Congress to slash funding for Global Warming research at NASA

Let's apply your "reasoning" to a different case.

Let's say that Joe shot your friend Larry in the head, and he subsequently died. You might claim that therefore Joe killed Larry.

"Not true at all," says Joe. "There's no proof that my firing the gun caused his death. He might have died anyway. Other people have died that I didn't shoot, you know."

"I know you shot him," you say. "I can prove you pulled the trigger, and that that caused his death."

"But you don't know how his second cousin Fred died," Joe says. "If you do not know that, then you are guessing. And, you are guessing that any action I take with this gun will cause a death. If you don't know how Fred died, you can't tell me that I shouldn't fire guns at people's heads. Your claim that being shot in the head causes death, my friend, is a wild guess."

And Joe would have a strong a case as you have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is an oft repeated erroneous claim
which must ignore many faster rates of change whose evidence is readily available in the earth's records.
Consider the:
Cooling and warming of the Younger dryas, and Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

And, we still have flora and fauna.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is accurate I think. The rate of climate change can be quite quick and dramatic as in the case of the end of the last ice age. In north america there was an abundance of large animal species that may have rivaled Africa. Then within a couple thousand years there was an almost complete collapse of the biome.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Republicans view sea level rise due to global warming as an opportunity:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Short term events. This is human caused and global. And by the way, there is scientific consensus on this. And by the way, shouldn't we still study it?

 

We just gotta save those polar bears.
Each bear eats over 55 seals per year.
There are (maybe) 25,000 polar bears left in the wild.
That = 1 million 375 thousand(1,375,000.00) dead seals.

Damn man, without the polar bears, we'd have to hire thousands of Norwegians to go up there and club the baby seals to death.

It's most likely more cost effective to just save the bears.

SAVE THE BEARS!


......................
(no offense intended for any out of work Norwegians)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Climate change"

seems an interesting and ill defined cluster of words.


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
What is it, exactly, that you think that is
Does your thinking have or hinge on an assumed causal agent?

 

as/re #66

Oh yeah study it.
Mind, heart, body and soul------STUDY IT
(you might wanna ditch some of your preconceptions/prejudices)

Here's a fair start:


have fun!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

wow 2020 should be interesting

 

Again with this silliness?

You will never give on extrapolating from local and regional weather to global climate phenomena. It's not rocket science - neither one of those two was a global temperature or heat budget change even a tenth as large or as rapid as the current one.

What has rooted these basic errors of reason and logic in your brain so ineradicably? You've seen multiple links, you've seen the objections and the contradictory data laid out right in front of you at least three times by my count - where does that mental glitch come from?

 

Reality.

....................................
maybe you should try it some day?

 

Invented (or adopted) by Frank Luntz, as I have linked documentation for you directly, for propaganda purposes in Republican campaign and political rhetoric. All Republican campaign and political rhetoric regarding science is like that - vague and manipulable and useful for dissimulation and making politically convenient claims. What's your point?

Did you not watch your video? It directly establishes the severity of the consequences possible from smaller and much slower fluctuations in climate forcing signals (such as the orbital, or Milankovitch, cycles) than we are now experiencing. She establishes, for example, that the West Antarctic ice sheet has in the past vanished - possibly even collapsed - from forcing signals less severe (smaller and slower both) than the current CO2 boost greenhouse effects. That was until recently thought to be an exaggerated and alarmist position.

Your video there is an alarmist one. It documents a sharply increased likelihood of major disasters incoming now - no longer the province of paranoid speculation only.

In reality, neither of the two events you posted and have posted in the past were examples of global warming even a tenth as large or as fast as the current CO2 boost is forcing. Why do you keep claiming otherwise?

 

Well, it begins. The deniers are now in powerful places:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-chief-says-carbon-dioxide-not-a-primary-cause-of-global-warming/

 

Because this interglacial features a uniquely rapid and continuing CO2 boost at a unique time in the interglacial, causing a much more rapid global warming than in the past.

So - for example - the sea level rise of the past is now a warning of catastrophic possibility - the gradual rise from the slower warmings of the past would have caused significant troubles for human civilization on their own, but the unique present circumstances bring significantly more severe possibilities.

 

There probably was no single "causal factor" during the Eemian. We took no actions during the Eemian. And the current rapid CO2 boost did not happen during the Eemian.

The assumption that the climate would behave the same under 500 ppm CO2 as it did under 300 ppm is not reasonable. Neither is the assumption that the ocean ecology would behave the same under the acidification regime so established, and so forth. And the rapidity of the change coupled with the size of the forcing signal is unique outside of major meteor strikes.

 

What, is there such a thing as Flash Global Sea Level Rise? You sound as if this will just sneak up on people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where has the maximum speed of adaptation been established?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is it a

And by the way, shouldn't there be open debate on any scientific findings?

Climate has always changed, so it is an effectively meaningless, or at least completely trivial, phrase. It's definitely a cluster of something though.
Scientists seem to have completely forgotten the scientific dictum that correlation does not imply causation. Agendas will do that.

 

Nope. There is a Slow Global Sea Level Rise.

There has been for decades, and the science is now established - no matter how much some deniers want it not to be.

Which is akin to saying that all people die, so the crime of murder is effectively meaningless - or at least completely trivial.