It's a convenient excuse to avoid accepting the reality of the situation.

Instead of accepting convenient excuses, I think the old adage "if it looks like a duck" is appropriate.

No way, I haven't seen that but that is too funny.

Still have no idea what you're trying to say. If you're saying ikes looks like a Repuliduck, I would actually disagree. I think he's a ContraDuck, as evidence by the fact that I think I can find spots where he's taking contrary position for sake of being contrary when there wasn't an obvious political split on the issue.

The only way you could possibly frame a question like this is if you had no idea what you're talking about at all.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

97% of actual experts agree that global warming is indeed a thing.

Please proceed, doctor.

Cool story riverman. Now how many think it's 0-1C, 1-2, 2-4, 4-8? How many think whatever hypothetical policy youre pushing would work? How many think the cost of fixing it is worth it?

It's not a question of whether or not CO2 gas emission has caused warming. It's a question of how freaking much.

To elaborate, this how well climate models have fared:




That's not good. It's downright ugly. 2013 is shaping up to be pretty cool as well. There's still a ton out there we simply don't understand.

A study commissioned by the world bank suggests that we are looking at a change of 4C by the end of the century and suggests such a change would, in addition to other changes, cause massive flooding in vulnerable parts of the world vulnerable to such.

The accepted international goal is to limit warming to 2C, which still has the potential to cause significant damage.

However, and this is me personally now, I think the bigger issue is the attitude and philosophies that surround this as well as other policy decisions. The biggest driver of decision making is national, and sometimes global, financial cost. To me it is horrific that the primary driver of our decision making process is fundamentally artificial.

The value of life, and even more so the value of the environment to future generations needs to be considered on moral and ethical grounds. We have a responsibility to pass on a world to the next generation as undamaged as possible by our presence. Any attitude that does not take this idea into account is at best shortsighted and at worst selfish and nihilistic.

In short, the narcissism of humanity is beyond stunning.

? Why would you use a world bank study instead of ipcc reports?
And some work being done lately sees the 2C as the most likely outcome atm.

jesus christ

no i'm ike.

yeah, you've made that abundantly clear

The thing about the climate change denialists is that it's not about the information available--that's there and everybody can see it and if you're really wanting to evaluate the information, it's pretty easy to see that climate change is real and the results will be disastrous if we don't do something.

But there is a culture that values the gas-guzzling SUV and the general wastefulness of energy. And they don't want to be told that we all might have to pitch in and work a little harder to conserve energy and maybe even pass a carbon tax. Not because it's an affront to the data, as they view it--it's an affront to their very way of life.

What they don't realize is that we all use energy. It's not a matter of becoming ascetics who survive without electricity or any fossil fuels. It's about using the energy we have in smarter ways and developing more sustainable models going forward.

AFAIK the world bank doesn't fund the ipcc ar's, and those are what you should be looking at if you're supposedly concerned about the consensus.

This.
The attitude of many is that nothing should stand in the way of convenience and creature comforts, not even the slow destruction of our environment.

Ikes: always sure to list himself as not one of the crazies, but loves defending the crazies' way of thinking.

If you need the indefensible defended, call 1-800-IIIIKES

I think I've finally found the will to stop responding. The 1% doubt that it was about anything other than negative attention is gone. About 5 years too late.

I read this and I wondered: "Golly gee, why doesn't ikes provide any kind of citation or even explanation for this figure?" My attempt to figure out why has led me across the sea of googles on a most excellent journey of discovery. Strap yourselves in, ladies and gents, thar be lolikes!

That graph ikes is stroking himself over is from a leaked version of a working draft of the next IPCC report.

Major climate change report draft leaked online: IPCC

Leaked IPCC Climate Report Excites Skeptics, Annoys Authors And Raises Questions About Process

So what's up with that figure? Well, you can find the leaked report online, here is he working draft of the text that accompanies it (my highlights):

So there we go. A misleading cherry-picked graph presented without context that was unethically taken from a work in progress. Just the level of intellectual honesty we've come to expect from the denialist crowd and our own Prof. Ikes.

And if you're curious, here's what you get when you look at the stuff that's actually published with the consent of the authors and peer-reviewed: This is the Rahmstorf paper referenced earlier in the (leaked working draft of the) IPCC report.

Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011

But Trolly the black dots for 2011 are outside of the colored part.

You do realise that cost-benefit analyses of climate change incorporate the value of life? And that your "responsibility", if taken literally, would imply the total cessation of human activity?

Even if you adjust for natural forcing we're coming well out of the 2-4C range into the 1-3C. That's why carbon sensitivities have been pushed down. Handwave away.

Wow. Just. Wow.

No, that responsibility taking to an absurdly illogical extreme would imply total cessation of human activity. Instead we got an absurdly illogical extreme the other way. We drive SUVs with 1 person in them. We refuse to explore renewable energy models because they are not profitable enough and we show know interest in improving public transportation for the same reason.

The way we live right now is madness. It is living without regard for our own future and certainly without regard for the future of anyone who comes after us. 144,000 offshore wind turbines would power the eastern seaboard and energy companies are running an advertising campaign that literally says "the wind dies, the sun sets."

As to "cost benefit analysis" and "the value of life," placing a dollar value on human life is stunningly immoral. It is, admittedly, not avoidable as society is currently constructed but that does not excuse the behavior. Our government pays farmers not to create food while people starve. People die everyday because they are unable to afford the surgery, or medicine, that they need, and environmental destruction will create loss of life on a far larger scale than either of those problems.

Human costs should not be quantified by financial measure and while loss of life is inevitable, in most or all of these scenarios, a great emphasis should be placed on limiting that loss of life than we current do.

Guys, listen.

I'm going to scream and yell about 2-4C increases being absolutely wrong while posting a picture that shows us almost entirely within the predicted ranges thus far. See how we're only at .5?

OUTRAGEEEEEEEEEEE

I think there's at least some % chance that he's on someone's payroll. We know there were initial lies that dvaut dug up. He should have been in med school a long time ago. He is very well informed on global warming denial - knows all the key blogs and arguments - and that's an area we know has astroturfers.

I mean the bird with broken wing thing he does is very sophisticated. How many conversations have gotten completely derailed and we forgot whatever we were arguing about because a bunch of people took the bait and chased ikes down a rabbit hole? Also he seems to magically appear within 30 seconds whenever there's a real GOP bomb that goes off - instantly deflecting away.

Stranger things have happened. RedBean admitted being a shill - although he denied he was paid, but who knows. I am pretty sure some Knox posters are on a payroll somewhere.

Ok I'll go take my meds now.

Oh yeah and he's a Breitbart fan. But he's not frothy at all. Mr. Moderate. The profile just doesn't add up.

responsiblity and "responsibility" In The Thread. Happy World Enviroment Day!