You argued temperature data vociferously. What's the point of arguing bristlecone pine data if you have already conceded the earth is warming? Why argue against temperature data for a year? Or are you just pulling a semantikes here?

Your position is pretty simple - make a lot of noise, throw out a bunch of blog science you obviously barely understand - move on to the next talking point when one tires out.

You've been consistently wrong since you got into this thread and the other one, and completely put in your place by 13ball and others who actually understand the science. You have no interest in any kind of genuine scientific debate.

One of the key arguments from alarmists is that the warming is "unprecedented," which is to say that it is so bad that the Earth hasn't encountered it in X number of years. It is certainly true that it could be unprecedented in the past 1000-2000 years, but this conclusion is based on spurious reconstructions and statistical tricks from a small cadre of scientists and an even smaller sample of data. It counteracts anthropological evidence relating to human migration (including the Vikings going to Greenland).

I've been reading about climate and discussing climate for about 10 years now, and the crux of my argument has thus far been true: the alarmists have significantly exaggerated the problem. They have oversold the risk, and undersold the margin of error. Whether you look at climate models (temperature is trending below them), sea level rise (0 acceleration), ice caps (Antarctica believed to be gaining ice, no ice-free summer in sight for the North pole), natural disasters (no trends in any of them), there is no big topic on which alarmists have been correct.

13ball parrots and copy/pastes, and it is kinda obvious that he is doing it. When you go below the surface, he doesn't know much. You don't even have surface knowledge to understand my posts at all, so it is probably hard for you to tell.

I was kind of gently hinting that there's another thread. Not that the OP own this thread or anything, but I sorta thought of it as The Environment - other than Climate Change, which already had a big thread.

This is hogwash and you know it. Your goal here has been FUD since day 1.

You'll cherry pick one case where "alarmists" have probably gone overboard then use to denounce the whole enterprise. Yeah some of the most extreme predictions didn't come true. Lucky us. It doesn't mean the majority of what has been predicted isn't happening right now.

Again - why spend 50 posts arguing about tree rings if you're already conceding the premise that the earth was warming? Because you'd rather nibble around the edges and spiral the argument into minutae. Is sure as hell didn't sound like you were conceding in 2013. What's your position going to morph into in 2017?

Also callypigan or w/e is the guy who really handed you and ikes your hats. I just remembered his name. Unfortunately he doesn't post here any more.

Oh yeah - blame domer. His goal in life is to gunk up climate change threads.

lol, domer apparently put me on ignore since I keep blowing up his bull****. But the rest of you guys can have some lulz:

A few months back, domer claimed that the global warming conspiracy was going to shut down a guy's career:

To which I asked:

It's been a good few months now, and the authors of that paper are still publishing articles in mainstream journals. Somehow, the global conspiracy to silence skeptics that has manipulated the entire scientific community can't even manage to shut down a grad student.

Pretty much the standard domer MO: concoct wild conspiracies out of whole cloth. Does the pentagon think climate change is going to be a problem? Well obviously, they're just making stuff up for money! It's barely a half step above Jiggs Casey's 9/11 truthering.

Dude domer is just here to point out that in some cases global warming proponents have overstated the problem. He's a warrior for truth. That is his only motivation. Accuracy in scientific models is his life's passion.

He'll cherrypick a study, misrepresent it completely, and claim that this bombshell new study totally blows the doors off the alarmists' theories. When you point out that virtually the entire climate science community thinks climate change is a serious problem, he starts spinning wild conspiracies.

Ok we should continue this in the Climate Change thread. This thread is for general sciencey environment stuff, not blaring political screaming.

Sea level rise is accelerating:



These are SLR linear trends with starting points moving from 1880 to 1990. (All trends end in 2013.) And sea level rise has been at the very high end of model predictions for years, so it's not true that they "oversold the risk.":



Antarctica might be gaining ice on net. There are conflicting opinions over the methods. I haven't seen what the modelling showed for Antarctica.

"no ice-free summer in sight for the North pole"

This is another example where the models have underestimated the effects of warming:




lol. You just said that "alarmists" had oversold the risk, but in two metrics that you mentioned, observations have been much more "alarming" than predictions.

Accuses 13ball of parroting out talking points. Parrots out the "Antarctica is gaining ice!" talking point that's been thoroughly debunked 7 ways to Sunday. gjge.

Bump for Bernie Sanders.

https://berniesanders.com/people-before-polluters/

Bernie has basically adopted The Solutions Project.

Obviously was already voting for Bernie but that's some serious awesomeness. Thx for the link.

Look what capitalism has done to lower the price of solar cells and equipment. It was not Bernie, it was science. Yes, a carbon tax would be good, to make polluters pay for the pollution they cause. Whether Obama or George Bush was president, solar was growing. it is only the liberal cities like Los Angles that limited the amount of solar I could put on my roof. I have perfect space for 10 more panels but the city would not let me install them. It is people like Bernie protecting unions that will prevent people from saving from solar. Bernie also supports immigration which will lead to far more pollution and carbon emissions. Obama can be considered the global warming president as oil use is up probably 1 million barrels a day since he took office. Trump will restrict immigration, lowering oil use. Sanders generally supports more immigration and more global warming.

Oil use will go up if Sanders is president. Let me install all the solar panels I want at expense of union jobs and wages.

Worthless Bernies have already destroyed companies like Evergreen Solar. With a slightly lower minimum wage the factory would still be operating in the USA.

Ice thickness in the Arctic is also at a 5 year high.

he fourth lowest Arctic minimum occurred on September 11, 2015 and was likely a consequence of very warm conditions in July and an increasingly young and thin ice cover. The thinner ice is consistent with a tendency in recent years for large polynyas that appear in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in late summer. Although measurements by the CryoSat-2 satellite indicated that Arctic sea ice was thicker in 2015 compared to pre-2012 thicknesses, the ice behaved as though it was still quite thin.

I'm not very optimistic about humans actually reversing climate change. In fact, I would go as far as to say it's inevitable we continue on the path we are until we use up all of our resources and we completely ruin our planet.

Sigh, there is no evidence climate change needs to be reversed. Since climate related deaths are at an all time low and life expectancy is at all time highs.

It's really sad you have this viewpoint. Look around you and great things you can do, it's because of energy from the resources we have. There is enough fossil fuel and nuclear power for thousands of years and with human ingenuity most likely thousands more.

This is terrible reasoning considering that we know that increases in life expectancy have nothing to do with changes in climate.

Climate change poses no threat to humans even if u believe the cooked models will happen.

Legit. Left wing economics is based on a few assumptions, and one of them is, economies are only sustainable if people just consume a lot of crap.

It's funny (by which I mean tragic) that the Sanders plan calls for concrete measures to shut down existing nuclear plants that produce zero-carbon power, but only has vague hand-wavey measures for doing away with coal. I did a site search of the Solutions Project and the only mentions of "storage" were in third-party articles (and were very speculative).

In related news, The World Remade is a very compelling read about the various geoengineering strategies that we will be forced to resort to in 20 years when the power grid is still dependent on carbon. Get in on the ground floor by reading about it now.

I'll have to look for something I read about the geoengineering community. It is the coal industry and friends.

I'll look more later, but here's a description of some of the work of The Solutions Project authors on storage.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/n...ge-112315.html

Sure.

This article makes the guy sound kind of like a crank:

Given that every CO2 molecule emitted is pushing us towards a climate disaster, why would you rely on inventing a "new paradigm" to eliminate emissions rather than using existing zero-carbon technology that is known to work?

What part of the plan proposed isn't known to work? It's all existing technology.