Merchants of Doubt

@dag @lucky760 - didn't there used to be a way to create an amazon link that kicked back a little commission to VS? I don't know how to do it but please feel free to edit this comment so the link points in the right direction.

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 9:42pm PST - doublepromote requested by eric3579.

stop trying to confuse me with your facts and logic!
begone sir!

Once you take out any desire to move governments to act in one direction or another all this hupla will go away.

Just grandstanding to get gov $ for slanted research or legislation to TAX you for breathing.

More leftest BS. Man made climate change. Nope not buying it.

I'm so tired of hearing the bullshit that spills from deniers mouths. It's -way- past time to start treating them exactly the same way we treat flat-earthers and moon-landing-hoaxers...with ridicule and pity.

There has been no -scientific- controversy for well over a decade, but these fucking morons (and/or liars) keep providing cover for the hydrocarbon industries. They're doing actual damage, and it's time to marginalize them via any means necessary.

If that were true, why is it completely one sided on the part of those in the business of understanding climate? Certainly there's one respected, credentialed, peer reviewed climatologist out there smart enough to understand that if he only told "the truth" about climate change and sold it to industry, he could make exponentially MORE money and get more funding from private industry. There's not a single one, meaning your assertion that it's 'all about perpetrating fraud to get money' is utterly ridiculous and backwards, and just more insane right wing BS. Debate, confusion, or lack of scientific consensus on man made climate change? Nope, not buying it.

You indicate that this is a one sided issue. I say you are right because liberal left control nearly all forms of media and education have latched onto this propaganda. Just as for gay rights and abortion. The left all push their ill logical ways .

The Weather Channel’s founder, John Coleman strongly disagree with your crazy thought.

skip the first 2 min its just anti Gore rants.



I gather you think that Abortion is not murder even when there is 100 % proof that the "tissue" is human is shape and form.

You and your ilk are deniers through you own ignorance.

I'd like to understand your position better. Please quote peer reviewed scientific studies. Thanks.

This is a one sided issue because facts are one sided. It's not a political issue except for politicos.
It's always funny to me that the right, who claims they are for freedom and less government in people's lives are also the people who want to make their moral stances law. These are issues of freedom, and the right is against the freedom to act in ways they disagree with, that's it.
Weathermen are not climatologists.
No, abortion is clearly NOT murder. That issue has been clearly solved legally and scientifically long ago. If it were murder, you must believe it involves living, BREATHING children, but it does not. It involves living tissue, non viable living tissue. It's again, the right not living it's rhetoric, libertarians would never force one person to support another bodily, even if you believe the blastocyst is a person.
You and your ilk are ridiculous for your own ignorance and your loud proclamations from it.

@bobknight33

Please tell me what your experience is with the scientific community. Do not waffle or sidestep the issue but answer exactly what the extent of your experience with scientific research is, and if necessary how that positions you to judge scientific material.

Please also provide three examples from three separate (and recent) peer reviewed (and published, i.e. forming part of the scientific argument) scientific research papers from approximately the last 4 years (since 2010) that provides something illogical as a foundation argument or any particular conclusion. (You realise of course that even 3,5,10, 100 out of 10 thousand is meaningless, but i know that you can't even understand the layout of a scientific paper, nevermind find 3 examples of an illogical statement in a scientific paper.... even my professors would struggle with that.)

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick here @bobknight33 .. but if you tried to give people medical advice (chemotherapy is illogical propaganda!) then you would be expected to have an expertise in medicine. So don't run away from your responsibility.

This shouldn't be a difficult challenge for you, being as you are so certain and so correct that the science is illogical propaganda. I've had to accept things that ran completely counter to my intuition, so if climate change science is bull then as soon as you prove it, i'm on board.

So go ahead, explain to me simply and clearly what makes it bullshit science, or you're going to have to admit that you don't even have the first clue what you're talking about (as i strongly suspect).

Believe climate SCIENCE, do not believe what politicians and industry leaders tell you about climate science - ASK A FUCKING SCIENTIST. And most of all - @bobknight33 - it is NOT ok to pretend to understand science and lie to people about it, you deceptive, brain-dead parrot. Well, having said that, at least parrots have redeeming features.

