Rud Istvan comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

“The cracks are beginning to show.”
I’d say gaping fissures in the AGW foundations are visibly growing:

Arctic summer sea ice has not disappeared.
Sea level rise has not accelerated.
Buffered oceans have not ‘acidified’ and the GBR is fine.
UK children still know snow.
CMIP6 ECS diverged, rather than converged, from CMIP5. Worse, not better.
Renewables turned out to be ruinables.
So the climate woke are going broke.
COP27 will be as big a failure as COP26–and all the others before. The reason is simple—no third world climate harm requiring first world reparations as demanded, then foolishly ‘promised’, in Copenhagen.
Avoiding ‘denier’ debate failed strategically. Now debating fails factually.
Biden’s green agenda (cancelled KXL day 1) will result in a US red tsunami come Nov 8.

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

Steve Case comment:

A warmer world is not a problem.
Increasing rain is not a problem.
Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
More arable land is not a problem.
CO2 induced greening of the earth is not a problem.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

From HERE

Steve Case comment:

A warmer world is not a problem.
Increasing rain is not a problem.
Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
More arable land is not a problem.
CO2 induced greening of the earth is not a problem.

His comments are all accurate.  The reality of this is now making it into the mainstream.  That took time, but it is happening.  People are openly asking questions today.  The damn has now fallen.  The cracks gave way to full disclosure and that is why the green agenda is going nuts with draconian measures before they are fully outed.

[Doug1943]

I have to confess that I have never taken a stance on AGW.  I read Watt's Up With That fairly regularly, and am getting Bjorn Lomberg's latest book [False Alarm], and also a book by another scientist who is anti-alarmist -- and I have a couple of others on the 'to read' pile ... but I have worried that to really understand the issue I'll have to spend several weeks reading some pretty heavy-duty stuff, re-learning about Fast Fourier Transform Algorithms and things like that.  But it can't be avoided.

Of course this has to be one of the topics in the 'Reference Library' which I propose that we have.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

I have to confess that I have never taken a stance on AGW.  I read Watt's Up With That fairly regularly, and am getting Bjorn Lomberg's latest book [False Alarm], and also a book by another scientist who is anti-alarmist -- and I have a couple of others on the 'to read' pile ... but I have worried that to really understand the issue I'll have to spend several weeks reading some pretty heavy-duty stuff, re-learning about Fast Fourier Transform Algorithms and things like that.  But it can't be avoided.

Of course this has to be one of the topics in the 'Reference Library' which I propose that we have.

Doug,

I would encourage you to read Dr Evans work. 

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

His essay on the CAGW theory is comprehensive, but in layman's terms. HE hits the major points and why there is really very little we disagree on.  It boils down to the cause/affect relationship, more commonly known as the Climate Sensitivity Number.  Once you have that basic understanding it is much easier to go further into the nuts and bolts of the theory.

[Doug1943]

Thanks!  I've had a quick look at that article at the Von MIses Institute, and it looks compelling. When I get time -- when? when? when? -- I'll re-read it, slowly, plus the books I have, then try to read the other side's best stuff.

For me, one critical fact is this: the human species is very unlikely to strangle itself by destroying its cheap energy sources. So until  (I really should say 'unless') we can make fusion power work, and work economically (unlike fission), we're not going to cut off fossil fuel use. 

Okay, by 'we' I mean the world outside the US and (maybe) Europe. The population of India and China and Brazil ARE going to get cars and refrigerators and air-conditioning and jet travel. 

So I'm in the Lomberg camp: if we really ARE going to have rising sea levels and more hurricanes -- if say 'IF', stipulate, as the lawyers say -- then we need to start looking at methods of ameliorating their effects.

In the long run, of course, fossil fuels are a finite resource.... but it makes a huge difference whether or not the 'long run' is ten or twenty years, or a hundred or two hundred.

Anyway, our 'Reference Library' (which is what I suggest we call it) needs a well-documented thread on this subject.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

Thanks!  I've had a quick look at that article at the Von MIses Institute, and it looks compelling. When I get time -- when? when? when? -- I'll re-read it, slowly, plus the books I have, then try to read the other side's best stuff.

For me, one critical fact is this: the human species is very unlikely to strangle itself by destroying its cheap energy sources. So until  (I really should say 'unless') we can make fusion power work, and work economically (unlike fission), we're not going to cut off fossil fuel use. 

Okay, by 'we' I mean the world outside the US and (maybe) Europe. The population of India and China and Brazil ARE going to get cars and refrigerators and air-conditioning and jet travel. 

So I'm in the Lomberg camp: if we really ARE going to have rising sea levels and more hurricanes -- if say 'IF', stipulate, as the lawyers say -- then we need to start looking at methods of ameliorating their effects.

In the long run, of course, fossil fuels are a finite resource.... but it makes a huge difference whether or not the 'long run' is ten or twenty years, or a hundred or two hundred.

Anyway, our 'Reference Library' (which is what I suggest we call it) needs a well-documented thread on this subject.

Adapting is the key word. Not building in flood prone areas and simple things like that are much less expensive than the lunacy they want to force on us.  New studies, which show the more accurate energy movement, in our atmosphere, lay waste to much of the AGW hypothesis.  Sunsettommy got an interesting link to a paper that shows why we are seeing the diminished result in CO2 reaction, and it is stunning.  It changes the whole earth energy budget massively.  https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=199