in the discussion, or is it a lot of work to post from all three at the same time... ? lol..... can't wait for the next replies. :D
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) May 25, 2015
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Wrong. Wrong. A person that is armed with scientific proof does not resort to insult or pejorative.

I suggest you stay away from scientific conferences - it might shock you ;).

But when did I insult you? I said you were a liar - but we have objective proof here in this thread (at least twice). I've also said that you indicated you had no experience with science and that also appears true from your comments.

But, just to remind you, here's your liar bits. You claimed that Gore said the Arctic ice would be gone by 2014. I pointed out that wasn't true. You linked to a video that showed I was correct and that you had made up the claim. You said that it was ok for you to make up the claim because what Gore said was a "typical liberal ploy." Which seems silly, but your claims are all about politics which is always silly in a science discussion.

Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
I then asked you why you think lying is a good policy. You replied with "#climategate" implying that the pro-science side had lied. I pointed out that out of context cherry picking of stolen emails wasn't a valid way to determine if there was any lying and, in fact, there didn't appear to be any. You responded that the scientists dodged a bullet - which says explicitly that you knew there was no evidence of lying in the stolen emails, but you said it anyway (probably because having your emails stolen is a "typical liberal ploy"). ;)

So there's no question that you're ok with lying to make a point - in fact, you see nothing wrong with it.

As for not being familiar with science, it's pretty obvious that you're easily deceived to those on the anti-science side. First of all, your whole "#climategate" debacle.

Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Second you linked to a figure from Spencer: http://www.drroys...5_v5.png . As I pointed out to you, the temperature data is noisy, so using two points to come to a conclusion about the temperature rise would be about as good a way to lie as can be done. If, instead of checking from 1979 to 2015, you had instead looked at the temperature rise from 1976 to 2015, you'd have to add about .2C to the rise. However, I must apologize to Dr. Spencer. I had thought it was he that claimed that there was only a .35C increase from 1979 to 2015, but that came from you because you didn't know how to read a graph. Spencer shows that the anomaly was ~.35C in 2015 and was ~-.25C in 1979, for a total of ~0.6C rise in that period. That's a huge rise and right in line with the surface temperature rise of ~.63C. So, I guess, well done showing that your hypothesis was wrong ;).
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2015
Oh fuck it... just give all the ice caps and galciers a good dusting of soot and melt the fucking lot.

A good effort with a daily dusting will see them all gone within about 5 years and that will solve the global warming problem once and for all.

And we can all bask at the beach, swimming away in the sub zero tropical waters.

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) May 25, 2015
Here's an excellent paper. It doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, but the man is clearly an expert.

http://www.drroys...esponse/

He's a researcher working at a university. If he thought it was a worthwhile idea, he'd have tried to publish it. As it turns out, there's pretty good reasons why it wasn't published. First, he thinks that clouds will greatly reduce the climate sensitivity via negative feedback. While there has been a great deal of uncertainty, as early as 2008 (when Spencer wrote his blog entry), the evidence was that clouds would provide a positive feedback (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). This is empirical data, so he'd have to refute that before he could present his idea of clouds being a negative feedback. Of course, recent measurements have proved Spencer wrong.

Cont.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
Oh fuck it... just give all the ice caps and galciers a good dusting of soot and melt the fucking lot.

A good effort with a daily dusting will see them all gone within about 5 years and that will solve the global warming problem once and for all.

And we can all bask at the beach, swimming away in the sub zero tropical waters.


Except that your beach will have moved upwards 10's of metres and in places 10/100's of miles inland.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
He goes on to claim that the PDO cycle is responsible for global warming. Which is a tough sell. For a cycle to be responsible for the warming, the temperature change would have to go negative during the negative portion of the cycle. The PDO has been negative since the late '90s (http://www.ncdc.n...ons/pdo/ ). Even Spencer's UAH satellite data show a positive temperature trend from 1999 to 2015. How can Spencer refute his own data? Maybe he thinks that the oceans cooled and the heat from the oceans kept the atmosphere warm? This violates what happens during the negative phase of the PDO, but what the heck? We're dealing with anti-science here, we don't need to follow reality. Unfortunately for Spencer's conjecture, the oceans also heated up: https://www.nodc....dex.html . So Spencer's claim of a cycle is nonsense.

Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
By the way, consider this quote from Spencer from the article you linked to:
Others have noted that the warming in the 1920s and 1930s led to media reports of decreasing sea ice cover, Arctic and Greenland temperatures just as warm as today, and the opening up of the Northwest Passage in 1939 and 1940.

Note that he mentions that opening up of the Northwest Passage in 1939 and 1940? It was made up. Henry Larson got through the passage in the same way others had before him: he took over 2 years to do it. Here's what he says about that trip:
The three seasons of the short Arctic Summers from 1940-42 had been extremely bad for navigation, the worst consecutive three I had experienced as far as ice and weather conditions were concerned, and in my remaining years in the Arctic I never saw their like. Without hesitation I would say that most ships encountering the conditions we faced would have failed.

(http://www.skepti...och.html )

Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) May 25, 2015
They used black gunpowder to break up the ice. Now Spencer may call using explosives to "opening up the Northwest Passage", but I think it's nonsense. PDO is certainly a major cause for the so-called hiatus, but it's a signal that lies on top of the warming caused by CO2. (Actually, Spencer's analysis shows just that, so what he means by "A Simple Model Of Natural Global Warming" is beyond me.)

By the way, Spencer has had a lot of difficulty figuring out climate models (http://www.skepti...roy.html ). You should be very wary of Spencer when he starts talking about models.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (9) May 26, 2015
Well put ZZ, but some gorilla above you just got another 1 out of 5 though :D
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 26, 2015
Well put ZZ, but some gorilla above you just got another 1 out of 5 though :D
@HeloMenelo

ubavontuba is bulk down-voting anyone who publishes scientific or any science supported posts because she hates anyone who refutes her with logic or science

her tactics include attempts to distract away from topic and science, using grammatical and syntactical arguments over scientific ones as well as supporting pseudoscience like JVK

JVK is also trying to down-vote anyone who supports science or even refutes anything he says
you can see that here: http://phys.org/n...ols.html
because he cannot use his pseudoscience or his site as science, then he asks everyone to downvote people like me and Jones

I suggest giving them like treatment to insure others do not fall prey to their pseudoscience
that is how their bible works, right? eye-for-an-eye ?

RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (12) May 26, 2015
It gets even more bizarre, Captain. Look at my page... https://sciencex....k/?v=act

...and see the 'unholy alliance' between 'deniers in cosmology issues' (Vietvet, Uncle Ira) and 'deniers in Nuclear Power dangers and better alternatives issues (rbrtwjohnson, WillieWard), downvoting as one from their own prejudices rather than reasoned argument based on the mounting facts/reality which makes their respective positions increasingly untenable.

Not bad, attracting kneejerks form deniers from two opposing self-interested, prejudiced, 'camps', or should I say 'downvoting gangs', hey? Bizarre, for a science site/discussion forum, to say the least, hey? :)
HeloMenelo
3.4 / 5 (10) May 27, 2015
Sounds fair to me Captain, Will do.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
It gets even more bizarre, Captain. Look at my page
@RC
1st: that is a situation of your own making

2nd: if you don't provide actual science or links/references, i will downvote you as well

3rd: normally, i ignore your posts unless quoted/discusses with me by someone relevant and knowledgeable, then i determine whether or not to vote and how to vote...
but when you add in your verbose ranting or pontificating which got you banned from other forums, i will immediately downvote you without regard to the rest of the content
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
Except that your beach will have moved upwards 10's of metres and in places 10/100's of miles inland.

