The Benefits of Warming

The next alarmist study that considers possible benefits of global warming along with its downsides will be the first.  Many of us have observed that, historically, abundance has always been associated with warmer periods and famine with cooler periods.  To this end, note this:  (via Tom Nelson)

Rain, wind and cold weather have Eastern Iowa farmers stuck and waiting to start the planting season.

Many farmers tell TV9 they’re ready to go but the weather this year simply won’t cooperate.

In 2007, many Eastern Iowa farmers began planting corn by the middle of April. This year, it’ll take several weeks of sun and much warmer temperatures to even think about working in soggy fields. And getting a later start can present some problems.

  • Dale

    That’s really going to put a crimp in the corn crop and the ethanol biz…

  • Scientist

    If cold is bad and warm is good, why is Norway the most developed country in the world and Sierra Leone the least?

  • morganovich

    ahh yes, norway. breadbasket of europe. where would we be without without the vast, bountiful Norwegian harvest?

    and as we all know, temperature is the only variable in development. political stability is a tiny influence in comparison.

    come on scientist. this is a ludicrous troll even for you.

  • Scientist

    temperature is the only variable in development – yes, that’s exactly what the man is saying. Are you intelligent enough to realise that what I am doing is pointing out the fallacy of his thesis? Doesn’t look like it.

  • morganovich

    how do you figure he said that?

    i see him talk about abundance and famine in a clearly agricultural sense.

    then i seen you go off on a wild tangent and compare norway and sierra leone, making no sense whatsoever and holding up a country where agriculture is less than 3% of GDP as an example of the effects of climate on agriculture and development.

    norway can’t feed itself. they are net importers of food, particularly cereals.

    we’re talking about growing crops here.

    you have some of the worst reading comprehension i have ever seen.

    i don’t see the word “development” in his piece anywhere. nor anything discussing any variable as singular.

    only you do that.

    you are a joke.

  • Fred from Canuckistan . . .

    if they can’t plow, maybe they can sing-along . . .

    http://tinyurl.com/4fo28b

    Apologies to the Bare Naked Ladies

  • Scientist

    Ah morganovich. You write like a fairly dim-witted 12-year old. Ever heard of capitalisation? And you don’t seem to understand this very clear statement of what the man believes: abundance has always been associated with warmer periods and famine with cooler periods.

    He also says that The next alarmist study that considers possible benefits of global warming along with its downsides will be the first. Well, ignoring the lame pejorative and assuming he means any scientific study, then he really should read the literature. It’s obvious he doesn’t; it’s just not clear whether it’s because he can’t or because he won’t. If you can’t face the thought of reading about actual research, you only have to read the most recent IPCC report (WG2, chapter 5, p300): moderate warming benefits crop and pasture yields in mid- to high-latitude regions. Now, do you think he will acknowledge that he’s got it wrong, or will he ignore the evidence and just come out with the same old shit time and time again, just like the 98% of Antarctica is cooling rubbish? My money is very firmly on the latter.

  • morganovich

    ok, so you agree that warming is good for crops and so does the IPCC.

    so what are you ranting about?

    and that was not the argument i was taking you to task on.

    are you ever going to admit that your “if cold is bad warm is good” development argument doesn’t even make sense?

    i was talking about what you said. and it was clearly nonsensical. you seem quite guilty of the sins you attribute to others.

    now you try to shift the topic to evade having been a dolt.

    no one is fooled.

    you said something dumb. it happens. fess up and move on.

  • Scientist

    If you can string together a coherent argument, I’ll argue with you. Why not try to explain why, if warm is good and cold is bad, an inverse correlation is observed with richer countries tending to be at higher latitudes than poorer ones (see the Norway and Sierra Leone example which you don’t seem to understand), and why if you look at GDP per capita over the last 1000 years, it does not rise and fall with temperature?

