"This much is clear: the Arctic is warming fast,..."
No it isn't. Arctic sea ice extent is normal and cyclical as can be seen from the Danish meteorological institute's data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
No it isn't. Arctic sea ice extent is normal and cyclical as can be seen from the Danish meteorological institute's data here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I remember growing up as a kid watching the intro sequence to the road warrior and thinking it was entertaining but pretty unlikely that we’d screw up that badly. But now it seems pretty prophetic.
There's a reason we don't give people more voting power in politics, economics, etc., based on the strength of their convictions.
If you want to have people follow proposals and programs you espouse, package the proposals & programs properly. "Pay more taxes to maintain status quo" doesn't cut it. "Earth will be uninhabitable in X years" has been cried one thousand times too many and will never be believable.
"Cheaper energy and nicer cars and cleaner environment and happier dolphins and less waste" is great. Even better, the case makes itself: most people have already witnessed great improvements in all those through our lifetimes, and can easily imagine more of the good stuff.
A pale blue dot, if you can keep it.
So I guess we’ll see if natural selection removes people like you from the gene pool so the species itself can continue to evolve or if the dynamics are too extreme and this is part of the great filter.
natural selection pressure the species whole, what survives next is just those that were somehow more adapt to the new environment, it doesn't carry any punitive or karmatic meaning.
it might very well be that psychopaths will be the one surviving the first aftermath by virtue of their selfishness
Maybe in this case selection pressure applies to entire species or planets and is one of the reasons we haven't detected any signs of intelligent life outside the solar system?
It's not that not caring is "wrong", it just has a lower chance of beating natural selection.
Er, actually that's just it. It's (to put it mildly) eccentric to think otherwise.
They will obscure the axioms they're arguing from so as to not get immediately dismissed, and instead just look rational at a glance and intellectually dishonest when you ask too many questions or read too carefully.
Props to CzechTech for being upfront at least.
I have spent last 10 years travelling, sailing the ocean, hiking in jungles, diving in the reefs that would be extinct soon. I live in a climate where some moderate warming will make more pleasant.
I do not care what will happen beyond 20 years ahead. Maybe even less.
So why would I inconvinience myself? Why worry? People will get exactly what they deserve.
On the other hand somehow it doesn't seem right.
Perhaps but I haven't seen any of my middle class friends taking their children to school on a bike or by public transport. And when I point that it is possible it is always "Meh, it is more convinient in my car and I am above that".
If people with children do not care why should I?
When you were growing up, did you watch NASA's James Hansen saying in 2008 that we would have NO Arctic sea ice in summer by 2018? Was he correct? No?
Got a full quote in context? You "skeptics" have a tendency to miss things like "as soon as" and "if this trend continues".
That's not even a quote, let alone one in context.
Lately I wonder if there are other intelligent species on other worlds that managed to deal with this problem like adults or if technological change always outpaces social and political maturity.
"Over the past 30 years, it has warmed more than any other region on earth"
https://web.archive.org/web/20120428072521/https://www.ipcc....
Also, the third graph on page 202 shows that the Earth was MUCH warmer a thousand years ago than it is now, despite far less CO2. This isn't particularly surprising since carbon dioxide levels track global temperature - not the other way around - as the ice core data going back 800 000 years shows.
The 1985 Department of Energy report Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide uses data going back to 1925 that shows, surprise, that Arctic sea ice is normal, cyclical and has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236534420_Projectin...
It's true, but doesn't prove your point. Specifically, we're still left with two options: what we see now is the same cyclic effect, or what we see now is caused by us and if we get another cycle on top we're screwed even faster. You'd have to show the inverse - that the production of lots of CO2 does not affect the cyclic process. (Or that the pattern of the current raise is extremely likely to belong to a cycle)
What you've linked so far shows that the sea ice level of the past 5 years is well below even 2 standard deviations under the average, which contradicts your claim. Not sure what you were trying to prove by posting that link.
No one is saying science is infallible. It's just the best explanation for what we're seeing so far, based on empirical evidence. Your argument that science was wrong about something in the past does absolutely nothing to support any of your claims - for that you need to post evidence.
>If the data shows that the Arctic is doing fine, then I don't care how many climate alarmists say it's melting if it isn't.
Your own link you posted contradicts this. I'm starting to think that you don't understand the contents of your own link, because it very clearly contradicts what you are trying to say.
>Tony Heller destroys the fundamental deception of global warming here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RwjYkYCXnU
This is a typical tactic used by climate change deniers. Ask for evidence - when they can't provide any, they distract and post something completely different and try to deflect.
I'll spend 10 minutes of my time watching that video after you spend a little effort and post a scientific paper that supports your original claim.
Arctic sea ice is normal and cyclical and follows both short and long term cycles.
Good. So let's summarize:
- someone who disagrees with you can be called names
- you're ignorant of the history of NOAA
- if you can't find something, then the other person is a fraud
- but you claim they make fraudulent arguments anyway so that's OK
Very scientific.
Look here, for example https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm