A cure is found for CCDD

"This video contains content from Funny or Die, Inc., who has blocked it from display on this website."

What can those Republican congressbeings use to clean the shit out of their brains?

Seriously... How do you deprogram the maliciously stupid?

Who denies that the climate changes?

RickA, your weaselly lawyer-ess-ness is showing again. A regrettable social embarrassment...

Fuck em. Not funny.

I'll delete the post later.

RickA

This of course is the talking point beloved of Republican politicians. Trivially true, it is also beside the point and incredibly deceptive. It is not the fact that the climate is changing that is the issue, it is the RATE of change that is dangerous. A bit like coming to a stop in your car by applying the brakes. If you hit a brick wall, you get the same result, but at the cost of your life.

Rick A (for ass)The climate comment pisses me off. Every time I turn around, I see evidence of climate change. Kilimanjaro has no snow. Birds are starving when larvae are not "ready" to be eaten. Seasons are changing. Record high temps in India. Enough!

Why is this happening? COULD IT BE that 97% of all scientists are right? Why not do what we can to mitigate the problem...just because it will clean the air and water? Nah, let's just wait until we all die.

Chuck #6 and BobFrom LI #7:

I am just trying to help with the messaging.

If everybody knows that the climate has always changed, than don't identify the problem as climate change.

It is human caused climate change you are pissed off about - than label it as such. If it is the rate of climate change you are pissed off about - than label it as such.

But the current label sucks.

Just saying.

And Chuck - the rate of climate change has been faster before (and not caused by humans) - so even that concern seems overblown to me. Just look at the rate of sea level rise from 20,000 to about 8,000 years ago. Much faster than present. That is all from nature. The world still seems to be here.

And BobFromLI - yes the climate is changing. News flash - it is always changing. So the fact that 97% of the climate scientists agree that the climate is changing is not very relevant.

Besides that whole 97% thing is a bunch of bull and a giant appeal to authority anyway.

What really matters is what is your plan to deal with human caused climate change. First the plan. Second, what are the costs of the plan and what are the benefits of the plan. Then we decide if it is a good idea or not.

Right now - people are pissed the climate is changing, but have no solution to stop it from changing (which is impossible anyway). Lets hear some solutions.

"I am just trying to help with the messaging."

Chuck, Bob, RickA is not trying to help with anything. He has a long history of warping words and denying that there is any problem looming. His is the work of the stereotypical denier. Look upon him with scorn and move on.

Chuck, Bob, RickA is not trying to help with anything except his own self-interest. And he does not care who gets hurt as a consequence.

Yes - by all means, ignore me, label me. That is your right.

Meanwhile - I have always wondered why I am called a denier.

What am I denying?

I admit the Earth has warmed.

I admit humans have caused some portion of it.

I admit that the climate changes.

I admit that humans have caused some portion of the climate change we have seen over the last 150 years.

I am just not sure how much of the warming we have seen since 1880 is caused by humans and how much by nature.

I disagree that over 100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans (hello - the recent el nino which is moving heat from the oceans into the atmosphere isn't really happening!).

I see the temperature changing about 1.2C to 1.6C from 1880 levels to when we hit 560 ppm CO2, based on actual temperature observations and science (like Nic Lewis).

I see sea level rising in the future, but at about 1 foot per century, not 1 meter per century (or 5 meters, which I have also seen bandied about).

To dean I am a denier because I don't agree with him.

I don't agree that what his pet scientists say is going to happen will necessarily actually happen.

I am a denier to dean because I have the temerity to disagree with dean.

I am a denier to dean because I opine that making everything (food, fuel and energy) more expensive is actually not a good idea.

I am a denier to dean because I point out that spending trillions to mitigate, without a good plan, which has been subjected to a thourough cost/benefit analysi isn't a good idea.

I am a denier to dean because I want to ignore all of the guesses about what the future holds and provide 75% of our future electricity with nuclear power.

Go ahead - scorn me and move on.

That should convince 51% of the voters in the USA to . . .

Wait a minute - what exactly is it that dean wants to have happen?

What is dean's plan.

Not sure I know.

I guess dean's plan is to bash people who disagree with him.

Good plan.