I think it's very important to recognize that there is more than 1 camp in this that has completely abandoned science. Sure there are plenty denying that things are warming, or that our activity contributes to warming. Don't spend so much time decrying them that you miss the people demanding the science clearly indicates impending catastrophic disaster that only emission reductions can save us from.

Also take note that we are just beginning to move into the measuring the 'real' part of the issue now by satellite for the last few decades. Previously temperature was the only proxy measure for showing increasing energy trapped in the atmosphere. With satellite records though we have been able to directly measure radiation coming in and going out and observe the real trends. The IPCC that shared Al Gore's nobel prize on climate change has this to say on the satellite measured energy budget:
Satellite records of top of the atmosphere radiation fluxes have
been substantially extended since AR4, and it is unlikely that
significant trends exist in global and tropical radiation budgets
since 2000.

It's important to read that closely and correctly. There has been an overall net influx of radiation, as in more energy coming in than going out. The RATE of that increase is the flux they are referring to. The IPCC is stating that since 2000, it is unlikely that the rate of energy being trapped in our atmosphere has been changing.

All that means is that it's not time to panic. If you look at the latest IPCC temperature projections you'll similarly see that the projections are much less scary for 2100 than the first IPCC projections from 1990. Better news still for us, the instrumental record thus far looks to be tracking the lowend of the IPCC projections.

All that is to say that science is agreed things are warming. It is agreed we are contributing. It also agreed that the severity isn't some doom and gloom we are all gonna die in 2050 scenario either.

Do the models that you reference (that say it won't be disastrous by 2100) include methane? From everything I've read and seen reported, the methyl hydrates are already melting in the oceans, causing large releases of methane throughout the globe. Methane is a FAR worse greenhouse gas than CO2. What I've read is that, once that cycle gets going, it's self re-enforcing because the methane traps heat, heating the ocean, releasing more methane, trapping more heat, etc. It's hard for me to believe they are now predicting LESS warming by 2100 when the hydrates are already melting ahead of predictions....perhaps there's a part of the cycle I don't understand?

@bobknight33
you are confusing a political argument with a scientific one.

as @bcglorf has pointed out,the science is already In and established.the debate is on the relative parameters i.e: how much/little the affects will manifest.
so while it has been established their IS climate change and man HAS affected that change.the debate is the varying degrees and the level of impact.

so we know there will be a global effect,the debate is HOW and WHEN it will manifest,and on a smaller scale,just how much influence humankind is responsible.

some predict an extinction level catastrophe,while other predictions are not quite as apocalyptic,but the debate on whether or not climate change is real..is over.

because that is a scientific debate.

now in the political arena,whose job is to obfuscate any relevant facts to muddy the argument to propel the interests of extremely monied and powerful interests,they create a faux debate to give the appearance that the debate is still ongoing and the science is not settled.

which is exactly what this video is addressing.
remember,they dont have to win the argument.they just have to make a reasonable sounding argument..even if based on bullshit...to make you think.."well,...maybe" and they GOTCHA!

so you can make this a liberal vs conservative argument if you wish,but i would just point out that you playing the game exactly they way they have set it up.to manipulate you.

as for your assertion of "liberal owned media".
dude...
stop parroting that tired old trope that does not hold up to one minute of scrutiny.you are literally doing the plutocrats work FOR them.
every outlet of media in the united states is owned and operated by FIVE companies.

FIVE.

and not a single one could even remotely be considered "liberal",because that does not serve their interests.

this debate is simply NOT a political debate,it is a scientific debate.
plain and simple...learn to recognize the difference buddy.

and stop being a tool for fuck sakes.../slap
you are better than that.

and just a side note,for my own personal pleasure and enjoyment:
@dannym3141 you are my fucking hero brother! between you and @newtboy i struggle to hold onto my cynicism around both of you.

you guys give me hope.

now lets go grab a smoke @bobknight33 cuz these pansies wont let me smoke inside and i have to do it on the patio and they keep trying to get me to drink that godawful "redbull" when crystal meth does a much better job.

sheesh..kids these days.

ok..enough ranting for today and smacking bob around.
ya'all stay awesome.