  • morganovich

    if you had bothered to read the initial post in the first place, you’d realize that it discusses agriculture and growing seasons. we’re talking agriculture, not GDP.

    and there is pretty substantial evidence of how weather and temperature affects agriculture. roman period – warm, good harvests. dark ages, cold, small harvests. medieval period – warm, good harvests. little ice age, cold, famine. read your history. and GDP covers a lot more ground than harvests and food prices adapt to famine by going up etc. if you want a relevant thing to look at, look at tons of cereals output or some such. at a given level of technology (and obviously technology evolves) long growing seasons make harvests larger. can you really be trying to argue with that?

    admit it:

    in your haste to be a contrary troll, you misinterpreted the discussion and massively oversimplified and said something dumb and not germane to the topic.

    it happens.

    fessing up will go a long way toward making you look capable of accusing others of never admitting mistakes. in all the crazy troll posts i’ve seen from you, you never ever admit error. you just twist the argument away into something else and try to hide behind obfuscation and semantics.

    i was hoping such a glaring case would prove an exception, but i see this is going to be little different.

    happy trolling!

  • Craig

    Morganovich has you here, Scientist. Like he said, all other things being equal (including form of government), a region will see increased agricultural yields during a warm period than during a cold period. Nobody’s making a comparison between completely different regions.

    Also, you were quite deceptive in your use of that IPCC quote. Here’s the full quote:

    “While moderate warming benefits crop and pasture yields in mid- to high-latitude regions, even slight warming decreases yields in seasonally dry and low-latitude regions.

    It goes on to say:

    “These results, on the whole, project the potential for global food production to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3ºC, but above this range to decrease.”

    As we see, while the IPCC concedes some increase in yields due to warmth, overall it predicts agricultural doom due to global warming.

  • morganovich

    oh, and i would argue that GDP per capita (which ought to be considered on a purchasing power not a nominal basis) is not a great indicator of development at the top end of the spectrum. it too intensely favors nations with tiny populations and significant natural resources.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

    top 10:

    1. qatar
    2. luxembourg
    3. malta
    4. norway
    5. brunei
    6. singapore
    7. cypress
    8. US
    9. ireland
    10. switzerland

    a fair sprinkling of latitudes here as well.

    and only one significant agricultural exporter in the group. (US)

    so agriculture really doesn’t look like the way to get rich.

    and GDP appears to be a poor proxy for food production. i suspect that of the top 10, only the US and ireland could be self sufficient if they needed to.

  • This is a very cold spring for midwestern farmers. This year, you can’t plant by the calendar. Cold weather is bad for crops. Food prices are high. In Afghanistan, opium poppy farmers are planting wheat instead of poppies–for the food and the high prices of wheat this year.

    THe best bioenergy crops like palm oil, jatropha, and cane all grow best in warm tropical weather. Tropical countries have the potential to become wealthy growing bioenergy crops. The higher the oil price, the better for them.

  • Scientist

    Craig – no, I was not being deceptive. I was showing that the original post was dishonest when it said The next alarmist study that considers possible benefits of global warming along with its downsides will be the first. I am presuming he considers the IPCC alarmist. I wonder if he considers his own persistent and unshakeable view that actually doing anything about global warming would lead to economic meltdown just a little bit alarmist.

    So when you say Like he said, all other things being equal (including form of government), a region will see increased agricultural yields during a warm period than during a cold period, what is your evidence for that? You quote it as if it is fact, but the most recent summary of the scientific studies into this tells us that it’s not true. It depends on the region and it depends on how warm the warm period is. It looks like you have not really questioned whether your belief is actually true.

    ‘cypress’, morganovich? All you had to do was press ctrl-c, ctrl-v and you even managed to balls that up. Quite impressive.

  • Adirian

    2% difference in annual GDP growth over a century amounts to a sevenfold difference in final GDP. This isn’t alarmism, this is basic mathematics.

    If you frontload a 5% difference in GDP growth over fifteen years, you get more than a twofold difference in final GDP. This also isn’t alarmism, this is also basic mathematics.

    If you frontload a 10% difference in GDP growth over ten years, you also get more than a twofold difference in final GDP.

    And these are all vast underestimates of the cost which would be incurred by modifying many many trillions of dollars of global infrastructure to stop CO2 production. And that is right up until the next big disaster is identified – perhaps our new global tidal harnesses are causing the orbit of the moon to deteriorate and it will hit us in a century, perhaps our new global wind farms are seriously modifying wind patterns and hence weather patterns.

    And those options aren’t even present for most of the world; not only is there the trillions of dollars in infrastructure changeover – there isn’t anything available to changeover INTO. Economic meltdown is quite appropriate.

    And your “doing anything about global warming” is quite the appropriate remark. Because “anything” is exactly where things stand – “something” would imply there is a plan, an approach, something besides “put taxes in place and hope other people fix the problem.”

  • Scientist

    Yes, the assumption that the cost of avoiding disastrous climate change will be measured in trillions of dollars is pure alarmism. Care to provide some evidence to back your wild assertions?

  • TJIT

    Scientist asked

    If cold is bad and warm is good, why is Norway the most developed country in the world and Sierra Leone the least?

    Because

    Norway has

    1. Bundles of money from producing massive amounts of carbon containing petroleum.

    2. A functioning government.

  • morganovich

    “scientist” you really take the cake.

    the best you can do is accuse me of a typo/spelling mistake?

    you will do absolutely anything to shift away from the fact that you are arguing something that doesn’t make any sense.

    you can keep trying to obfuscate and nitpick, but it’s not going to fool anyone.

    you have officially lost any moral ground to accuse others of refusing to admit mistakes.

    you messed up and said something dumb.

    everyone does it.

    just admit it and move on.

    why is that so hard for you?

    what is it you get out of all this nonsensical trolling?

    and can you really believe that eliminating a large portion of carbon dioxide produced can be achieved without large economic costs?

    CO2 is not like removing SO2.

    SO2 is a by product of combustion.

    CO2 is a product of the reaction. the only way to eliminate it in a fossil fuel reaction is to either not burn the fuel or capture and sequester the co2.

    show me how either can be done easily without enormous cost.

    you are the proponent of such action. as such, it is fitting that YOU be the one to show what it costs.

    there are lots of interesting alternative energies out there. but none are nearly as cheap as fossil fuels at this point. most are 3-5 times the cost per MWH. things like hydro and geotherm only work in a few locations and still have very finite limits. and nuclear is simply not plentiful enough to run the world. you know how you’ll know for sure when an alt energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels? IT WILL SPREAD LIKE WILDFIRE. until it does, we are left with fossil fuels.

    so,at the moment, you can:

    1. not use energy
    2. make the cost of energy higher

    how do you do either without major economic cost?

  • dreamin

    There’s a saying that the North Wind made the Vikings.

    It seems to me that northern countries tend to be better developed because, among other things, the (bad) conditions required their inhabitants to evolve greater intelligence/planning ability.

    The average IQ in Norway is 98. The average IQ in Sierra Leone is 64. How can you have a developed country if the majority of the population falls below the Western standard for mental retardation?

    Cold climate might be good for Sierra Leone in a eugenic sence, but only at the cost of mass starvation/misery.

  • Adirian

    Scientist – trillions is an easy figure to arrive at. Let’s just focus on the US, and you can extrapolate out.

    We have ~2,700 power plants in the US. Let’s assume 70% of those produce significant enough CO2 that they warrant replacement with nuclear power. A nuclear reactor costs 70 million between licensing and capital investment, and let’s say another 20 million in expertise investment. (Actually, the cost of expertise is probably much higher than this, but it’s extremely difficult to calculate, so I’m going with a low figure.) Let’s make the extremely generous assumption that all the power plants we’re replacing utilize an average of 1.5 reactors. (Yes, many nuclear power plants have more than one reactor.) So 1.5*.7*1700*90,000,000. You get an initial price tag of 160 billion for the plants alone. Nuclear plants also have higher operating costs, so you can take on several unspecified billions.

