I asked you what the ideal global temperature was and you don't know or wouldn't say. If you don't know you can't say warmer is better or worse.
I suspect that arable land wise gains in Russia will more than offset the losses in the rest of the world.
As for the impact of global warming, I'm not denying it ... I'm just skeptical about the science "proving" the A part, my faith in the science disappeared with the MWP/LIA.
"positive feedback"
Why do people buy fire insurance for their home when a house fire is a statistically rare event yet refuse to acknowledge the need for action on AGW when the science says it is a >90 % certainty?
"The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally by thousands of scientists"
Human population centers, infrastructure, industrial base, and agriculture have all been optimized based on the climate and land base that existed over the past 100 years.
you can't just stop AGW at say 2-3 degrees C above where it is now. It becomes self-reinforcing due to several positive feedback centers and will likely continue well beyond that to where global ecosystem collapse and large areas become physically uninhabitable to humans.
Quote"The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally by thousands of scientists"
Isn't that an argument from authority? Those scientists are payed by... who?
"The establisment says the earth is flat" doesn't that ring any bells? To many it does!
Are all the skeptics simply fools in your opinion?
That with a Nobel Prize, for example?
Why is greenland called greenland?
AGW is at the very least a good doom scenario to get the general public to reduce energy consumption and invest in sustainable energy sources.
The biggest challenge will be to reduce the costs of high cycle energy storage by an order of magnitude over the current state of the art.
All in all I think Nuclear will have a hard time competing in a couple of decades, assuming technological civilization doesn't collapse. Which I don't consider entirely unlikely either.
I still know people who use incandescent bulbs because they're "cheaper", they are utterly unable or unwilling to understand the concept of electricity being the vast majority of the cost of the lamps, making CFL and now LED bulbs much cheaper in the long run.
Closing the borders and letting Malthus solve the problem in the countries having it.
I suspect that arable land wise gains in Russia will more than offset the losses in the rest of the world.
Quote"The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally by thousands of scientists"
Isn't that an argument from authority? Those scientists are payed by... who?Modest salaries with mostly public funding. Versus the professional AGW deniers funded by large fossil fuel industry funding.
That's a lame excuse. The tenets of AGW is the result of several decades of work done internationally but thousands of scientists.
Reducing energy consumption is effectively an argument to lower the standard of living.
Arable land is what is important. And if the arable land for your existing crops shifts location, then you better be prepared to move or replace those crops.
Closing the borders is not necessary for that. Our old companions war, famine, plague, and pestilence do not care about borders.
Reducing energy consumption is effectively an argument to lower the standard of living.
No it isn't. It is about demanding better products. In the EU they set a max on the power of vacuum cleaners. Guess what: the ones for sale nowadays work just as well but are more efficient.
There is no tenet, only opposing camps.
There is no tenet, only opposing camps.One opposing camp consisting of >97% of climate scientists and another consisting of a few fringe scientists many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.
Even during the years of tobacco company corruption of some scientists the numbers were never that skewed.
Given the politics of modern academia and the scientific community, it’s not unlikely that most scientists involved in climate-related studies believe in anthropogenic global warming, and likely believe, too, that it presents a problem. However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled.
I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.
I don't mind people having any opinion on any subject, that is what free speech is all about. But when
one must try and claim their opinions as indisputable fact, then my spidey senses start to tingle.
Here is something I read recently that sounds more realistic and closer to factual:
I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.
So there's that, then there's "spidey sense".
No it isn't. It is about demanding better products. In the EU they set a max on the power of vacuum cleaners. Guess what: the ones for sale nowadays work just as well but are more efficient.
I read that >97% figure before and that this is 'settled science'.
That figure comes from more than one peer reviewed study. Links to the studies posted earlier in this thread.
So there's that, then there's "spidey sense".
One opposing camp consisting of >97% of climate scientists and all the major scientific organizations versus another consisting of a few fringe scientists many of whom receive funding from the fossil fuel industry - oh and zero reputable scientific organizations.
The 97% figure is utter bullshit,
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.