I was referencing the ensemble models the IPCC used in their latest report. I'm largely assuming it includes the latest knowledge on the subject. To me the more encouraging thing is direct measurement of energy imbalance being available to measure models against. The truest measure of the overall greenhouse effect is just this. With it, so long as models accurately track and predict trends in the energy imbalance we can be confident they more or less have things right. That said, the IPCC notes there has been no trend in instrumental data since 2000. Models have been universally projecting a modest upward trend. This again gives hope and reason to believe the lower end projections are the more likely to be accurate. This correlates well with how the original 1990 projections have mapped to actual temp over the last 25 years too. All that is to say that scientifically those saying we should panic need as much slapping into place as those insisting nothing is happening at all.

And thus are we stuck between a rock and a hard place. The politician wants you to believe that if we DO contribute to global warming (and we do) then it has to be to a degree that requires huge change and therefore huge amounts of cash. The monolithic oil/fuel companies want you to believe that we have no effect whatsoever, please continue burning as many fossils as you can find.

And the field of science (put simply, the desire of the most inquisitive amongst us to better understand the reality we find ourselves in) stuck in the middle quietly cataloging and recording exactly what is happening with the highest precision available, being completely fucking ignored.

But that is the way of Earth and i've made my peace with it. Suicide through capitalism, we are more interested in presentation than content, personal gain than collective gain, and afterall what is more presentable than the easy option? But i consider this a failing on the part of scientists to insist how important it is that we make our collective decisions based on our best understanding (i.e. science). I would like to correct that mistake, but i don't know how yet. I figure it will have to involve being able to present scientific ideas well, and VS has helped me hone that skill.

In other words thanks very much @enoch, i just wish he'd engage me. (I was less than polite because i know he ignores me - he doesn't want to learn, he wants to win.)

Fair enough on not panicking, but we should also get moving on fixing the problem. And if fixing the problem requires the government then we're not even close to ending the debate there. So when that wraps up will we be nearing panic time?

I must disagree. If we wait until the problems are completely beyond control or withstanding, the time to panic will have come and gone. I think the time to panic was 20+ years ago, when we still had the chance to mitigate the damage before it got to a disastrous point. Now, I think we're hosed no matter what we do, the only question for me is how hosed.
The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere for 100-10000 years (depending on which one we're talking about), meaning if we stopped pumping them out today, we will see the effects of the last 100 years coming back to bite us anyway. Panic is only appropriate if it causes action in time for it to be useful, and that time came and went. Because the system is so slow to react, nothing we do today will change the future of anyone alive today, but may possibly afford their descendants a better, survivable future.

So while I might agree with you, it's not time to panic, I say it's too late and you are saying it's not time yet. Where does that leave us?

Slow down on the we need to panic soon or we are even too late for panic. The IPCC estimates through to the year 2100 do not show unmanageable changes. We can adapt to the temperature and sea level changes expected. More over, that is based on today's technology. We are talking nearly a hundred years in the future. 100 years ago cars, planes, refrigerators, spaces ships and nuclear weapons were all yet to be discovered or known to the public. Problems like putting a man on the moon or travelling the globe in hours seemed insurmountable then. They are done and a matter of course to us today.

Apologies, but with all due respect panic hardly seems called for over a temperature and sea level increase we can handle currently pending on us in a hundred years. Something tells me it'll give the people then with hundred years of advances more if a laugh than a burden.

https://news.vice.com/article/dangerous-levels-of-global-warming-are-unavoidable-says-the-world-bank

@enoch
@newtboy
@Stormsinger
@speechless


31,487 American scientists say you and your belief in man made global warming via CO2 is Bullshit.

9,029 PhD;
7,157 MS;
2,586 MD and DVM; and
12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

PS suck my dick.

Ok. So, you don't understand what 'peer reviewed scientific research' means then. Do you know what "science" means? I'm just trying to find some common ground for a conversation here. Do you know the difference between an online petition and science?

here's a little help:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

that costs extra!

You guys still think Bob is capable of a meaningful discussion? You're way more optimistic than I am. It's kind of like the argument for the existence of God...after so long, the lack of any evidence for the claim, pretty much has to be taken as a negative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

took a whole 30 seconds just for these links.
go ahead..read them...or are you too much a pussy to realize that maybe..juuust maybe..your information is wrong and possibly should be re-examined.

the intelligent man accepts new information and evolves his thinking in accordance with the new information.creating a new paradigm.

the tool will continue to parrot and hold onto tired tropes because he finds them comforting and aligned with his understandings.

i like you man,aint got a single problem with ya but when you post ridiculous shit like you just did....im calling ya out.

why?
because i like ya and i truly think you are a better man than the knucklehead you sometimes portray here.

so..
/lights a smoke
lets go grab a beer and enjoy the warmer weather..
and the sucking dick thing?
yeah...that still costs extra.

