Another government report is dead wrong on fragile state of our planet

[Chris]

Sucks to be you. All the hard data contradicts your political/religious cult, so conspiracy theories are all you have left. Your OP was just a hysterical conspiracy rant.

Follow the money.

All the bribe money goes to your side. That's why your side has zero credibility. Your side gets payed well to fake data and commit fraud.

The reverse goes for the ethical people. Climate scientists could get very wealthy if they chose abandon ethics and lie for your political cult. They don't. They refuse your bribes. They won't lie for money, which gives them even more credibility.

Follow the money? You mean the government money funding these reports? OK.

[Hoosier8]

The author of this article, Stephen Moore, has committed a logical fallacy by assuming that any government report that paints a dire forecast of the future must be wrong because other government reports about the environment or state of the future were wrong. He also conflates the predictions made by a private citizen, Paul Ehrlich, with a government report and he does a similar thing with the Club of Rome report which was privately funded. He mentions that the Club of Rome was funded by the federal govt. but I have found no evidence of this. He fails to mention that the this govt. report on the effects of the climate on the U.S. economy provides results based on 4 or more scenarios and they are not all dire. The RCP 2.5 scenario is rather benign.

Stephen Moore claims that he knows more than the collective wisdom of the top climate scientists in the world. He says that they have no idea of what the climate of the planet will be like in the year 2100. He doesn't say that we should ignore the science and just continue a business as usual path but that is what he is implying. He says that the report is dead wrong and he doesn't provide a single piece of evidence to support that outrageous claim. This is a pathetic article.

Yet observed science is following along the lines of RCP 2.5 and not from the unlikely RCP 8.5 which all the alarmism is created from. The government report in question even goes farther than the IPCC in their temperature forecast by almost doubling the top end the IPCC reports and uses that for all the doom and gloom. It is claimed that this will affect the GDP negatively by 10%, with no proof. The report is folly.

[mamooth]

Yet observed science is following along the lines of RCP 2.5

No, they're matching 4.5 and 6.0, which is what is closest to actual emissions. That is, the models have been excellent. Anyone familiar with the real science knows that, so the lies of your political/religious cult won't fool them.

Remember, the ratinoal side has credibilty because we've earned it by getting everything right for the past 40 years. Similarly, your side has no crediblity, because you've failed continuously for those past 40 years.

and not from the unlikely RCP 8.5 which all the alarmism is created from.

Another false claim. The reports summarize all the scenarios. Claiming they focus solely on 8.5 is a lie.

[mamooth]

Follow the money? You mean the government money funding these reports? OK.

So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.

But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.

Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.

[mamooth]

What "hard data"? You mean the fancy computer simulations that purport to predict the future of the climate?

The models are excellent. If your political/religious cult told you otherwise, then they lied to you. The long term predictions were for 0.20C/decade warming, and we've seen 0.19C/decade warming.

However, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured hard data proves the human origin of the current global warming. We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no natural explanation for those measurements, so all "It's part of a natural cycle!" theories are wrong.

At this stage, the best you can do is "Well, humans are causing it, but not that much!". After that defensive position crumbles, you can fall back to "Well, humans are causing a lot of warming, but it's beneficial", and then finally to "Well, we're causing it, and it's bad, but oh well there's nothing we can do about it now, and that's your fault because you forced us to oppose you by being so mean."

[Chris]

So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.

But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.

Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.

You don't know logic, mamooth, so stop pretending. No one said anything about bribes. Try reading Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on how ideas in science get stuck because of funding.

Your side? You don't have a side, you're just trolling.

[Ethereal]

The models are excellent. If your political/religious cult told you otherwise, then they lied to you. The long term predictions were for 0.20C/decade warming, and we've seen 0.19C/decade warming.

"The models"

"The predictions"

There have been all sorts of predictions and all sorts of models. So, what, exactly, are you referring to?

Are you referring to "the models" that failed to predict the recent pause in global warming? Or are you referring to models like Michael Mann's "hockey stick", which was shown to be a total fraud?

However, the success of the models is just icing on the cake. The directly measured hard data proves the human origin of the current global warming. We directly measure the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no natural explanation for those measurements, so all "It's part of a natural cycle!" theories are wrong.

You don't "prove" a hypothesis in science. And there have been many explanations offered involving natural cycles.

At this stage, the best you can do is "Well, humans are causing it, but not that much!". After that defensive position crumbles, you can fall back to "Well, humans are causing a lot of warming, but it's beneficial", and then finally to "Well, we're causing it, and it's bad, but oh well there's nothing we can do about it now, and that's your fault because you forced us to oppose you by being so mean."

All I have to do is to keep pointing out the facts.

Fact: You don't "prove" hypotheses, so your claim that the "human origin of current global warming" was proved is scientifically baseless.

Fact: Models can be useful, but they are not evidence. And a model is only as good as its inputs. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out.

Fact: Many scientists have offered up explanations involving natural cycles.

Fact: Many mainstream climate modelers failed to predict the recent pause in global warming.

Good luck trying to get around basic facts.

[Hoosier8]

No, they're matching 4.5 and 6.0, which is what is closest to actual emissions. That is, the models have been excellent. Anyone familiar with the real science knows that, so the lies of your political/religious cult won't fool them.

Remember, the ratinoal side has credibilty because we've earned it by getting everything right for the past 40 years. Similarly, your side has no crediblity, because you've failed continuously for those past 40 years.




Another false claim. The reports summarize all the scenarios. Claiming they focus solely on 8.5 is a lie.

Shows what you know. Typical.

[Ethereal]

So by your logic, anything the Trump admin publishes is fake, because it was paid for by the government.

But then, it's expected that you fail at logic, because people who can reason properly don't get sucked into your political/religious cult in the first place.

Again, all the bribe money goes to your side, so your side has no cred. Our side rejects the bribe money, giving us more cred.

Your side relies almost exclusively on tax dollars to fund their research. How convenient, then, that your "solution" to the problem of global warming is to raise taxes on everyone in the western world.

[Tahuyaman]

I just saw a little news blurb that said it was ten years ago today that Al Gore said that the Nothern polar ice cap would be completely gone in five years.

I haven't been that far north to see it for myself, but I believe it's still there and bigger now than it was then.