Shhh... don't tell that to your False "Profit" Al.
http://directorbl...-of.html

Oh wait, he bought that with the millions he made preaching that lie to the ignorant.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (9) May 27, 2015
Ahhh the gorillamonkey's back thanks for heeding the call donglish, i get so excited to see all my monkeys flocking together, now... lets play :D The 1s shining through quite sprightly, let's see who of you can rake in the most 1s today i know the competition umongst you is tough, but the braincells is at least few, so should'nt be that hard to think of some more dumb answers right...:D i got some more bannanas for you...come and get it.... :D
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) May 27, 2015
Every day we read here a few new articles about climat change. It looks like the industry. These autors surpassed Gyobels.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) May 27, 2015
Every day we read here a few new articles about climat change. It looks like the industry. These autors surpassed Gyobels.


OMG, you mean a website devoted to science produces articles about science!?! Call the propaganda police! Get it shut down! Oh my poor ontological framework! It hurts, it hurts! Make it stop!
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2015
Getting back to the article, the claim is
Limiting temperature rise by 2100 to less than 1.5°C is feasible, at least from a purely technological standpoint...


If everything just stopped and we could become zero-CO2 (excluding natural CO2 sources), we might be able to achieve a 1.5C (3,6F) max rise in global average temp by 2100. I'm extremely skeptical it will happen but I agree with their analysis. I'm skeptical because I really don't trust conservatives or conservative run businesses to participate in a global movement to save the environment. With every penny stolen from workers dedicated to profit and growth, how can a company faithful to share holders, participate in something good for the planet?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) May 27, 2015
@ CS.[q
1st: that is a situation of your own making......2nd: if you don't provide actual science or links/references, i will downvote you as well......3rd: normally, i ignore your posts unless quoted/discusses with me by someone relevant and knowledgeable, then i determine whether or not to vote and how to vote..
So two 'camps' of deniers/ignorants vote as one despite the valid poiints/evidence posted, and you make it out it's MY problem?

As to evidence/references, it has been provided already in my posts in the Cosmology threads where new observations/results from Supernovae and CMB observations/conclusions make the 'standard candles' and CMB 'evidence for big Bang' untrustworthy now. Just because you don't look doesn't mean it doesn't exist, remember?

And the evidence/logics re Climate has been well presented in discussion by many participants.

PS: since you still bring personal enmity/baggage, you are not fit to judge anything. You're not objective. Learn, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 28, 2015
you are not fit to judge anything. You're not objective.
@RC
i never 'judge"
i follow the evidence

the evidence shows that you have lied repeatedly and that it got you banned because your emo outbursts were nothing but tantrums designed to entice others into pitying you as some kind of victim

that is what the evidence shows
that is not judgement, but acceptance of facts

the evidence shows that you like to bait/troll with the same tactics: this is demonstrated above in your reply to me
don't like it?
blog about it or facebook about it.. there is still myspace too, or twitter and many more options

build a shrine to your hate of mods, Captains and those who follow science that is not yours

build a hate page dedicated to promoting a mathless ToE, earthling boy
i don't care
i will still follow logic and science, NOT your perpetual crybaby posts about your moderation
http://www.scifor...page=246
http://www.scifor...?page=68
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015
Hey Stumpy, why persist with these mendacious hidings to nowhere?
i never 'judge". I follow the evidence.
While ever you bring personal enmity and subjective half-truth 'versions' of the historical facts, you are subjectively "judging" not objectively observing based on all the evidence.

You still bring up things which I have proved you have twisted and lied about in your usual 'half-truth' way, so your claims to "following the evidence" is ridiculous. Remember when you lied about a thread that you claimed "didn't exist" but I proved it did by referencing it? Remember when you lied about the reasons for my bans which I proved BY INTERNET EXPERIMENTS were due to troll-gang frame-ups, collusion and abuse of rules and moderator position/power? Remember how just yesterday you failed to note that I supported my observations re the 'standard candle' and CMB 'Big Bang etc 'evidence' which have been demonstrated unreliable by Planck/Supernovae data?