Slow down with the theories that our 'advancements' will solve all problems, not create more, because all the things you listed have been fairly disastrous in the long run, many being large parts of the issue at hand, climate change, and things like putting a man on the moon or traveling the globe in hours have gone backwards, meaning it was simpler to do either 35-45 years ago than it is today (we can't get to the moon with NASA today, or get on a concord). Assuming new tech will come along and solve the problems we can't solve today is wishful thinking, assuming they'll come with no strings attached means you aren't paying attention, all new tech is a double edged sword in one way or another.
IF humans could harness their tech, capital, and energy altruistically, yes, we could solve world hunger, disease, displacement, etc. Humans have never in history done that though.
We already can't feed a large percentage of the planet. If a large percentage of farmable land is lost to sea level rise (won't take much) and also a large population displaced by the same (a HUGE percentage of people live within 10 miles of a coast or estuary), we're screwed. It will mean less food, less land to grow food, more displaced people, less fresh water, fewer fisheries, etc. We can't solve a single one of these problems today. What evidence do you have we could solve it tomorrow, when conditions will be exponentially less favorable?
For instance, something like 1/3 of the population survives on glacial water. It's disappearing faster than predicted. There's simply no technology to solve that problem, even desalination doesn't work to get water into Nepal. People seem to like water and keeping their insides moist, how would you suggest we placate them?

@bobknight33 - 5 out of 5 peer reviewed, credentialed climatologists said they couldn't find your dick to even contemplate sucking it.

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

I didn't say any such thing.
A large percentage of farm land is going to be lost by displaced people and lack of water.
A large percentage of people, those who live less than 1 foot above sea level will be displaced.
Just wow, you think we can build dykes around Florida? New Orleans is not the only low lying city in the world, you know.
We would have to start from scratch. The tech is abandoned, there's not a concord to get on no matter how much you pay, nor is there a rocket that can make it to the moon, no matter how much funding you throw at NASA, just plain old gone. We would have to start from scratch again. We're trying to use 40+ year old Russian rockets just to go to the space station, we can't even get there on our own, how do you assume we can just go back to the moon?

Food production where it's needed is the issue. The men with guns are also an issue, but even without them there's simply not enough food where people are starving. I'm not talking about instances where dictators starved their people intentionally, I'm talking about the billions of people who are lacking food because of either economic or climate pressures, or often both. If people in Africa could grow their own food, the men with guns could not stop them from eating, but no water, no fertilizer, and no seed make that impossible. We do NOT have 'more than enough food', we may have near exactly enough food if it were perfectly distributed throughout the world (accounting for spoilage, probably not though). Perfect distribution is impossible, so there's not enough food. Period.
Another reason Africa has massive crop failures is lack of water. It's a much larger reason than displacement, not smaller.

CO2 emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented. If you implement enough new tech to reduce emissions, the new industry will be more productive, create more jobs, and be better for the economy than 'staying the course' and giving it all to Texaco.
My point. No matter what we do, we are likely going to see the same climate changes through the next 100 years, it takes at least that long for the gasses to be absorbed.

Dude, did you read the link you posted? It said one glacier is stable, the rest are melting FAST. One glacier will not keep India, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, etc wet, nor will it supply any other area that survives on glacier water. They showed that only one odd, incredibly high glacier was stable(they mentioned it's on K2, the highest mountain in the world, so don't even try to say there are lots more stable glaciers around the world, from what they said it's only this ONE mountain range, in the tippy top of the Himalayas, that's high enough and in the right weather pattern to be stable.)

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.

@newtboy
I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic!
If you'd read my post I didn't claim the people of Kiribati weren't in a position to panic. I actually went further in agreeing with you, to the point that they should have been panicked a hundred years ago in 1914 already. The distinction being that what ever the climate does wasn't going to save them. 200 hundred years of cooling and sea level decline from 1914 would still have them on an island a few feet on average above sea level and still a disaster waiting to happen.

California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food,
Here we do have a difference of fact. I don't know what measure you've imagined up, but the cattle in texas alone are more than double the food produced in California. The corn and other crops in any number of prairie states to the same. You can't just invent numbers. Yields across crops have been increasing steadily year on year in North America for decades.

