8 thoughts on “Climate Lukewarmism”

  1. What evidence would push you toward rejecting human impacts on the climate as being less than a rounding error?

    Umm, shouldn’t the question of whether or not these “impacts” are a net positive or net negative be in there somewhere? No? Okay then, sitting down and shutting up…

    Checking in again with Mr. Bad Astronomy, where it looks like Blastr has been re-branded to SyfyWire (so confusing sometimes), we see he is currently jubilant over an “acknowledgement” published by the DailyMail about a graph they included in an article about the pause. It’s unclear if the problem was the axes were upside down.

    He also has regretfully not updated his earth-on-fire graphic; it’s still the same flame-on-top melting-on-the-bottom pic he was using a year ago. Disappointing.

    Climate change, fueled by global warming, is a huge threat, and one we need to be talking about. Now. It should be the number one topic on news shows and in the political arena; instead we get denial by politicians and essentially no (or no good) coverage by media.

    I’m tempted to let Phil know that he really needs to get out more, but he’d probably respond by just re-adjusting the straps on his VR helmet.

    1. Another question is whether or not any proposed effort to control climate would actually work. I have little faith that any of the schemes would do anything to the climate and failure just means more schemes never an admission of being wrong.

      The confluence of politics/science/religion just makes my BS detector go off.

  2. “What evidence would push you toward rejecting human impacts on the climate as being less than a rounding error?” That doesn’t seem like the right question either. Assuming it’s an all-or-nothing question, the question would be
    “What evidence would push you toward believing that human impacts on the climate are being small enough that mitigation isn’t a good idea?” and
    “What evidence would push you toward believing that human impacts on the climate are big enough that mitigation is required?”
    Obviously, people who already hold one of these two positions only need to answer the other question.

  3. “What evidence would push you toward believing that human impacts on the climate are big enough that mitigation is required?”

    When those who say it is, act like it is.

  4. For me, this is troublesome:

    “Every lukewarmer, including especially those in positions of political authority, should be pressed to identify trends that would push them toward greater alarmism and a sharper focus on the issue.”

    In other words, they must recognize some level of evidence that will cause them to change their views. If they don’t, they have proven themselves not to be lukewarm moderates but dogmatic deniers.

    This is a bogus concern. And there’s a big problem with it, namely, that the catastrophic climate change side will fake evidence to the level specified and then use it as propaganda whether or not the lukewarmist changes their mind.

    I have this response to such demands: I will not tell you because I want you to provide a preponderance of evidence well in excess of what it would take to convince me just like other successful scientific theories have to, not just barely enough to technically win this argument. My threshold of belief is irrelevant while there is immense value to demonstrating a solid theory.

    1. Ya, it comes off as, “How can we scare people to be more fanatic?”

      This won’t convince people who are evaluating the situation rationally or even irrationally. Trying to scare people is poor persuasion, especially when every prediction used to scare people fails to come true.

  5. So what do we make of these climate change moderates, who do not hold the invalid, unevidenced opinions of those who deny the scientific consensus

    That’s cute. Everyone who disagrees with them has an invalid opinion. I don’t think the alarmists actually know what anyone besides themselves think on the issue. This is because their dogma is to attack other people rather than actually understand their POV.

    Rather than asking how they can change others, they should examine their own close minded dogma that requires the reflexive claim of perfection and total knowledge to rebut the mildest of criticisms. The entire alarmist movement is based on the unprovable and take an enormous leap of faith. This is why they have to rely on the apocalyptic fear mongering and demonization.

  6. I’ll just leave this observation here:
    Water vapor is a far more potent “greenhouse” gas than CO2. Plants transpire less water vapor when they have more CO2 around. So more CO2 could mean less of a far more potent “greenhouse” gas.

    How many climatist heads did I just make explode?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *