I really wish I had more time to contribute to these forums, because each time I get on, I see sweeping statements, generalisations and bad science being held up as fact. I just need to find the time to respond to this...
A few things have been proposed here:
1. If we stopped all human related CO2 output, temps would keep rising.
I dunno about you, but this looks like cold temps are getting more frequent...not so sure about the warm ones?
2. "Shifting rainfall patterns, higher rates of desiccation, environmental stability":What do these sweeping generalisations actually mean? Global increase in rain? or in different places? or are the patterns more inconsistent?
Higher rates of desiccation? Are you saying in some areas there is no rain (because it is somewhere else), therefore increased rates of desiccation in those areas? Does that mean less in areas with more rain?
Environmental stability? If you mean in terms of less catastrophic events, then I agree, but isn't that a good thing?
And what are the consequences of these generalisations? At the end of the day, we deal with consequences, not activity.
3. "regions *may* have some higher yields, there are also many more regions with lower yields"Usually the narrative is "yes they are increasing, but it could have been so much more!"...crikey. I could have won the $1B lotto...but I didn't.
More unsupported sweeping statements of catastrophe. Here's the data, globally.
4. Rate of change of climateThose that support Darwinism believe that homo sapiens are the first species to not go extinct as a result of their environment. That is because we are able to control our exposure. Homes, air-conditioning and the like, all mean that we can *adapt*. The total count of natural disasters is down. Temperature continues to fluctuate. Deaths related to the environment in any capacity are down.
_______
When I last had time to write, I asked for 2 things. To date, I have seen neither, and yet they are the only things that are important. All the rest is just noise.
1. Show an example of direct cause and effect for a catastrophic event. Saying cows make the temp rise doesn't count. What AGW event caused something so extraordinary that there is no doubt what the root case was, and we can repeat it whenever we choose.- This shows quantifiable root-cause. It is the basis of good science.
- If it isn't catastrophic, who cares.
2. Assume we did *nothing* and actually increased our CO2 output, given the fact that even alarmists keep using computers/phones/cars etc.(in other words, they don't really believe it IMHO)what is the WORST thing that WILL happen and why?- Not even the IPCC predicts anything more than 4 degrees, with no certainty of impact, so I'm very interested in your thoughts here.
Alarmists expect us to turn the world upside down. We spend more, and we get less. We clear vast swathes of land, destroying any flora and fauna, and even have plans in place to euthanise them if needed, and they do this in protection of the environment. The blatant hypocrisy is nauseating.
M
(20min delay)