What's absurd about it?
Where to start?????
Well first, i addressed what you originally wrote:
"The probabilities favor the hypothesis that climate change is due to human actions."
You attributed this to the UN, but it now appears that you were misquoting them. Your statement above (not the UN's) does not leave any room for other factors. It is saying that "climate change is due to human actions" and nothing else. That is, of course, absurd. If you added the word "some" to the sentence before "climate change", it would not be absurd and it would certainly be difficult to dispute.
The second part that is absurd is that "climate change" is meaningless. "Climate change" doesn't indicate direction or magnitude. And it doesn't indicate beneficial or harmful (though it is always assumed by the leftist/environmentalist/Gov't tit suckers, that it is harmful). As I said before, the only constant in the climate is "change", therefore it is absurd to identify man as the main cause for it.
The third part, after you posted what the UN actually said, is that even when you correctly quote the UN, they are saying that we are responsible for 2/10ths of a degree (C) of warming. If you look at any chart that goes back greater than 200 years, you will see that it is a rare event when the earths average temperature anomaly is less than +/- 0.4C. In other words, the earth is almost always at least 0.4C above or below what the climate-ologists arbitrarily consider to be the climate optimum (the earth is currently 0.4C above this arbitrary number). They further narrow it down to the "1950s" which is one of the few times in earth's history when the earth was at this arbitrary optimal average. This ignores the fact that the 1930s were warmer than today (in spite of the climate-ologists attempts to re-write and revise (i.e.: falsify data) the historical empirically obtained temperature records). In other words, man is responsible for 0.2C of warming above the rarely experienced, arbitrarily specified "climate optimum". Or more succinctly, we are responsible for a little bit of noise in the equations.
The fourth part that is absurd is that 60 years is meaningless when looking at geologic time. So they took a meaningless timeframe where they are 95% sure that man is responsible for a meaningless amount of warming that is based on an arbitrary "climate optimum" where "optimum" is never defined as for whom or what and that optimum is almost never experienced anyway.
The fifth part that is absurd goes back to meaningless timeframes. If you go back 400,000 years, the glacial/inter-glacial cycle is very obvious. CO2 levels are a bit higher than normal for this phase of an inter-glacial period, but temperatures are a bit lower when compared to other inter-glacial periods. It is normal for the end of a glacial period to be marked by dramatic spikes in both CO2 and temperature in a very short time (geologically speaking).
The sixth part that is absurd is that all of the concern about warming is based on the dramatic rise in temperature that started at the end of the little ice age. Most charts start at 1860, where, for the next 50 years, the global averages were 0.4C below the "optimum". So the rise in average temperature certainly appears dramatic when it goes up 0.8C in 100 yearsl. However, during the LIA, earth's average temperatures dropped as much as 0.9C below the optimum. Anybody who pays attention to natural cycles will notice that a move to one extreme of the cycle is usually followed by a move to the other extreme. The LIA would be considered an extreme move toward cooling and it is being followed by an extreme move to warming. Why is this considered unusual? These are scientists for chrissakes!!! They are supposed to know something about cyclical behavior. They should know that we are in a glacial/inter-glacial cycle. They should know that we are at the later stages of the inter-glacial period where higher temperatures would be expected. They should know that we will be stuck in this cycle for quite a bit longer than any of us will ever need to deal with as it is defined by the continent of Antarctica being over the south pole. And they should know that earth's particular temperature cycles are characterized by gradual cooling followed by rapid warming.
A rational man makes decisions based on probabilities, not political bias.
Once again, a rational man doesn't base his decisions on the opinions of others that are obviously flawed once a slight amount of critical thinking is applied.
A rational man is skeptical of the opinions of experts, especially when their bias and their motive for bias is blatantly obvious.
A rational man doesn't let another man do his thinking for him and then use an appeal to authority as the justification for his views. |
