CAGW (CO2 science), let’s not jump to conclusions...

My splendid period of 'down time' has come and gone, my life is once again crowded with work and other obligations, so my 'puter and blogging time has been slashed.  I do have a couple projects close to finished, but nothing ready to post.  This evening I just wanted to share a comment I made over at Center For Inquiry.   It speaks to one of the issues I believe needs better enunciating and broadcasting.

Dude says: "As for the catastrophic global warming, let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire."

Citizenschallenge writes: To my ears, this sounds like another fool ridiculing the notion of CAGW. 

That would be catastrophic anthropogenic global warming - that would be a warming of our Earth (and its climate system) causing our planet to become inhospitable to human wants, expectations, needs and ability to cope with.

Here are a few questions such individuals refuse to respond to:

CC:  What, you don’t believe in the reality of accumulating compounding interest?  What about acknowledging trends?

Why reject the evidence that Atmospheric Greenhouse gases are increasing at an unheard of rate; that we are responsible for it; and that they will remain in the atmosphere a very long time?  Science tells us these gases are atmospheric insulation. - Reality tells us temps are increasing and glaciers are melting at frightening and increasing speeds. - But Republicans/libertarians want to play word games and pretend away this reality with distractions into an endless smoke and mirrors labyrinth of trivial pursuits. 

Why do you think the trends in glacier melting are going to reverse themselves under the current regime?
                                                                                                         Why do you believe rising sea levels aren’t going to severely impact coastal cities, infrastructure and population centers in massive catastrophically disruptive ways?

Why, don’t you think the disruption of millennia’s old seasonal cycles and scrambling the interconnected coordination between a vast variety of living organisms is going to wreak havoc with our agriculture bounty?  

Here are some realities such individuals refuse to acknowledge:

CC:  We have a society today where most people don’t have a clue how complex and interdependent the public infrastructure, that enables all this, has become. People take the weather and moderate temperatures for granted never realizing what a knife edge society has always lived by. Tweak those parameters just a few degrees up or down and it makes a huge, life altering difference to the inhabitants of this planet.

Today in Earth's history, humanity with our fossil fuels burning are in the driver’s seat - what part of that doesn’t make sense to Republican and libertarian types?            Please someone explain!
How can the Republican/libertarian PR machine of supposed grown-ups justify pretending CO2 Science is a hoax?

Society has made incredible strides in the past couple hundred years, “escaping” ancient constraints - unfortunately we younger generations have become reckless thanks to our mass-media fed sense of entitlement that instills an apathy that inturn breeds ignorance, laziness and blindness.  

It’s a story that’s old as humankind, new generations thoughtlessly squandering the hard won achievements of their elders and winding up destitute.  Only this time around we’ve run out of new horizons for our children, and future generations, to escape to and start the cycle of exploitation and thoughtless destruction yet again.  

The only thing you can bet on these days is that there is a terrible reckoning barreling down on us, yet look to our political and business leaders.  All I see is smoke’n-mirrors from disingenuous scoundrels.

(This is comment 208 of a rambling affair about how to avoid Climate Model lessons, if you're curious, link here) 

CAGW. Ask a simple question, get a revealing answer. Dodging the issue.

{edited 11:15 pm}

citizenschallenge asks, "Just what does it take to qualify as a 'catastrophe'?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems to me that an intelligent, rational, constructive dialogue requires understanding what each other mean; and that each side takes the time to explain what they mean when using certain terms.  

For instance, CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) has become a term of derision among the climate science denying crowd, yet it's never defined.  

Their attitude baffles me.  These people profess that they don't deny the science behind how greenhouse gases make our planet habitable, implying they recognize that increasing our planet's greenhouse gas insulation will warm the planet.  Yet in the next sentence, you'll hear them ridicule the notion that a warming world will inflict increasing levels of catastrophe upon our society.

Makes me wonder just what do they mean with "catastrophe" anyways  -  what level of destruction are we talking about?

I mean, haven't these free marketeers learned the fundamentals of compounding interest?  Or do they conveniently suspend those mathematical realities when it comes to thinking about the geophysics of our planet... you know, that stuff that provides our life support system?

That's why I ask that opening question now and then, usually to silence, but this afternoon I got a bite.  

It turned out to be such a good example of a typical Republican/libertarian PR machine response that it deserves to be added to this collection.

Though I still can't enunciate exactly how this ties into "Seepage" there is a connection that I'm sure sharper minds can puzzle out once they decide to think about it.  What I can do is offer some observations on how these denialista's weave their intimidation while destroying constructive dialogue.

joseph p. 1:32 PM - 6/8/15 
Short version of an Answer: When the alleged cure to a still only alleged disease, is already known to be much worse than the alleged disease, and applying the "cure" just keeps on creating more of its own very real disease catastrophes. And then you yourself +citizenschallengeYT can even vie to become the "King of Catastrophes"!

possessed by the idea of catastrophic climate change?

My "LandscapesAndCycles Penguin Poop (7/1/14)" critique project keeps stretching out.  The price of taking Mr. Steele's advice and going to first sources with my questions.  But, it's a small price indeed considering the many responses and scientific papers I've been receiving and reading, nearly 50 at last count. 

I keep getting closer, but it's still not ready for posting, though I did make it down to the final paragraph today which is such a text book example of deception, and of the ruthless disregard for the civility our man Steele professes and expects of others, that I decided it deserves it's own write up.  

"¶19  "... despite the lack of any warming trend what so ever, the scientific literature is spammed and the public bombarded with more propaganda claiming climate change has put penguins in peril. ... Robert Bolton wrote, “A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind” and catastrophic climate change is tragically possessing too many minds."" 

~ ~ ~

As for the "lack of warming trend whatsoever" 

this video puts the big picture into perspective, 

followed by links that put the Antarctic situation into perspective,
followed by a look at this CAGW that's "possessing minds".

ClimateCentral.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1J09xL0NGQ

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Judith Curry's cynical game: "CAGW Memeplex"

Judith Curry PhD, posted the following at her website where she seems to take endless joy in spinning evidence; injecting impossible expectations; misrepresenting the work of colleagues; and adding ever more layers of confusion rather than clarity. 

This was written by Andy West who tries to 'look inside the heads' of folks who see current geophysical trends as leading to catastrophe down the line...

"CAGW memeplex"

Posted on November 1, 2013

Written by Andy West, endorsed and posted with pride by Judith Curry at her blog.