I read, somewhere, that the little iceage was kept little by a distant supernova that added just enough radiation to prevent glaciers from covering canada down to chicago.

And I'm assuming the forcast fir how hot its going to get, post iceage, was on the low side? So we are blaming suvs?
Maybe its a whole one degree hotter than normal because the previous ice age wasn't cold enough.

Speaking of science, how do you test this hypothesis?

 

-----signature-----

Make people afraid of it.
Get somebody to bankroll your research.

 

-----signature-----

Well, that's sorta simplistic and trite. About like saying "we need to stop worrying about pollution and just learn to live with it!"


Some pollution would cost so much to stop it's probably better we learn to live with it, although at the very least it always makes sense to make the polluters pay instead of letting them externalize their costs. Some pollution should be stopped despite the economic cost of doing so.


The same thing applies here. Blanket statements that we shouldn't make any effort to control out impact on the climate are just as dumb as saying we should stop doing anything that has any impact on the climate at all.

 

-----signature-----

The world has been much warmer than it is now. It will be much warmer than it is now. We are not talking about smog and pollution, which are obviously man made and have obvious negative consequences.

Some of you would crash the economy to delay the inevitable.

 

-----signature-----

Well, if the world may be warmer 30,000 years from now naturally it surely doesn't matter if we warm it up now instead!


Also, a lot of the debate is who should bear the costs. Saying "don't worry about it" only answers half the question. If people are warming the planet and some people are impacted worse than others it's pretty callous and inequitable to say that the people getting all the profit from screwing over the other people shouldn't have to pay for the damage they cause.


The common solution of a carbox tax is not about stopping warming per se but more about stopping entities from externalizing their costs. When people have to pay for the damage they're causing they make more economically rational decisions. You will get less warming overall but even more important the people doing the warming will have to pay for the damage they are causing.

In short the message is this:

If I don't want to deal with it, or worry about it, I'll just ignore it and it will go away.

 

-----signature-----

fixt

stopping pollution is fine. in fact, its a great idea. im all for it.

doing things like stopping pollution because you want to stop global warming leads to ideas that it didnt work when/if, it in fact doesnt change the warming/cooling trend.
then people get even more hysterical and start looking for ways to actively change the climate in the opposite direction because they think just stopping what we were doing to harm the environment wasnt enough. now we are actively trying to manipulate something we do not understand or have all the variables to.


trying to predict a chaotic system is futile. in the end, climatology is really just large scale weather prediction and we all know how well our local weather men are at predicting the weather for tomorrow.


you cant test any of their hypothesises, you cant predict anyhting from current models, ...
didnt we just have this discussion with cori?


so if you want to clean up the environment and lessen our impact on it, then lets do it.
but stop disguising it as some crackpot religion thats hell bent on global weather control.

 

-----signature-----

That's like saying you can't reliably predict the outcome of a single coin flip so it must be impossible to reliably predict the outcome of 10000 coin flips.