    And that’s with current resource consumption. You’re also looking at tacking on several dozen, perhaps hundreds, of billions of dollars from the increased prices of scarce resources.

    Now let’s take a look at cars. There are ~200 million operational vehicles in the US (seems low, but I’ll go with that figure), and ~700 million operational vehicles in the world. Assuming immediate and efficient replacement, it costs around 9,000 per vehicle to make a basic conversion to electric. That’s a cost of… 1.8 trillion, for the US alone. That’s ~6000 for parts, and ~3000 for labour. And most vehicles aren’t suitable for a “basic” conversion, for reasons of weight. (The cost would be considerably lower if you went with a “retirement” model, but if we can afford to have twenty years of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere, the argument that we need to act NOW becomes rather more obviously retarded.)

    Anyways, I’ll just stop there. I’ve gotten 2 trillion already, and fairly easily at that – and that just for the United States. The relative costs would be even higher for developing nations, who don’t have our wealth to utilize the much more expensive “green-friendly” alternatives to coal.

  • Adirian

    Also, Morganovich’s point. My figures were optimistic in that they assumed there would even be enough nuclear fuel for the United States – nuclear power being the closest alternative to coal, with a 30:29 cost ratio per megawatt-hour – which isn’t the case. There isn’t enough fuel available to take us through the next century, at least not with a revolutionary development.

    But that’s sort of it, isn’t it? When it comes to action, skeptics are treated like idiots because we aren’t assuming a miracle will come along and lower the cost of this, or lower the cost of that, or make this cost-effective. You may have noticed that there are a HELL of a lot of engineers on the skeptic side – indeed, I’ve never met one who examined the subject who didn’t come out skeptical of the claims being made, either scientific or political – and, well, this is rather a familiar situation to us.

    One could regard the political pushers as pointy-haired bosses, ignorant of the processes they are trying to control.

    One could regard them as the pitiful villains of Atlas Shrugged, believing in their hubris that they can force people to think, to solve problems they themselves are incapable of even understanding.

    In either regard you don’t have a recipe for success – the blind may lead all they will, but those with sight will stop when they recognize the cliff ahead.

  • Papertiger

    Craig quotes the IPCC as saying,

    “These results, on the whole, project the potential for global food production to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 3ºC, but above this range to decrease.”

    That’s the exact figure they give for co2 climate sensitivity. – [warning: PDF file]
    Makes you kind of wonder what all the fuss is about.

    BTW Thank you Craig, for wading into that Bible length mish mash of eco bilge for us.

  • Scientist

    TJIT – I think you got the point that others are struggling with: that saying ‘warm is good and cold is bad’ is a banal simplification.

    Adirian – not a single reference for where you obtained any of your figures? That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Did you just pull them out of your arse or would you like to tell us where they are from?

    Your analysis has two simple flaws. First, on power stations, fossil fuels will not last forever, so any cost involved in transferring to another energy source will have to be borne regardless of CO2 emissions. Second, regarding cars, who ever suggested converting every single car out there into an electric car right now? Maybe in the crazy world you inhabit, that’s what you think the plan is. It’s not.

    dreamin – your charming talk of eugenics and Sierra Leoneans being retards really makes deniers look good! I do find it hilarious that when writing in such an obnoxious way you can’t even spell the word ‘sense’ correctly.

  • dreamin

    Gosh, what a suprise: Ad hominem attacks and spelling flames.

    Ok, I’ve fed you enough for now.

  • I think CS needs to fess up.

    Scientist is a sockpuppet of yours meant to make AGW nutjobs look like nutjobs, isn’t he?