No RickA, people who disagree honestly can be argued with. You don't do that. Your view that your opinion equals, or outranks, the consensus of scientists, is patently foolish to anyone who understands the issue. You don't receive any respect because of your fundamental dismissal of the predictions and their ramifications, purely without contradicting evidence, simply because of your ego and self-centered view (this won't harm me so I don't give a crap).
That's why you get no respect - you don't deserve it.

I have always wondered why I am called a denier. Because you actively & passive-aggressively deny Science, in very self-serving ways.

What am I denying? Science, and the fact that you deny it.

I admit the Earth has warmed. Legalistic weasel-wording.

I admit humans have caused some portion of it. Still weasel-wording.

I admit that the climate changes. Legalistic weasel-wording.

I admit that humans have caused some portion of the climate change we have seen over the last 150 years. Still weasel-wording.

I am just not sure how much of the warming we have seen since 1880 is caused by humans and how much by nature. Scientists tell you how much, and provide you with assurance. You immediately, uncritically deny.

I disagree that over 100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans (hello – the recent el nino which is moving heat from the oceans into the atmosphere isn’t really happening!). Example of explicit, self-admission of denial.

I see the temperature changing about 1.2C to 1.6C from 1880 levels to when we hit 560 ppm CO2, based on actual temperature observations and science (like Nic Lewis). Opinion, not based on facts or science. Self-serving, and denial.

I see sea level rising in the future, but at about 1 foot per century, not 1 meter per century (or 5 meters, which I have also seen bandied about). Opinion, not based on facts or science. Self-serving, and denial.

To dean I am a denier because I don’t agree with him. Incorrect; you are denier because you invalidate what Science tells us.

I don’t agree that what his pet scientists say is going to happen will necessarily actually happen. Opinion, not based on facts or science. Self-serving, and denial.

I am a denier to dean because I have the temerity to disagree with dean. Incorrect; you are denier because you invalidate what Science tells us.

I am a denier to dean because I opine that making everything (food, fuel and energy) more expensive is actually not a good idea. You are a denier because you opine that possibly making things more expensive for you is actually not a good idea to you even as you deny the fact that your preferred course of action will make things more expensive for you (and the rest of us) later.

I am a denier to dean because I point out that spending trillions to mitigate, without a good plan, which has been subjected to a thourough cost/benefit analysi isn’t a good idea. No demonstration of lack of a plan, no demonstration that a cost/benefit analysis hasn't been performed, no support of your thesis that inaction is a preferred course of action: why and how, along with its cost/benefit analysis.

I am a denier to dean because I want to ignore all of the guesses about what the future holds and provide 75% of our future electricity with nuclear power. Incorrect; your "guesses" are your opinions, are unfounded, and are self-serving excuses for denying the science because you don't favor what Science tells us.

Go ahead – scorn me and move on.

That should convince 51% of the voters in the USA to . . .

Wait a minute – what exactly is it that dean wants to have happen?

What is dean’s plan.

Not sure I know.

I guess dean’s plan is to bash people who disagree with him. Incorrect; Dean is calling you out because you invalidate what Science tells us, not because you disagree with him. This is not about Dean or what Dean thinks.

dean #12:

Everyone's personal opinion on anything outranks everybody else or any group.

That is why it is called a personal opinion.

I don't care if I have your respect.

I don't care that you think I am self-centered.

I don't care what you think I deserve or not.

Please feel free to ignore me in the future - that would be fine with me.

Even if all 8 billion humans on the planet agree on what will happen in the future - the future may still unfold differently anyway.

All I want to know if what is your plan? Or brainstorms or desertphiles or bbd's etc.

What are they and then we can discuss if they are good plans or not.

All I want to know if what is your plan?

Here's one: Align public opinion with what Science informs us regarding AGW and produce the necessary political will to form public policies that will mitigate climate change and the high costs that failure to address AGW will impose on society.

RickA

I disagree that over 100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans (hello – the recent el nino which is moving heat from the oceans into the atmosphere isn’t really happening!).

ENSO is an *oscillation* (clue in name). It self-cancels over time. It cannot create a long-term trend. It does not create energy - it just plays with whatever is already to hand.

The long-term warming trend since 1950 is >100% anthropogenic. Greater than 100% because anthropogenic aerosols *offset* a considerable amount of anthropogenic warming.

I see the temperature changing about 1.2C to 1.6C from 1880 levels to when we hit 560 ppm CO2, based on actual temperature observations and science (like Nic Lewis).

