The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum


Subject:  Re: I dont believe man causes Global Warming Date:  2/23/2013  9:15 PM
Author:  WuLong Number:  1861939 of 2206898

Is this satire?
Sigh. I keep forgetting how other people get emotionally tied to their arguments and have difficulty in performing rational analysis.

Ok, let's take it in teeny baby steps.

From the suggested link and it's discussion of fig 2:
Nonsense: Monckton doesn't describe where he got this IPCC (1990) projection. The 1990 (first) IPCC report did present a "best estimate" of a roughly 3 K rise from 1990 to 2100, but this was hardly expected to be the straight line (with no error bars!) that Monckton plots here.
This criticism essentially says that Monckton has been imprecise and is a valid criticism so far as it goes.
The line in question shows an increase of roughly .8C between 1990 and 2012. In actuality the increase is about 0.25C. The criticism, therefore would only be valid if the IPCC suggested error of ~.55C.
That's about twice the actual suggested error.

Bottom line - it's a distinction without a difference.

Having said all of that, this is perhaps a better graphic.

So, with regard to this particular data point, the ball is now in your court. You must explain why an error of .55C does not mean that clearly, the Nobel-winning IPCC overstated its case.
Good luck with that.

On to Kyoto.

Who is claiming that Kyoto is the end solution?
What does that have to do with it being based on a fallacy?

As I said in 2007, The Kyoto protocol is deeply flawed in that China was not impacted in any fashion. China of course is the largest and fastest growing producer of greenhouse gases (they are bringing coal-fired powerplants online at a rate in excess of one per week, iirc). It is hardly a stretch to imagine that bad industrialist ideologues would simply relocate to China rather than bear the economic pain of reducing emissions. The end result is that the same amount of greenhouse gases are produced as would have otherwise been the case, but with added cost of economic dislocation.
People really need to consider 2nd-order effects.

Now, again, I suggest that if you don't like what I have to say that you actually provide some evidence rather than sophistry.
Stop your childish insults and actually prove me wrong if you can. I dare you.

The truth, of course, is that you can't.
You hide behind your silly word games and ad hominem attacks because you have no other option.

Project much?
Not at all. Ever.
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us