Pull the other one, troll. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) May 28, 2015
Remember when you lied about a thread that you claimed "didn't exist" but I proved it did by referencing it? Remember when you lied about the reasons for my bans which I proved BY INTERNET EXPERIMENTS were due to troll-gang frame-ups, collusion and abuse of rules and moderator position/power? Remember how just yesterday you failed to note that I supported my observations re the 'standard candle' and CMB 'Big Bang etc 'evidence' which have been demonstrated unreliable by Planck/Supernovae data?


@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good again too, thanks for asking.

How can anybody not remember all those things? You tell the same GREAT BIG LIES over and over. And more overs too. The Captain-Skippy handed you your head with all your lies and all you are doing is making sure nobody forgets all the GREAT BIG LIES you tell.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. How did the climatic meeting go? I bet they was glad to see you ride in and save the day, eh?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015
Poor Village Idiot. Now your and stumpy's subjective lies and half-truths are 'facts', while my objectively supported and proven facts are 'lies'? No wonder you're still a village idiot consorting with an even bigger village idiot spreading his lies and malignant personal 'versions' of reality. You two are unwittingly re-inforcing each other's malignancy and stupidity to irremediable levels, and you don't even realize it. That's gang mentality/dynamics for you! Be a good idiot and play with your pointy hats and your stumpy buddy over in the corner, you great big big dollops of stupids you. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) May 28, 2015

@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? Never mind, I can see you are still in the bad mood again.

Poor Village Idiot. Now your and stumpy's subjective lies and half-truths are 'facts', while my objectively supported and proven facts are 'lies'? No wonder you're still a village idiot consorting with an even bigger village idiot spreading his lies and malignant personal 'versions' of reality. You two are unwittingly re-inforcing each other's malignancy and stupidity to irremediable levels, and you don't even realize it. That's gang mentality/dynamics for you! Be a good idiot and play with your pointy hats and your stumpy buddy over in the corner, you great big big dollops of stupids you. :)


Yeah, okayeei. But I really do want to know how the climatic environments meeting went? Was your papers the talk of the town? I bet you really put all those diligenceless heathens in their place.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015
Poor Idiot. Talks of 'moods' when objective facts are the only relevant criteria. Demands a report on yet-upcoming events. What next from this imbecile on a science site....an idiot's vision of "Future reality according to Uncle Idiot'? That is Uncle Ira, folks....a salutary reminder and example of what a waste of space and bandwidth looks and reads like when once he is appeased by equally silly troll buddies. Go reprogram your hate list for the next round of mindless BOR-voting, moron. Sad.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) May 28, 2015
a salutary reminder and example of what a waste of space and bandwidth looks and reads like when once he is appeased by equally silly troll buddies.


You don't need to salute me Cher. I just do this as a volunteer for the scientists and humans who can't do their own diligence with you because they got real science stuffs to do instead of fooling around with you.

Go reprogram your hate list for the next round of mindless BOR-voting, moron.


I don't have you on the list because you are mindless and the moron. I have you on the list because you are big fun to have on the list. I even miss you when you don't come around for a few days.

But 20 meters is opening up so I don't have the time to joke around with you so much tonight. One of the deckhands helped me to string up a end-fed dipole antenna down the tow so maybe I can talk to some of the VK Australia and the ZL New Zealand stations from your neck of the woods.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (10) May 28, 2015
Ira, your post makes me wish I had taken a Collins 618T with me when I got out.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015
Hey folks.
You don't need to salute me Cher. I just do this as a volunteer for the scientists and humans who can't do their own diligence with you because they got real science stuffs to do instead of fooling around with you.
The only 'salutes' this idiot gets from those that know him are 'one-fingered'. :)
Go reprogram your hate list for the next round of mindless BOT-voting, moron
I don't have you on the list because you are mindless and the moron. I have you on the list because you are big fun to have on the list. I even miss you when you don't come around for a few days
History shows a moron with a 'hate list' is a psychopathic Loony:

