[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'F')orget climate change and AGW. Those are losing arguments, there isn't anybody listening any more. You made all the converts you will ever make there.

[KaiserJeep]

It is simply my belief that the AGW/CC argument is entirely moot. If we were to continue burning FF's at the present rate, within 1-2 centuries, the theory would be conclusively proved one way or the other.

Meanwhile, there is little doubt we are in the grasp of a cooling trend that has not yet peaked and will last another 2-3 decades. The earthsat directly measured global temperatures do show the temperature declines, the IPCC majority opinion on the matter of global warming is also declining, which assertion will be confirmed (I anticipate) in 2019's Sixth Assessment Report.

However, the rate of petroleum consumption will taper off quite sharply due to peak effects, which is why the whole controversy is moot. The energy shortage and crisis in transport that follows will dwarf the whole AGW controversy.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')Meanwhile, there is little doubt we are in the grasp of a cooling trend that has not yet peaked and will last another 2-3 decades. The earthsat directly measured global temperatures do show the temperature declines, the IPCC majority opinion on the matter of global warming is also declining, which assertion will be confirmed (I anticipate) in 2019's Sixth Assessment Report.

[KaiserJeep]

Get a clue. There are as many ways of defining, deriving, and anally extracting "average global temperatures" as there are climate scientists. Some show warming is occurring, some show cooling. But the Earthsat data, which measures and integrates the black body infrared radiation from an entire hemishere of the globe, is better than any other measure of global average temperatures.

You know the one. That online data set that inconveniently shows a global cooling trend that all of you have been ignoring, denying, and discounting for all five years that I have been here at PO.com. The dataset that professors John Christy and Roy Spencer, both NASA scientists from the University of Alabama at Huntsville, have defended successfully from all comers, in concert with Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT.

These scientists and learned professors of atmospheric science and meteorology DO NOT come out and flatly say that AGW is happening or not happening, any more than do the other members from the IPCC. Instead they most carefully talk about evidence - and there is a plentitude of evidence on both sides of the controversy - and probabilities.

It is left to the ignorant, the non-scientists, the idiots of the world who do not understand the very process of science, to profess belief in the theory of AGW/CC. Some of you have even made the truly ludicrous and absolutely wrong assertion that all one needs to understand is the greenhouse effect to understand why warming is occurring.

Need I point out that the Earth's atmosphere is a complex system and the greenhouse effect is but one factor out of millions? Need I point out that few genuine scientists express such opinions, but ignorant laymen and PO.com members do so all the time?

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you really think these dudes are smarter than everyone else, why have I never heard of them? If you want to convince me, link the article and quote me some meat...Where in their argument do they transcend the rest of the scientific community. What formulas have they put forward to explain the atmosphere? A dataset doesn't explain why.

[ROCKMAN]

baha - Not my cat fight but I did read your post. And in much of it you seem to be doing the same as you accuse KJ of doing. Not picking sides...just saying.

[Yonnipun]

Hi

This is my first post in this forum. Considering my cognitive abilities I can say that I am pretty dumb. I am amazed by people who do computer programming and stuff like that and I can not even understand what the hell is a bitcoin and how this whole cryptoworld works. But on the other hand the concept of peak oil is so simple that even a person with half a brain could understands it. I myself found out about peakoil about 10 years ago when the economy overheated and the price for diesel went up so much that I eventually started to use diesel that was meant for agriculture to save a little bit. I started to browse the web about oil prices and then I found the latoc forum and since then I become a doomer. So basically I think that bright people figure it out by themselves and not so bright need a little bit of push. I was 25 back then. I would like to hear from smart ones here when and how did you first understand that we are doomed.

[KaiserJeep]

baha, the whole climate debate has revolved for years around the IPCC pubs. They publish "Assessment Reports". AR4 was published in 2007, AR5 in 2014, and AR6 is expected in 2019. These are in the form of three large documents from the working groups, and a "short" synthesis report of about 150 pages, and then an even shorter "Summary for Policy Makers". NONE are light reading, my guess is that most politicians don't get past the half page abstract of the Summary Report, and don't understand that.

The take away message here is that the Summary Report is where they present and opinion poll of the working group members about climate. They present majority and minority totals. Without question, the majority of members has favored the position that humans are changing climate in all the summaries. However, as we learn more about climate and climate models, the size of the majority is shrinking. I believe that in AR6 next year, the majority will shrink again.

The very suggestion that certainty does not exist, or that there are perfectly qualified climate experts in the minority opinion, such as the afore-mentioned Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen - drives the AGW fanboys absolutely batty. The idea that the concensus opinion is slowly unravelling as the impact of the solar minumum owns the atmospheric carbon content, is even more disturbing. But the most disturbing concept of all: we'll never really know who was right with complete certainty, because science doesn't work that way, although in a couple of centuries, there will be a lot less uncertainty about climate.

You'd think somebody shot their dog, the way they are acting.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')aha, the whole climate debate has revolved for years around the IPCC pubs. They publish "Assessment Reports". AR4 was published in 2007, AR5 in 2014, and AR6 is expected in 2019. These are in the form of three large documents from the working groups, and a "short" synthesis report of about 150 pages, and then an even shorter "Summary for Policy Makers". NONE are light reading, my guess is that most politicians don't get past the half page abstract of the Summary Report, and don't understand that.

[Ibon]

So maybe the consensus actually is that we all agree that we live in tubulent times where enough chaos is present that predictions become unreliable. Funny how the physical and cultural mirrors each other.

[ROCKMAN]

baha – “You can't find answers unless you look for them.” So true. But much easier to find those answers if one decides what the answers should be before the analysis is done. Unfortunately a common approach on both sides debating many various issues to day. And much of that bias is based upon one's feelings of what should be done. Often the reality of where trends are heading is to depressing to accept.

BTW nothing wrong with a good cat fight if both sides are being interlectually honest. Why I never skip your posts.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'G')et a clue. There are as many ways of defining, deriving, and anally extracting "average global temperatures" as there are climate scientists. Some show warming is occurring, some show cooling. But the Earthsat data, which measures and integrates the black body infrared radiation from an entire hemishere of the globe, is better than any other measure of global average temperatures.

[KaiserJeep]

In spite of your personal need to believe that something either IS or IS NOT, the world is analog and not digital.

I am perfectly comfortable not knowing whether the AGW theory is correct or not, for another century or two, until a valid judgement can be made about the matter.

As I have said many times, the point is moot. We cannot stop burning FF's and we will not. Knowing that the absence of cheap energy would kill 3/4ths of our population, we will continue to do so as long as possible. When it is no longer possible, we will start to die in greater numbers.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')
I am perfectly comfortable not knowing whether the AGW theory is correct or not. As I have said many times, the point is moot. We cannot stop burning FF's and we will not.