Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.
In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.
And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect. He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land. Thus, his approximations were not useful. Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off. Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view. Columbus was a fail.
Would the world have been better off without Columbus?
11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.
Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.
And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.
What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?
Compared to what? A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system? If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk? There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided. Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide, warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over.
Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices.
13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others.
Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.
And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.
Unnecessary change is probably not good.
You're guessing. It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.
Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?
No, I'm not. I'm speaking as an observer from distance. However, my own winter past was pretty mild also. Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more. Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter.
I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything.
Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive
tornado.
Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there. got any support for those? The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.
Yes in fact.
- More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
- This also applies for land area.
The first is true, the second is not.
http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htmJust Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US. This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined. Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland.
The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo.
- The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
While this is true, it misses the main point. It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something.
Sure, this is a net benefit of warming.
- Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert.
A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp.
Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere.
Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful.
Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?
Perhaps, but why should I trust either side? Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end. What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian? Should we "do something even if it's wrong"? What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present? Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well?
What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.