The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so.
I'm sorry, read more history, you are just wrong on this. 10 guys with guns against 10 farmers with food and the farmers lose every time. The guys with guns eat for the year. The farmers maybe even are able to beg or slave for scraps that year. The next year maybe only 5 farmers bother to grow anything, and next harvest there are 15 guys with guns. Look at the Russian revolution and that's exactly the road that led to Stalin's mass starvations and lack of food. It's actually why I am a Canadian as my grandfather's family left their farm in Russia with the clothes on his back after the his neighbours farm was razed to the ground enough times.

The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear
Food doesn't create itself as noted above. The cycle is less and less food as the thugs destroy all incentive to bother trying to grow something.

adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon
I agree. I hadn't realized that adoption of new tech was that simple. I was under the impression one also had to take the time to, you know, invent it. The existing technology for replacing oil and coal cost effectively doesn't exist yet. Electric cars and nuclear power are the closest thing. The market will adopt electric cars without us doing a thing. Switching from coal to nuclear though, even if universally agreed and adopted yesterday, would still take decades for a conversion. Those decades are enough that even if we got to zero emissions by then(~2050), the sea level and temperature at 2100 aren't going to look much if any different(by IPCC best estimates).
So I repeat, if you want meaningful emission reductions, you have no other option but restricting consumption across the globe. That hasn't been accomplished in the past without setting of wars, so I keep my vote as cure is worse than disease.

The 78% glacial mass loss was worst case if CO2 emissions are still accelerating in 2100. The mountains with the glaciers will still be bulking each winter and running off each summer, just to a 78% smaller size in the depth of summer. As in, absolutely not 78% less run off. And they are not 'my' numbers as you wish to refer, but the IPCC's numbers. Your effort to somehow leave question to their veracity is the very campaign of 'doubt' in the science the video is talking about.

Actually you said it's no where near time to panic. You also said the people of Kiribati are going to be washed away by a tsunami (but it never happened before in all the times they've been hit by tsunami) and not overwhelmed by sea rise (which IS what's happened to them).


You are just wrong about Texas producing more than California, we're number two in cattle production and ....
Food Facts
California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.
California is the nation's number one dairy state.
California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.
California's leading export crop is almonds.
Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation's leading producer of strawberries, averaging 1.4 billion pounds of strawberries or 83% of the country's total fresh and frozen strawberry production. Approximately 12% of the crop is exported to Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Japan primarily. The value of the California strawberry crop is approximately $700 million with related employment of more than 48,000 people.
California produces 25% of the nation's onions and 43% of the nation's green onions.
and if that's not enough to convince you ...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2182/what-percent-of-food-comes-from-california

It is never 1 to 1 guns VS farmers in the situations you are talking about. The food gets stolen, sold, and eaten. It is not stolen and allowed to rot. If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.

I call BS, the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today. You mentioned one. They are universally agreed on (by energy companies) who have made solar farms, nuclear, wind, etc.

Ahhhh. So now you see why it's time to panic...adaptation of the tech takes time, time that we don't have to waste. If it takes 50 years to stop adding greenhouse gasses, we need to see where that leaves your children's children. Adaptation of new tech is going to happen while we are restricting consumption...it's been that way for decades (see 'car mileage requirements') so it HAS happened in the past, and is happening today...without wars.

If no one panics and no one acts, that's where we'll be if we're lucky. Those figures you linked assume we will stop rising the level of CO2 we add daily and/or keep it below a certain level...an assumption I think is wrong and ignores reality.

Um, well, yeah, 78% less glacier doesn't mean 78% less runoff, it means far more than 78% less, because of glacial dams, evaporation, and upstream use it means probably NO runoff downstream. 22% of the already scarce water won't feed India. Period.
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years, but even those numbers leave billions without water or food. That's far worse than any group ever starved by 'men with guns'.

This is getting old.
If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.
I point out that historically you are wrong. I cite specific examples illustrating that you are wrong. Still you come back insisting that somehow men with guns can't starve people out who want to farm. That somehow the mass starvations under Stalin, Mao, and North Korea weren't even related to the mass theft at gunpoint of farm crops and land from farmers. You insist that it's not what is today stopping farmland from productivity in places like the DRC, Liberia, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and many more. I give up.

the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today
But also
we can't get to the moon with NASA today, or get on a concord
I give up.

78% less glacier doesn't mean ...
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years
I cited the actual science from the IPCC with their own projections. You take the very, very worst of the multiple scenarios the IPCC run. Not content with that, you take the most extreme range of error within that extreme scenario. Not content with that, you then inject your PERSONAL BELIEF that even that position of science is likely to optimistic.

I give up. If you refuse to listen to fact and reason that's up to you. Just don't pretend your any better than the other side ignoring the actual science just from a different end of the spectrum.

You gave a few examples, I did not ever disagree that it happens, I disagreed that it's happening today in Africa (or worldwide) at a level that's worse than the lack of water on a global scale. I will concede that, in certain areas, it is, but worldwide, even continent wide, it's less of an issue than useable water by far.
You give up pretty easily.
Historically, there have not been 'men with guns'. Guns are a fairly new construct. If it were historical fact that men with 'overwhelming force' (so forget the guns quip) drive farmers out of farming, why are we still here farming?

Yes, the two statements about technology are not mutually exclusive...your point? You 'give up' a lot.

Yes, and I clearly stated I believe they ignored some factors to get their numbers, as most 'predictions' I've seen in the last 20 years have done. I also clearly stated that even their lower range numbers were disastrous and unsurvivable and their high numbers even more so, I just went on to say my educated guess is that they are likely also on the low side because they don't account for everything AND they assume we'll stop rushing to make things worse at some point. I just think that's wishful thinking, based on my estimations of human behavior.

I do listen to fact, reason, data, hypothesis, innuendo, lies, insanity, and more (proven by the fact that I'm still here discussing this, and it's funny that you now wish to no longer 'listen' to facts or reason yourself because you 'give up'), then do my best with my degree in science and scientific mind to work out what hypothesis is closest to the data, and see if I can determine where it's imperfect and why. You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors (they can't, we don't know all factors involved yet to program them into the models) and because they all expect humans to stop adding to the problem at some point in their equations, which I say from experience is wishful thinking and bad science/math, and I think it's nearly always added to actual science lately for political reasons on one side or the other.
EDIT: For instance, I've never seen a model that includes 'global dimming', but it's a factor that has kept up to 3 degrees C of warming from happening. it happens when particulates in the upper atmosphere deflect sunlight, stopping it from entering the system as light or heat. It has also added to a decline in global food production, but I've yet to see a climate study that includes it in their model. If we shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we would see a rapid spike in temperature as a result, another thing no one ever mentions.

I note you aren't defending your 'facts' about Texas producing more food than California, were you as certain of that as you are about these 'facts'? If so, perhaps more research could be warranted?

Oh, never mind, I forgot you decided to stop listening to facts and hypothesis and give up. I think your children would be disappointed you care so little about their future....I have none, so I have no dog in the fight. Nothing done today will effect things either way in my lifetime. As I see it, that means I'm one of the few with no agenda either way, I'm only interested in reality, and the data I have seen has consistently been worse than the worst predictions when everything is considered in totality (not cherry picked).

You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors

Try as I might, I just can't ignore this. Here's what the actual scientists at the IPCC themselves have to say in their Fifth Assessment Report on assessing climate models:

an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble
For reference the CMIP5 is the model data, and the HadCRUT is the instrumental real world observation. 111 out of 115 models significantly overestimate the last decade. AKA, the science says most models were on the high side.

Now, that is just the last 10 years, which is maybe evidence you can declare about expectations going forward. But lets be cautious before jumping to conclusions as the IPCC continues on later with this:

Over the 62-year period 1951–2012, observed and CMIP5 ensemble-mean trends agree to within 0.02ºC per decade (Box 9.2 Figure 1c; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.13°C per decade). There is hence very high confidence that the CMIP5 models show long-term GMST trends consistent with observations, despite the disagreement over the most recent 15-year period.

So the full scientific assessment of models is that they uniformly overestimated the last 15 years. However, over the longer term, they have very high confidence models trend accurately to observation.

As I said, if your personal belief is that models have consistently underestimated actual warming that's up to you. Just don't go spreading doubt about the actual science while sneering at others for doing exactly the same thing solely because they deny the science to follow a different world view than your own.

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.