Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

And I even pointed out that the term that can be used in different meanings, however since the discussion was about whether or not the cause of warming was relevant, that that referred to that discussion.But the fact is that that discussion is still irrelevant and simply another attempt to palm the pea, move the goal post, find a way to not address THAT issue.

So we agree that it's >75% human caused. Allow me to come from a different angle: what can we do ...What action can we take that gives the most "bang for the buck" in reducing climate change? reduce atmospheric CO₂ emissions (fossil fuel use)?
reduce volcanic action?
reduce solar radiation?
change the earth's orbit?
enhance natural CO₂ take-up systems (trees, algae, etc)?
other _______?What action can we take as individuals to assist reducing climate change? reduce motor-vehicle use?
reduce plastic use?
utilize solar panels?
utilize wind power?
campaign for political change?
educate others?Does the relative size of human caused climate change affect these answers?Enjoy

I think we'd be better off if we had never figured out that the globe was warming. We could be reducing our use of fossil fuels because they pollute the air we breathe.

"I think we'd be better off if we had never figured out the the globe was warming".Maybe you are right. I personally think that the politics behind clean air is at an even higher level of denial than is that of global warming. People are willing to argue that not having a job is just as harmful to your health as smog. Of course that turns out to be true only because of our equally dicked up health care system which denies care to folks without lots of money.

I never said that it is the only thing that needs to be considered. I said that it is the OBVIOUS part. It is OBVIOUS that no matter what contribution humans are making to warming, we are still making a contribution because we are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The previous 400,000 years has seen several ice ages and interglacials that bounce between 200 and 300 ppm CO2. The graph suddenly jumps to 400 ppm, an increase of 30%, and it does so during the time when we are burning gigatons of CO2. I think it is rather obvious that humans are increasing CO2 well above natural levels.The argument that this is a natural level of CO2 just doesn't stack up. On top of that, the half life of water in the atmosphere is about 2 weeks. People know this as rain, which they should be familiar with. They can watch weather radar where water evaporates off the oceans, sweeps inland, and then dumps rain. All this happens in a matter of weeks. You don't need models or anything complicated to show that humans are causing more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere. Again, we are talking about the OBVIOUS parts, not the complicated parts.

Unless you want to argue that it is irrelevant whether we have 2 degrees or 0.2 degrees increase (due to human contribution of course) in temps over the next 50 years, then modeling does matter. It is not possible to make reasonable policy decisions on human activity without such information. Edited by NoNukes, : clarify meaning.

I think you need to go back one step. Your standard AGW denier out in the public may not even understand what the greenhouse effect is, how it works, or what makes CO2 a greenhouse gas. They may very well deny that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere traps heat. Once you convince them that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the rest of the conversation may go a lot easier.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This isn't the right topic for this, but this is the closest I could find. Today an editorial appeared in the Washington Post arguing that we shouldn't be trying to save endangered species, or any species: We don’t need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of evolution.--Percy

"Your standard AGW denier"I am not having a discussion with AGW deniers or about them. I am discussing the science that would be needed to convince normally, and appropriately skeptical people. Knowing that CO2 is a green house gas is just one fact among many. Not sure why it is painful to acknowledge that some "rocket science" is involved.

I think that it is the other way round. All the latest natural sciences involve speciality. "Rocket science". Not many people can understand the specialisation.As a sedimentologist who specialised in coal, I don't have the foggiest idea of what burning of coal can do to the athmosphere or the health of people, apart from knowing that the smoke coming off burning coal can't be good for the people living around that burning coal fire. People actually die when they inhale the fumes coming off coal fires.Coughing, can't take deep breaths, getting cancer, etc. Burning coal can't be good for the lungs.Burning coal for energy is on the way out. And good riddence.

I can see that you didn't live in Soweto in the seventies and you don't live in eMalahleni today...

If I did live in one of those places, and I did not have access to the science, I would have no idea what the cause of the climate change was.Seriously, this discussion is getting ridiculous. I am convinced that AGW is reality. I am not a denier. But that does not make my conclusion something that is obvious nor does it mean that I formed my conclusion correctly, although I did take a serious stab at understanding the evidence. I believe that most folks on both sides of the issue are all but clueless about the science. This discussion is reinforcing that belief.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It isn't painful at all, and I have acknowledged the presence of rocket science in previous posts. All I am pointing to is that some of the science is easily accessible to the common person.

Lots of things obvious to scientists are not obvious to people on the street.As I have said before, the real issue is not whether the warming is happening globally. The issue is a struggle of control over the solutions. One side wants governments to do something. The other side (Trumps) wants governments to butt out and focus on doing their job.Trust me, Trump is already eyeing the possible investment opportunities to be made through climate change-related business activity.

Both sides wants government to do something, they just differ on what that something is. The whole reason for having a government is "doing something".Also, Republicans are flat out denying that the warming is even happening. It isn't a matter of what we should do about it, but rather an "ostrich with its head in the ground" approach to inconvenient facts.