https://www.psych...-sadists

Uncle Ira is a moron with a list; uses it for BOT-voting on a SCIENCE site; thinks his loony psycho driveling + anti-science ethics BOT-crazy-votes are serving 'science'. You gotta laugh, hey folks!
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) May 28, 2015
Poor Ira's brains were addled by coming close to drowning on more than one occasion. His shipmates use him to weigh down the 'sounding line' used in shallow waters his barge encounters. More than once his shipmates forgot he was the insensible 'dead weight' substituting for the usual 'dead weight' lump of lead...and left him down there too long. No harm done, though. His Village Idiot brain was always addled, and more addling from his dunkings only made it more noticeable when he pretends to provide a 'service to science'. Then his idiocy is in full flight, along with his psychobabbling and malignant distortion of science site discourse/voting. Poor thing.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) May 28, 2015
Thermo, what's the point of downvoting me '1' like that when the idiot gets a '5' from you for his skewing and trolling driveling stalking and general uselessness on a science discourse site? That you still 'prefer' to appease that malignant twerp says more clearly than anything else can that your first priority is not objective science, but the appeasement of idiots who are more anti-science in effect and character than even the worst of the climate science deniers posting here. At least the latter aren't trying to pretend their trolling idiocy is 'serving science'. Thermo, drop the voting altogether if you are going to let your personal agendas interfere with your votes. That way trolling idiots rule, not objective science/discourse. Leave the vote-skewing from malice and idiocy to the 'expert' Uncle Ira and pals. Don't be sucked in to aiding and abetting such travesty of scientific method and discourse ethics/rules. Ok? No hard feelings, mate; but you need to rethink it. :)
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) May 29, 2015
Ira, your post makes me wish I had taken a Collins 618T with me when I got out.


@ glam-Skippy. Collins used to make some good stuffs too, but that radio is not much good for the Amateur unless you get him for free and want to do a lot of work on him. That is the airplane radio and don't have the VFO tuning us hams like. My radio is the Kenwood TS-2000 that Mrs-Ira-Skippy bought for me for last Christmas. It is the all band and all mode radio. It and his power supply I got mounted in a big surplus army equipment case that is completely water proof and I put in foam compartments to carry my radio station stuffs to and from the boat when I go to work. The three antennas I just roll up and carry in a duffel bag with the coax.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?

Since AGW was founded on fraud and is sustained by greed, then what is required is absolutely nothing. However, what it's going to take, is untold human poverty and suffering,especially to the most vulnerable.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2015
Ira, your post makes me wish I had taken a Collins 618T with me when I got out.

My radio is the Kenwood TS-2000 that Mrs-Ira-Skippy bought for me for last Christmas.
@Ira
NICE
http://www.univer...978.html
http://www.eham.n...ail/1249

gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) May 29, 2015
Ira, you be careful with antennae on the water. Make sure there are no storms about.

Yeah, the Collins stuff did not have a Variable Frequency Oscillator because the frequencies were so tight, I think. It's been too long - I liked the set because I could fix it easily, and it seldom needed care. If you want to see some interesting stuff, look up a pic of the antenna coupler for the 618S-1/MC, a shiny, technical Rube Goldberg device fun to watch.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (10) May 29, 2015
Oops - VFO? You read code?

Nope, I don't know when we ditched the key and fist for microphone, but I used to hear the high-rate bugs zinging it out at night. Mostly, I would dodge the Soviet jamming and tune into the messages sent to Looking Glass, which were mainly numbers, or a Chinese propaganda site. It was 1968.
HeloMenelo
2.7 / 5 (7) May 30, 2015
What would it take to limit climate change to 1.5 C?

Since AGW was founded on fraud and is sustained by greed, then what is required is absolutely nothing. However, what it's going to take, is untold human poverty and suffering,especially to the most vulnerable.


Nope the changing climate is based on Emperical Scientific Evidence, You monkey, your sockpuppets and greedy oil is based on fraud, and you have never been able to prove any of your points. Those 1 out of 5's backing it up quite neatly.. ;) :D

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.