Saturday, December 17, 2016

Re: Global Warming

Stephen W Gordon Wow. I'm so glad that you have straightened that out. And boy do I feel foolish for going along with all the world's major scientific organizations.
You should go to NASA and NOAA and get them on board. 
And if you have time "educate" the 180 or so countries that signed the Paris Accord. 
(Insult to follow)
Because I'm sure some guy living in the middle of Hayseed, Indiana knows more than the world's top scientists.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
John Coffey
John Coffey I would assert the politically motivated science, especially when tens of billions of dollars annually are involved and people on the extreme left and extreme environmental movements have much to gain from this - the increased government control of our lives, is not really science at all. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and not all scientists agree with you which weakens the argument. It ignores that there are potentially valid alternate theories out there.  And I am trying to approach this scientifically. Unlike you, I have actually looked at the atmospheric CO2 and temperature data. Where is the evidence that actually supports that the Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is going to be 2 degrees Celsius or much more as have some have asserted? It is not there. They only have speculation. When the evidence supports these assertions then I will I gladly jump on the bandwagon, but I won't have to because within a couple of decades we will have nuclear fusion. However, in our lifetime we are likely to see doubling of CO2 over the last two centuries, at which point we will know what the real Climate Sensitivity is. Keep in mind CO2 would have to double again to have the same effect.
Like · Reply · 39 mins
John Coffey
John Coffey To match the alarmist predictions we would have to see a sudden upturn in the rate of temperature increase and maintain that for at least a couple of decades.
Like · Reply · 36 mins · Edited
John Coffey
John Coffey You have to be one of the most insulting people I have ever met. There have been a number of times I have been offended. You called me a nitwit on Facebook and compared me to the flat earth society. I like you anyway, but I think that you owe me an apology. I may be from Hayseed, Indiana, but do you really think that you know more about this issue than I do? I have been following this issue closely for thirty years. I started out really concerned about it and thinking that we need to take drastic action to combat global warming. It was when I started to look at how little the earth has warmed up and seeing alternate points of view going back 25 years that I began to think that this was a drummed up issue from extremists designed to scare us.
Like · Reply · 25 mins
John Coffey
John Coffey Consider the following paragraphs from an article on Global Warming: 

"The report will say there is a 95 per cent chance which it defines as extremely likely that humans are responsible for the majority of climate change through their greenhouse gas emissions. This compares with the 90 per cent figure given by the previous IPCC assessment in 2006. This, in turn, was a significant increase on the 66 per cent certainty reached in the 2001 assessment and just over 50 per cent in 1995.

The report will say that the global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about 0.8C between 1901 and 2010 and of about 0.5C between 1979 and 2010."

The Skeptics are not saying anything different. The rate at which temperature and CO2 have gone up would indicate a moderate Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 and things would have to change dramatically for it to be any different.

No comments:

Post a Comment