  • morganovich

    at the risk of bolstering “scientist” in attempting to change the topic, one could theorize that many of the folks in sierra leone have suffered in their mental development due to poor nutrition. correlations between low calorie intake (for pregnant woman or child) and low cognitive development have been frequently established. the “north wind” could have little to do with it.

    but, back to “scientist” trying to duck the issue:

    quote: “that saying ‘warm is good and cold is bad’ is a banal simplification.” i fear your history is a bit revisionist “scientist”. the only one who ever said that was you, in your first post. so here you are in print calling your own comment “a banal simplification” which is precisely what i have been arguing all along.

    but trying to attribute that statement to the blogger is just flat out false. you said it. he didn’t. it’s all in print above. happy reading.

    also:

    i note that you have not taken up my offer to show me the cheap way to abate CO2. if you would like us to look at the cost/benefit ratio of a change you propose, show us the cost. you claim other’s numbers for reduced output are too high. so how do you know? what are your numbers? show me how you got to them. show me what it costs to eliminate a product of combustion from combustion.

    if it’s low enough, i’ll be happy to go along. but price does matter. paying $1 for vacation insurance seems a cheap “precaution” even if it doesn’t do much. but for $10,000, i think i’ll take my chances. and refunding vacation money would be nearly certain to work (unlike co2 abatement).

  • Scientist

    You write like a 12 year old and I’m beginning to think that your writing is several years more advanced than your thinking. Yes, the original post made the banal simplification. Here it is: abundance has always been associated with warmer periods and famine with cooler periods.

  • morganovich

    so in the “scientist to english dictionary”,

    “abundance has always been associated with warmer periods and famine with cooler periods” and “cold is bad warm is good” are the same thing?

    did they teach you this in “straw man 101”?

    no wonder you can never seem to keep up with the conversation.

    you’re just upset because you got caught calling yourself banal.

    and for once, i agree with you. you certainly are.

  • Adirian

    “Adirian – not a single reference for where you obtained any of your figures? That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Did you just pull them out of your arse or would you like to tell us where they are from?”

    – Care to challenge any in particular? I can hunt down the figures, but I’d rather stick to the ones you find, for some bizarre reason, to be unreasonable. (All except the car conversion figure were pulled from various government websites; the car conversion figure was pulled from a green website’s compilation article describing where to go for information on making the conversion yourself.)

    “Your analysis has two simple flaws. First, on power stations, fossil fuels will not last forever, so any cost involved in transferring to another energy source will have to be borne regardless of CO2 emissions.”

    – Incorrect. Power plants require replacement after about fifty years anyways (Sim City is, to my chagrin, correct on this) – their lifespans just aren’t that good, partly due to wear and tear, partly due to the immense improvements in efficiency in design as time goes on – so the costs of replacement in the scenario that we simply let fossil fuels run out is very, very little. You see, the fossil fuels will get more expensive as they get more scarce, and so there will be declining incentive to make the massive capital investment in plants whose operating expenses are rising relative to the alternatives. That’s assuming biofuels (that is, carbon-based fuels) DO run out, of course, because the cost of converting from one biofuel to another is significantly less than converting from a biofuel to nuclear, which is to say, you actually CAN do the conversion for most biofuels.

    “Second, regarding cars, who ever suggested converting every single car out there into an electric car right now? Maybe in the crazy world you inhabit, that’s what you think the plan is. It’s not.”

    – You may notice I made a note to that effect, with the following comment: “The cost would be considerably lower if you went with a “retirement” model, but if we can afford to have twenty years of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere, the argument that we need to act NOW becomes rather more obviously retarded.” So, at best, my analysis has one flaw, as it addressed this point already. And, moreover, if, as you claim, fossil fuels will eventually run out – and an EFFICIENT biofuel doesn’t arise to replace them (ethanol being obvious nonsense for current methods of production) on sufficient scale – you don’t need to enact any legislation, as the rising price of gas associated with increasing scarcity will force inefficient vehicles out of the market. Efficiency being market efficiency, mind. A vehicle that runs on nothing but air but costs $7,500 more annually is not worth it for just about anybody.

    Taxes, incidentally, don’t change market efficiency. Market efficiency is a very good indicator of resource consumption – taxes modify prices without modifying resource consumption. Solar farms, for example, consume more resources to build than an energy-equivalent coal plant. They consume so much more, in fact – in terms of the energy costs of refining the silicone and glass necessary to produce them – that it’d have to operate for more than fifty years at minimal maintenance costs to break even on even a measure of CO2 production. It’d have to operate for more than thirty after all the tax breaks to break even on financial cost. And then you have to consider all the additional land useage that the solar farm required, which could have been put to another purpose – say, growing a forest. (Or building houses which otherwise would have required tearing down part of a forest, more realistically.)

  • Scientist

    Just do us the simple courtesy of giving us links to your sources, would you?

  • Adirian

    Scientist –

    There are dozens of them, and they clutter things up to put them in an initial post, particularly when they are exceedingly reasonable figures to quote. I’m perfectly happy providing sources for any figure that somebody finds questionable, but I am not going to include figures for every single statistic the first time through, and I’m not going to spend another half hour relocating every single source I utilized the first time around. So – pick a figure. Pick any figure. I’ll back it up.

  • Alan D. McIntire

    Check out

    http://www.internetworldstats.com/

    Norway has a population of 4.5 million and an area of 125,000 square miles.

    The much less developed Sierra Leone, with an area of only 28,000 square miles, is able to support a population of 5.4 million despite being much less developed than Norway. -AMC

  • Scientist

    Adirian – I dispute all of them and I would like to see all of them backed up. They may well sound reasonable, but I’d like to verify them.

  • morganovich

    “scientrollogist”-

    you accuse others of gross simplification by grossly simplifying what they said.

    you demand others data and refuse to provide any. i note we are still waiting on that “inexpensive co2 abatement” strategy you seem to think possible or some argument as to why it is unreasonable for the one proposing a dramatic change to the world economy to show us what it would cost and where all the energy to do it is going to come from.

    when cornered or unable to understand the argument, you jump topics to another keyword or accuse others of typos.

    i think i have finally figured it out.

    “scientist” are you some sort of ELIZA descendant? (you sound more like PARRY) you’re really a climate troll program designed to argue with everyone, aren’t you?

    can you pass a turing test?

  • Adirian

    Scientist –

    I have already refused that query. But tell you what. If you will agree that if I can back up every single one of those figures with solid evidence – minding you that I always round in the direction that favours my opposition to make the math simpler – then you will drop your claim that “doing something” about CO2 is anything but economic nonsense, on these terms will I spend the half hour to an hour I spent the first time through locating those figures.

    In other words, I’m willing to make an investment of my time to relocate those sources if it makes a difference. If it makes no difference, then it makes no sense for me to waste my time in such an approach.

    To simplify the terms: If I produce the evidence for these figures, and my sources are solid, (again, minding that I round, and in favour of my opponent) then you must agree that it makes no economic sense to eliminate or even significantly reduce CO2 production.

    If you can’t agree to those terms, then the implied terms of your rebuttal are garbage. That is, you aren’t arguing as a rational creature, capable of being convinced, and your rebuttal has nothing but malice for me in it. You have laid the burden of proof on me – if it is impossible to prove my statement by fulfilling the terms of that burden, then you have given me the burden of proof under false pretenses.

    If this is the case, if you are not willing to accept defeat, if you merely ask for the proof of my statements in a vain attempt to try to make me look foolish, then I suggest you politely bow out at this point, because every single one of those figures is solid.

    So… are those terms acceptable to you, or am I dealing with more sophistry?

  • James Mayeau

    Dude you can’t come in here and claim airs and authority with a name like “scientist” without backing it up.
    Show me links. Show me citations. Show me a degree at an accredited Uni – preferably with transcripts proving you actually showed up for class.

