Global Warming & rising sea level

The only personal attack I see here is your attack on Nycap. While I don't agree with all of his views, I think there is no reason to say because he doesn't believe one theory he lacks empathy and for you to make that accusation against someone you don't know is entirely uncalled for.

I think you misread what you are now saying.

If I misinterpreted then I do apologize. Perhaps I took his words too literally. I'm not sure how in any of the posts claiming one or the other lacked empathy arose and guess too lazy to wade back through. Again, if I misinterpreted I do apologize.

I do wish these discussions didn't always lead down such a treacherous path. I freely admit I don't know the answer to the question and don't imagine I ever will.

Actually, I very much believe in Global Warming, and I think that humans are a large contributor to it, but I don't waste my time arguing that as that discussion is a misdirection that will never be resolved. Too much money involved, and we all know that money trumps moral obligation every time with our race.

Instead I simply point out that what we've done to our planet certainly hasn't made it healthier. I doubt anyone can argue that. I don't waste my time arguing whether any efforts on our part can reverse it. I simply state that it can't hurt the planet to try. Of course though trying costs money. So I have no expectations.

As for government grants resulting in unbiased results, I agree that's absolutely naive. Plus, all studies aren't done with government grants. Studies for years said that smoking wasn't harmful. As for us only increasing Co2 by a small percentage, we take in oxygen and emit Co2. Plants take in Co2 and convert it to Oxygen. It's a beautiful dance, that has worked for millions of years. But it's a dance that was once performed by ballet dancers and is now being performed by a sumo wrestler and an anorexic. Not only are we producing Co2 (and other pollutants btw) at a rate this planet has never imagined since the Big Bang, but we're also deforesting the planet at a record pace.

I think man has been a lousy steward of this planet starting with the Industrial Revolution, and they deserve everything that will happen to them. When I think of the future of this planet it makes me glad that my bloodline ends with me. No grand children or great-grandchildren of mine will be cursing me for stealing their future. I'm not giving MY grandchildren Asthma or Melanoma.

• Rob Meldrum stated that he thought people who believe in man-made global warming were prone to name-calling.
• NYCap said that he didn't think there was any name-calling in this thread.
• Rob then referred to an early post in the thread where someone who believes in man-made global warming said that people who don't believe lack empathy. Rob's final line would've been clearer if he'd put quotes on it: "You don't believe the theory of global warming? You have no empathy!" He meant that as an example of what believers in man-made global warming say, he wasn't saying it to NYCap.

Personally, I agree with the sentiments that:

• We're obviously messing up the planet - garbage in the oceans, deforestation, factory-farming, etc.
• But how much of an effect that's having on climate is far from clear
  • certainly, messing up the planet could do something to the climate
  • on the other hand the world has been warmer in the past and it's been colder without any man-made influence
  • some of the data presented as "undeniably true" is bogus, e.g. the famous hockey stick graph, measurements of temperature accurate to 1/2 degree

I understand now. He actually ended the quotes just before that statement so I thought it was his feeling regarding the quoted section.

My wife is a researcher (not climate), so research grants are a constant part of my life. You're obviously ignorant on the subject.

The one your body inhabits. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I don't know what 1/2 degree accuracy you're referring to, but the "hockey stick" is solid science: the average world temperature increase in the last 100 years has bee exponential compared to previously. The only controversy that ever existed was very small smoothing of error margins from poor statistical techniques. The hockey stick itself is completely accepted by the 97% of climate scientists in the link in my previous post.

This graph (similar to the one you posted) shows no sign of the "hockey stick", it is rather the opposite...

There are only two players here who give grants: governments who just need to know what is actually happening so they can react to it, and the incumbent fossil fuel industry who have wonderful motives (their huge profits) for denying climate change no matter what.

Because you've only posted the section from 1914 onwards!

And I haven't posted one, so not sure what you're referring to...

The one in the link you posted. And both are showing that the stick is broken....

It's of great comfort to me to know that in the not very distant future my generation will be making most decisions on climate etc., and not the prevailing generation of posters here

You're looking only at the blade of the stick. The shaft is the previous thousand years.

You just contradicted your previous assertion that grant money is without motive.

As for your statement that governments 'just need to know what is happening' you may want to google cap & trade. You can't point to a profit motive on the enterprise side while ignoring taxes from the other.

The Hockey Stick from 1998 was a prediction of future warming due to rising CO2 levels. It doesn´t fit today. About the shaft there has been many discussions where Mann have now adjusted it more to reality...

I was replying to a post about GOVERNMENT grants, so I assumed you'd successfully infer that I was also only talking about government grants.

I'll restate it for you though: government grants are not dependant on the outcome of research. Research is done precisely because the outcome is unknown, and only publications that can be verified and reproduced by the scientific community is given credence. This is the reason there's such an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: it can be shown to be real, and publications that claim it doesn't exist fail peer reviews.

Climate change costs far more than the earnings from emission trading/tax, and this isn't a chicken and egg scenario: either climate change or cap and trade had to come first - can you guess which?

Completely incorrect.



https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

LOL ...Taxes. Taxes came first. Give it up friend.

There is nothing such as scientific consensus, especially not in this field. This is why IPCC exists and all the COP's are taking place...