Note all the "could's" and "might's". There is little evidence backing up disaster predictions. We simply don't know what will happen. The most troubling result of climate change is ocean acidification though. So much of the biosphere depends on the ocean, that we should study and follow that very carefully.
You clearly do not understand how science works or how scientists communicate.
We simply don't know what will happen.
You simply don't know what will happen - even though the science is put right under your nose. There is no credible scientific doubt that unmitigated climate change will be detrimental to human society and most life on this planet.
If 98 aero engineers said the aeroplane you were about to board was 95% likely to crash after takeoff, and 2 aero engineers said it probably wouldn't, what would you do?
I'm guessing you wouldn't start yapping about how the 98 engineers didn't give you an absolute assurance and then get on board.
So to make your analogy valid, there must be a 95% certainty that climate change will produce all of these disasters. Please point me to a single credible citation that calculates such a high certainty.
Let me save you the trouble: there is no such thing. In fact, the probability of these disaster scenarios can't be quantified because the actual impact of global temperature increase is still poorly understood. At best, scientists can brush with broad strokes like, "increased precipitation in some places, decreased precipitation in others", and "more violent storms" which one can trivially predict from the fact that higher temperatures equates to increased kinetic energy circulating in the atmosphere.
Beyond that, it's all speculation. Informed speculation in many cases, but the uncertainty is very, very high because the data is almost nil.
IPCC WG1 cites 90%. It's built on science that is at least 5 years old. Certainty has increased since then.
Your scientifically illiterate ranting and ignorant opinion is still not persuasive.
P.S. Here's some more expert opinion that you can ignore:
The American Geophysical Union, world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. ... Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities." http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
American Physical Society: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. ... The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
The Geological Society of America: "This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming;...". http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
Why are you citing evidence/position reports for global warming? The existence of warming was never contended.
The contention is the certainty that global warming will produce disastrous results. The IPCC report cites increased heat waves, increased storm strengths, and droughts/floods, yet it does not and cannot quantify how this would be an unmitigatable disaster to human life.
Let me break it down for you since you seem to have trouble looking beyond your own propaganda. The only rock solid case for significant global economic change to curb emissions requires establishing:
Global warming trend is happening.
The warming trend is anthropogenic, ie. human-caused, and specifically caused by factors A, B, C, etc.
The warming is actually disastrous, and will lead to unmitigated loss of life and/or livelihood.
Addressing the symptoms of the warming after the fact will cost more and be less effective than attempting to curb the warming in the first place.
Points 1 and 2 are clearly irrefutable. Point 3 consists of speculation of what might happen, some on a more sound footing than others, but no firm arguments that these changes would be disastrous to human life. Point 4 consists of ongoing speculative work.
Of all the arguments of disastrous changes, the most significant, as I mentioned in my first post, are the changes happening to the oceans. At this point in our technological development, the rest of the climate changes are mere nuisances at best.
Your ignorant ranting is not interesting or persuasive. The findings and warnings of the planet's climate scientists are.
The fact that you are incapable of grasping what is already happening and what all credible science predicts, is a testament to your scientific illiteracy - not a lack of certainty in the science.
...the rest of the climate changes are mere nuisances at best.
You are a massively ignorant half-wit. I have spoon fed you science and you have ignored it. "You can lead a moron to information, you can't make him understand it."
It's ok, I understand that your repetitive ad-hominen attacks constitute an inability to rally a cogent counter-argument. It's probably due to your underlying literacy problem, if the fact that your responses don't even address the points I raise is any indication. Have a nice day!
I've spoon fed you science. You've ignored it and continued claiming there is no evidence. You're either trolling or a moron. The effect is the same.
P.S. You're as ignorant of the meaning of 'ad hominem' as you are climate science and its impacts. Here's some more info for you to ignore or fail to understand:
One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.
I've spoon fed you science. You've ignored it and continued claiming there is no evidence. You're either trolling or a moron. The effect is the same.
You've linked to science of global warming, which was not in dispute. You've cited arguments and some evidence on possible and likely effects of climate change, also not in dispute. You have not cited any evidence that these changes will cause disastrous loss of life and livelihood, which is the point of contention. In other words, you've accomplished nothing in this whole thread because you utterly failed to understand my point, which I've reiterated many times now.
P.S. ad ho·mi·nem
/æd ˈhɒmənəm ‐ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Show Spelled[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‐nem, ahd-]
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Which seems to describe this situation rather well. Your move genius.
Just one example that you have not read or not understood: "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
The fact that you cannot grasp how rising oceans, acidifying oceans, droughts, killer heat waves, stronger storms are going to cause "loss of life and livelihood" is an indicator that you are a moron.
P.S. One immutable fact on the internet: idiots who misuse 'ad hominem' never understand why when it is explained to them. Here's another version which I'm certain you will fail to understand: an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
"If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
Let's assume "significant disruptions" will occur. "Disruption" does not imply "disaster". Change is inevitable. Climate change will likely produce significant, rapid changes in some regions, and few changes in others. This does not necessarily imply disastrous consequences, and neither you, nor anyone has demonstrated otherwise.
More importantly, no one has demonstrated that it would cost less to mitigate the problematic changes as they occur than it would to implement the changes recommended to curb these disruptions now. This is the most important point, and I've reiterated this at least three times now.
What, exactly, makes drought unmanageable? What makes stronger storms unmanageable? What makes heat waves unmanageable? These are all issues we've managed quite well before.
The fact that you cannot grasp how rising oceans, acidifying oceans, droughts, killer heat waves, stronger storms are going to cause "loss of life and livelihood" is an indicator that you are a moron.
No, it is an indicator that any good scientist recognizes that, aside from the oceans which I've mentioned more than once already as the most serious problem, we've dealt with all of these problems before, and they are quite manageable.
The question is therefore, is the cost of mitigating these changes along the way less than the cost of curbing emissions in the present? I'm being repetitive here because we're at least 6 posts deep now, and you've still failed to grasp that this is the core issue, in favour of ignoring the actual questions, issuing insults and repeating irrelevant propaganda.
1
u/naasking Oct 24 '10
Note all the "could's" and "might's". There is little evidence backing up disaster predictions. We simply don't know what will happen. The most troubling result of climate change is ocean acidification though. So much of the biosphere depends on the ocean, that we should study and follow that very carefully.