Has everyone read how there is more Arctic ice today, than in 2002. Oh yeah, the polar bears are having a field day, vessels are blocked due to the cold summer temps, even Russian icebreakers are having a difficult time cracking the ice sheets.
So the WSJ has an article out. Basically, all the doom and gloom talk over the past 20 years, forget-about-it. Scientists are dialing back on their predictions, because they got it so wrong the last 10 years. In fact, the inconvenient truth of the matter is we all will be better off 50-100 years from now. “For the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.”
“Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.”
I know some believe it is “game over” if we complete the Keystone pipeline, but I believe it’s game over with these new reports. Temperatures won’t be as warm, so the experts concede, oceans wont be flooding congressional districts, and a little warmth is beneficial, with better crop yields, more rainfall and enhanced forest growth.
Let’s party everyone
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html
but the poor bastard keeps on plugging away. I remember this clown from the beginning of this year, even the scientists he was quoting said he was wrong. It was all very very sad and pathetic. Search his name in articles from Dec ’12 / Jan ’13/
Also, Dan we’ve gone through this many times already, you mislabel opinion pieces in newspapers. I’m starting to believe that you don’t understand the difference. Must be all the Fox you watch, it’s completely blurred your perspective that you can no longer distinguish between the two,.
Arguing with Dan is a waste of time.
You will note that it is not an article to which he has linked but rather an essay by a known idiot. It is not even based on fact but on hearsay that a known idiot claims (!) to have gathered.
If you look up prior exchanges with Danfromwaltham, you will quickly discover that he has poor reading comprehension and no grasp whatever of statistics — and a grasp of statistics is exactly what one needs to discuss climate science intelligently.
I thought you were a facts guy. I may not understand statistical analysis, like Kbusch, but I can smell BS a mile away, such as when Al Gore said the earth has a fever in 2007. You know what else he said? By 2013, the Arctic sea ice would be all gone by 2013. Too bad for Al Fraud, the opposite is true.
So go on with pretend images of Florida being submerged, and Waltham becoming a beach-front community, unless we cripple our economy and destroy our main energy sectors, and of course, we all ride public transit and give up our automobile. As I press down on the clutch and grab my Hurst pistol grip shifter and put her into first gear and rev my V-8, I say “from my cold dead hands”.
If you go back to this contribution by our author on gun control, you’ll notice a couple things:
1. He was very loose with what was meant by a Harvard study and had great difficulty understanding why he hadn’t, in fact, posted a link to anything that was even remotely a Harvard study.
Here too we have an WSJ article, for example, that isn’t an article; it’s an op-ed. Further the op-ed is by a completely unreliable source. The op-ed’s unreliable source is reporting on hearsay. In short, there are no facts here!
2. Doing an analysis of the effect of gun policies on crime crucially involves mathematical models: for example, what variables do you control for? The importance of that went right over DFW’s head.
For that reason, climate science will make no sense to him. Why? It involves mathematical models. He doesn’t understand them. He doesn’t even understand how deeply he doesn’t understand them. Classic Dunning-Kruger.
You will find him to be very good at being provocative though. That’s his main talent. No comment of his is complete without the handle of him or her whom he wishes to provoke.
trust me, it will benefit you.
that you don’t want to be regarded as the resident asshole, you need to drop the global warming denialism. You also need to know what constitutes a serious source. This isn’t an article, it’s an “essay,” i.e. an op-ed. And it’s by freakin’ Viscount Matthew Ridley of the House of Lords! The guy’s a serious ideologue. And like virtually all climate change deniers, he’s not a climatologist. He’s a zoologist.
I know much of it comes from your believing what you read in the right-wing blogosphere, but if you want people to treat you as something other than for target practice, you at least need to stick to reality. Wait until the rest of the media covers things and you’ll have a better idea of what’s true and what’s just supporting your personal beliefs. You might try the New York Times, which reports something contrary to Lord Ridley.
The only reason people deny man-made global warming and climate change is right-wing propaganda. The only reason. Denying it is like saying blacks had it good under Jim Crow and separate was equal. Seriously immoral.
Did Al Fraud say that ice could be gone by 2013? Are Fox or Ridley wrong when they say since 1990, out of 117 models, 114 over estimated warming?
I tend to be pessimistic about most things, global warming, religion, politicians, salesman, strange dogs, home improvement contractors, and yes, even the NY Times. I gave up on that paper when they endorsed Mondale over Reagan.
To equate my healthy skepticism on man-made global warming and what will come of it in 50-100 years to immorality or supporting Jim Crow, is an attempt to silence skeptics who are searching for the truth and simply holding “experts” accountable for what they predicted or promise d what would happen.
I find myself more like Galileo, being persecuted by powerful for daring to raise another line of thought on a particular issue.
Or do wish to answer him and get another helping?
your skepticism is not healthy. It’s not even skepticism. It’s nitpicking denialism. The way it works is wingnuts throw out invalid criticisms of existing research and ignorant people like you latch on to it. As KBusch points out, you’re too ignorant and too sure of yourself to debate.
As a conservative Daniel, you enter the lion’s den of liberals who think they know it all and you slay them with your contrarianism. Unfortunately, anyone who wants to seriously take you on has to hold up the undeveloped, misrepresented end of your argument.
Your self-comparison to Galileo is alternately sad and funny, but lucky for you, your self-assuredness allows you to bounce right back.
And that’s not even taking into account oceans, but hey it could just be a coincidence. After all, every time I start flipping a coin I expect to hit heads 341 times in a row. It happens all the time, in fact, Dan from Waltham why don’t you try to see how long it take for you to get the same coin toss 341 times in a row?
Perhaps “historian” could name his sources.
.
The “below” in the title doesn’t match the “why don’t you try to see how long” at the end.
Only need to google 341 months.
my reply to Dan
In case there was any doubt:
http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/ArcticEscalator2012.gif
https://twitter.com/NOAA/status/369835909476130816