Reply #26: Are we going in circles here? [View All]

[notesdev]

For the purpose of continuing this didactic dialogue, I accept without argument what you are saying about CO2.

What testable prediction then follows from this assertion? In other words, why should anyone care about atmospheric CO2 levels? What, if anything, is predicted to happen as a result of increased CO2, that it should be a concern to the general public, that would not happen if the AGW hypothesis was not true?

I'm being a bit of a stickler for something with some actual scientific rigor for a reason:

- When I was young they warned that global cooling would kill us all. This was "science".
- More recently, I was told that AGW would cause increasing hurricane activity, yet hurricane activity has decreased.
- I was told AGW would kill off the polar bears, but their numbers are as healthy as ever.
- I was told that AGW would cause dramatic sea level rises, but nothing out of the range of normal has actually occurred, and the biggest promoter of this particular warning bought a very expensive beach house.
- I was told that winter snow would disappear as a phenomenon in temperate zones, but the world over people are getting as much or more snow than ever.
- I was told that Himalayan glaciers were on track to be gone by 2035 - only a couple dozen years from now - and that this had scientific authority behind it - the exact same scientific authority as backs AGW. Yet, when the numbers were finally checked, it turned out that the math was terribly wrong, and that the worst case scenario was instead of 25 years away, hundreds of years away... at closest.
- Baby, it's cold outside! (predictions of warming contradicts first-hand observation)
(this list very incomplete, but I'll assume the point is made)


In short, I've been served up a lot of hot air on this topic, but nothing I could actually use as something that can predict future events. As someone with a bit of a science background, I know the main purpose of science is to be able to predict future events. Therefore the equation for me is simple: if AGW can accurately predict future events, it is worthwhile; if it cannot, then it is flawed and worthless. (<--- scientifically accurate statement, feel free to double check with anyone you know who has experience working with scientific method)

So give me a prediction. Why should I fear AGW? Why should I support the devotion of precious and scarce resources to addressing it, when those resources could otherwise go to heal the sick, feed the poor, provide jobs for the unemployed, pay down the national debt, etc.? What's going to happen if no action is taken, that would not happen if humanity ceased to exist tomorrow?