  • Scientist

    Adirian – no, the deal is not that you cite your sources and I agree with you. The deal is that if you cite your sources, we can have a sensible discussion. Do you have a problem with allowing other people to verify your claims?

  • Stevo

    Adirian,

    It ought to be obvious by now that the intention isn’t to have a “sensible discussion”. It’s to challenge every statement, annoy everyone, waste everyone’s time chasing after references, in order to increase the cost of being part of a sceptical community. The hope, I assume, is if that we all get annoyed enough we’ll stop posting here and he’ll have effectively killed the site.

    Arguing with him is fine for entertainment, but there’s no profit in doing actual work in an impossible attempt to satisfy him. By all means put up references if it will give you the satisfaction of proving him wrong yet again, but don’t expect any acknowledgement. All he’s interested in is annoying you. And it’s not as if you have anything to prove here either – none of the rest of us are inclined to take his arguments seriously.

    I’ve just had a long (and amusing) one where he tried to back his case with a reference that turned out to be behind a pay firewall, I asked him what was in it, and he couldn’t tell me. Because I wouldn’t waste my time chasing it, he then told me that if I wouldn’t read the literature I was ignorant, and all the evidence I wanted was “out there” but apparently without being able to say what it actually was. He thought it totally unreasonable of me to require accessible evidence before believing what he and his buddies said, and that it was somehow my responsibility to seek out the evidence to support his argument. He then proceeded to try to justify Argument from Authority as an appropriate scientific method!

    He’s a joke. A political heckler. A social terrorist. Do not negotiate, unless you can see that it is clearly to your advantage.

  • O/T

    Post from Roger Pielke Sr. provides good references on effects of aerosols on percipitation.

    These could be useful for people to understand the nature of effects of CRF on climate.

    The major implications that these help clarify are: 1)the more immediate CRF/Cloud effects should be primarily limited to regions of the ocean that are relatively free of cloud nucleation particles [areas near land are already nearly saturated with particles]. 2)If the effect is strong enough, it should temporarily dampen any cooling effects of CRF on the atmosphere due to decreased efficiency of the water cycle.

  • Scientist

    Ah, Stevo. How outrageous of me, to quote a paper that was published in Science, one of the two most prestigious journals in science! I told you what was in it, a couple of times – you refused or were not able to understand that I had done so. You didn’t have to do any chasing – I’d given you the link to the paper. You chose not to look at it. All the evidence is that you are not competent to have an opinion here, because you choose to remain ill-informed.

    Did I not say what the evidence that is out there was? I rather think I did. There is very strong evidence a) that humanity is significantly changing the composition of the atmosphere; b) that the change in composition has led to a measurable rise in temperature, and c) that all else being equal, continued variation in the composition of the atmosphere will lead to further rapid warming. You and your ilk apparently think that asserting that this is not true is good enough; that your word is worth more than published science; and that there’s no reason to provide any evidence to back your assertions.

    It’s amazing and laughable to see that you seriously are arguing that you shouldn’t have to provide evidence for claims that you are making.

  • morganovich

    so you agree that those making claims ought to provide evidence to substantiate them. (even if you totally mis-characterize stevo’s statement in so doing)

    i’m so pleased.

    show us the evidence that there is any possible way to substantially reduce human CO2 production using any sort of currently existing technology without creating a major economic drag/cost? you are the one proposing to change the world economy. show us how you would do it.

    we await the pleasure of your response.

  • Stevo

    See what I mean?

    Yes. You told me what was in it. You said ‘it contained the evidence’. But you were unable to say what ‘the evidence’ actually consisted of.

    Your a, b, and c are not the questions that were under discussion. We were talking about the evidence that feedback is known to be large and positive. Now you want to change the question to your teeny-tots version of AGW theory? And again, you present no evidence, only conclusions?