You are confusing TCR with ECS (see also other thread). What happens *when* we hit 560ppm CO2 is the transient response (TCR). This is generally thought to be about 60% of the full equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. So a TCR of 1.6% gives an ECS of about 2.7C per doubling - just a fraction below the canonical 3C best estimate. Many climatologists think that the warming will become increasingly nonlinear over time, so the very slightly (policy-irrelevant) lower value we get from this simple calculation is probably going to be on the low side.

"So a TCR of 1.6%" ---> 'so a TCR of 1.6C'

BBD #16:

So you convert your statement to a tautology.

It is not 100% of the warming is caused by humans, but merely 100% of the human caused warming is caused by humans.

By all means - pull out the warming from this leg of the el nino. But don't leave it in and blame it on humans.

Or alternatively, prove that the non-human effects have actually cancelled out from 1950 to date. Of course, you will not be able to detangle nature from human effects from this direction, any better than it can be done from the other direction.

Otherwise, this is a mere hypothesis and rather ignores all the other natural oscillations, such as ice ages and such, which occur over different time frames than the 60 year ENSO.

Bottom line - there is no way to know how much of the warming from 1950 to the present is human versus nature with the data we have at present. The error bars are simply too large and the human signal too small.

So you convert your statement to a tautology.

It is not 100% of the warming is caused by humans, but merely 100% of the human caused warming is caused by humans.

More than 100% of the warming trend since 1950 is anthropogenic. See AR5 WG1 ch. 8 fig. 8 below.

Bottom line – there is no way to know how much of the warming from 1950 to the present is human versus nature with the data we have at present. The error bars are simply too large and the human signal too small.

That's incorrect. See eg. AR5 ch 8. Here is a picture worth a thousand words.

By all means – pull out the warming from this leg of the el nino. But don’t leave it in and blame it on humans.

Who did that? Not me, to be sure. And all climate scientists are saying about the current EN is that it is temporarily amplifying the effects of AGW. That's because there is more energy for it to play with.

Otherwise, this is a mere hypothesis and rather ignores all the other natural oscillations, such as ice ages and such, which occur over different time frames than the 60 year ENSO.

Glacial / interglacial cycles are a climate system response to changes in orbital dynamics - and right now those same orbital dynamics are such that we should be *cooling*, not warming abruptly.

Natural variability doesn't create energy. It moves it around within the climate system. It cannot drive a century-long warming trend. That requires a sustained radiative imbalance such as an increase in atmospheric GHGs.

As I have said over and over again, your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of the science. Bluntly, you are wrong. But despite repeatedly showing you where and how, you don't stop repeating your false claims.

Either you are unable to understand the science, in which case you should not be commenting about it except to seek guidance, or you are knowingly disregarding the science in favour of pushing a political agenda.

"you are knowingly ... in favour of pushing a destructive and expensive political agenda."

RickA

It is obvious that you don't understand climate science very well. Most people don't. It's complicated. So the rational thing to do is to defer to expert opinion - what the scientists say.

Since it is obvious that you don't understand climate science very well, you have no basis on which to claim that what the scientists say is wrong.

But you do, endlessly. And you are endlessly corrected but you ignore the corrections and plough on. Either you are a fool or you are essentially dishonest.

If you prefer that I regard you as honest, then I must conclude that you are a fool.

Look - I think you can see that arguing about the science or what a bunch of experts think is a waste of time.

Who really cares.

My question is this - do you think we should produce more of our electricity with nukes or not?

Because that is what I think we should do.

I would rather use nukes than solar, wind or fossil fuels.

Hydro is good - but kind of maxed out in the USA.

So given we are going to keep using electricity and given that we will be using more electricity in the future than we use now, I advocate producing as much electricity as possible with nukes.

No matter what happens in the future with temperatures or sea level, I think producing as much electricity as possible with nukes is the way to go.

Do you agree or disagree.

My question is this – do you think we should produce more of our electricity with nukes or not?

If you want to argue about energy policy, then argue about energy policy. Kick the science denial to the curb.

I've already said that we need *all* low carbon technology on the table. That means nuclear and renewables. Not one or the other. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself as everybody else (who read what I said) gets bored.

And please stop repeating yourself, too, RickA, as that also gets boring.