Supports whose review?
The OP article didn’t seem to properly support their critique of Gore’s predictions. They may have been directionally right, but the comments were more ad hominem and didn’t cite their supporting data.
A Republican campaign strategist once admitted that “climate change” was their brainchild. It’s a white-washing euphemism. I still say global warming.
I don’t think you can give the GOP strategist credit for this.
I’ve personally become skeptical about the climate change agenda. I have no problem with legitimately protecting the environment. But we’re constantly being told we need to “drive less, eat less meat, consume less, switch to ‘renewable’ energy, buy electric cars blah, blah, blah” or the worst will happen. I’ve yet to see any of these prediction come true. When I was growing up the consensus was that many low-lying cities would be underwater by 2015. It hasn’t happened.
I think it’ll take a while but ultimately I think people will see through this agenda for the nonsense that it is.
The article in Science News shows the OP article was NOT “directionally right.” For the most part, it shows Gore was right. In at least one case, the change was happening faster, and one or two were wrong.
And I have yet to see any of the global warming alarmists actually takes steps to prevent it. They do nothing to reduce their own carbon footprint but keep telling the rest of the world what to do. How about leading by example? Any takers?
Hardly. The biggest hoax ever perpetuated on mankind was the switch from incandescent light bulbs to CFLs.
I’ve been around CAF for a relatively long time. Over that time, we’ve had posters who:
- praised Russia’s criminal prosecution of gay people
- supported street violence against gay people in Russia
- spread the myth that slavery wasn’t the primary cause of the U.S. Civil War
- praised Putin as the savior of Christendom/Europe for his relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church
- occasionally make thinly veiled accusations against Pope Francis for being some sort of nefarious agent.
and I’m sure I’m missing a few. It does make one think sometimes. . . .
If you are ok with helping the environment, then why does it bother you doing this things?
My fellow brothers in Christ, it doesn’t matter if predictions don’t come true, the fact is that carbon dioxide, methane and other mass-produced gases are opaque to thermal radiation (we have systematically and scientificly observed this) so, in my opinion, we should support any moral sustainable development project to improve society.
Why do you keep your eyes closed?
That’s the key - moral and sustainable.
Kind of like I can support providing income for the poor, but my plan can’t involve confiscation of all the income from another class of people.
There’s not a lot of middle ground generally offered by the climate change alarmists - plans seem to be all or nothing, for the most part.
The degree of impact matters. If the actual warming is only 1C (what CO2 directly contributes), then we will have wasted trillions of dollars that could have gone to the public good.
How can any person with sincerity ignore whether the predictions are accurate/useful or not.
I have read a scientist saying that the increase will be at least 2ºC by the end of the century (I don’t have the source, I’ve read it months ago) , and I was under the impression thata even small changes in global temperature could cause ecological disasters.
Also, even if we stop producing greenhouse effect gases now, the temperature will continue to increase, so it is important to also find technologies to recapture greenhouse effect gases.
Could you give an example of an “all or nothing” plan?
I can think of partial plans, like decreasing emissions from cars or coal mining. And some, like trading credits, to offset carbon emission by linking them to unrelated green technologies. But I really cannot think of an all or nothing proposal.
The IPCC predicts between 1.5 to 4.5C warming. As I mentioned above, 1C will come from CO2 while the remaining 0.5 to 3.5C will come mostly from water as a GHG. Your scientist will agree with this.
The scientists do not say that 1C in warming will be catastrophic.
Yes, the warming impact will continue even if we stopped all CO2 production. It’s practically not reversible with our current technology. Our focus should be on improving efficiency and mitigation of slowly rising waters.
The third world should not be denied access to affordable energy, which greatly extends and improves their lives.
I always thought that Al Gore pushed this in support of the over population lie, just another way to show abortion is a good thing.
A poster pointed out the irrelevance of this:
The increase from water is to some degree (mostly?) an effect of the increase from CO2. The CO2 increase evaporates the water faster which not only means water adds more to warming, it also contributes to faster storm cycles (more water evaporates more quickly means water condenses more quickly into rain, which leaves less time for water to recede, more water evaporates even more quickly…)
If your stats are correct, they should not be presented as independent variables.
I don’t know much more about climate change to debate (hopefully I will because I am studying environmental engineering), but I like that this thread passed from an ad-hominem debate to an actual scientific debate
Radiated forcing from CO2 is just 1 C warming.
The rest of the warming is from mostly H20 feedbacks as you indicated, and the science here is very shaky.
It’s appropriate to separate out the settled science (1C) from what is not settled (addition 0.5-3.5C). In fact I go so far as saying it’s dishonest to represent the feedbacks as settled science.