    It’s tempting to let you distract me again pulling your facile fallacies apart. But I had enough fun last time round. Enjoy!

  • Papertiger

    aaron – wait a minute- the climate nazis are telling us that there is no negative feedback from aerosols?
    Wasn’t that the main explaination of the 70’s cold period? Pretty sure it was (you know the farking ecotravellers would never blaim the sun).

    So what we have here is another “CONSENSUS” of science which just isn’t true.

    Did those mother farkers ever get anything right?

  • Adirian

    “Adirian – no, the deal is not that you cite your sources and I agree with you. The deal is that if you cite your sources, we can have a sensible discussion. Do you have a problem with allowing other people to verify your claims?”

    – A sensible discussion is precisely what I won’t get with you. But no, I have no problem allowing people to verify my claims – go ahead, verify them; I don’t mind in the least.

    You think I put forward that offer thinking you would take it? I knew you wouldn’t, otherwise I wouldn’t have made that offer – after all, if you were intellectually honest enough to put your beliefs on the line, you would have taken it and challenged me on the figures I made clear in the original post were merely educated guesses, like the 70% figure on the plants requiring replacement. The last several posts have been a logical trap I deliberately placed before you – I’m saying this because I don’t think you’ve grasped that yet. It’s been amusing, I must say, but it’s a bit like using cruise missiles to hunt rabbits. No, that’s not quite right – the rabbit would see it coming.

    The reason I knew you wouldn’t agree? Your basis of argument is irrational – it doesn’t matter what evidence I put forward, what arguments I bring, it will always end in “sensible” discussion. That is, there is absolutely no evidence possible that will convince you that you are wrong on this. If I’m incorrect, if there is some evidence that will demonstrate to you that, say, stopping or even slowing CO2 production would be very very bad for the economy, and indeed far worse than the alternative, then go ahead. (It should be easy to calculate how much monetary damage is necessary to make it a bad economic choice – after all, if you are to be believed, we know enough about the climate to predict exactly how much damage global warming will cause to the economy.)

    You’re a pseudoscientist, a cargo cultist, a sophist of the worst kind. You’re also the biggest problem I encounter in the climate debate – because you make your own side look so horribly bad that you eliminate the relative objectivity of my side. Indeed, you make the case for your side so terribly that, in arguing with you, it seems that the evidence is that CO2 definitely ISN’T the primary forcing agent. (As opposed to the state of evidence, which is slightly for, but not significantly so.)

    You want to learn something, to be effective, try actually reading Stevo’s posts. I believe it was he who has done you the favour at least once of presenting the evidence you SHOULD be arguing with (by which I mean using against us), I assume because he got bored with your usual prattle.

  • Scientist

    Stevo – looks like you were stupid enough to completely misinterpret what I told you about Roe and Baker. Read it yourself and stop ridiculously complaining that I didn’t tell it to you properly.

    Adirian – simple enough choice: provide evidence for your claims, or accept that no-one has any reason to believe them. Your offer was facile and I think you have no idea of the inadequacy of your approach.

  • Scientist

    Oh, and papertiger, if you want to use the word fuck, why not fucking spell it properly? And learn the difference between a feedback and a forcing. It’s pretty fucking basic, you fucking idiot.

  • James Mayeau

    Touchy little faux scientist.
    Still waiting for those credentials or a name change.

  • Adirian

    James – he’s an astronomer, which translates loosely as “Doesn’t do productive work.”

    He’s also angry, which, unsurprisingly, has eliminated what little pretense he had at rationality.

  • James Mayeau

    An astronomer? I read somewhere that astronomers make the most money on average, compared to other scientific disciplines.

    I like hearing from people when they are boiling over. It blocks out their reasoning and rationalizing, and lets you get a peek at how their mind works.
    Like sci’s feedback/forcing comment. Show’s his lack of imagination and anal retentiveness.
    This is valuable stuff to know, since he is going to be a fixture here.