UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Night Strike]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

[Metsfanmax]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

So, what? Is the main reason you believe them that a minority of scientists has been correct before?

[BigBallinStalin]

There are way bigger factors involved in the earth's climate that have been warming and cooling the planet for hundreds of millions of years (according to evolution), so why would humans suddenly be directly killing it even though it has been much warmer in the past?

Humans are not "killing" the Earth's climate. The Earth will still be here after we are gone. We are just hurting ourselves by making the temperature rise faster than we can adapt to it.

That's an interesting assumption. What reasoning does Mets use to demonstrate its soundness?

if humans could have survived in the much warmer climates of the past (unlikely), it would have been through many millennia of genetic adaptation. We don't have that much time to cleanly adapt.

Is genetic adaptation the only form of adaptation? No, so...
Would changes in technology affect this reasoning of his? Yeah.

So, his claim is not sound.

"Not enough time." How does he know?
"'Cleanly' adapt." What's his criteria for 'clean' adaptation? And why should 'clean' adaptation be the only desirable route of adaptation?

Here's it in a nutshell....

These problems came about because we humans fail to understand or even really care about the impacts of changes we make. When we do care, we often misunderstand until long after damage is done, sometimes uncorrectable. It took the loss of the passenger pigeons and many other species to get people to think about species extinctions seriously. It took rivers in such bad shape they burned repeatedly, plus losses of huge fish stocks to get people to think about clean water, and millions of kids poisoned from lead to get any limits at all on its use.

So what makes you imagine that some new technological fix will improve things instead of just making it worse? What makes you think that relying on ANY "technological advance" -- be it genetic change or a new device will improve things?

And, with all your talk of letting the market talk, etc, etc.... why are you so in favor of continued market manipulation to heavily favor current petroleum based technology.

Fishing stocks become depleted. Doesn't that depend on the institutions? Those are typical 'tragedy of the commons' examples where excludability and the other essential elements of price mechanisms for allocation become too costly. A market approach would require some kind of property rights regime--e.g. catfish farms. Since government largely controls the decision and use rights of rivers, then they're to be blamed, but I hardly see you railing on government, which is odd.

It's not just technology, but also it's about the rules involved in exchanges over different types of goods. Never said it was only about technology. My point about technology is that Mets assumes that people would be unable to compensate for the unknown net effects of climate change; whereas, governments not only would know but would also be capable of--and willing to--steer us in the right direction. Given the vast array of public policies, that's a misguided goal.

RE: underlined, you'll have to quote me on that. The market for gasoline faces price controls and regulations. Those are government issues which intertwine with the market-based allocation of such goods. So, it's not just a "continued market manipulation" (whatever you want that to mean later).

Not seeing how your post addresses my questions, so <shrugs>

[Nobunaga]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

You gotta be more precise and specific with these folks, NightStrike. It's a religion we're trying to argue with here.

The 16 who signed off on the WSJ article were dismissed out of hand.

Let's hear a bit from a gentleman at MIT (I wonder if MIT rates any better).

Dr. Richard Lindzen, a top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”

Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.

Governments trying to whitewash? Yeah, sure. Typical conservative claptrap...

In a leaked June draft of the report's summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity.

But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC obtained by the AP.

Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.

The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. That year was exceptionally warm, so any graph showing global temperatures starting with 1998 looks flat, because most years since have been cooler. Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve.

Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/ ... rming.html

...

[Metsfanmax]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

You gotta be more precise and specific with these folks, NightStrike. It's a religion we're trying to argue with here.

The 16 who signed off on the WSJ article were dismissed out of hand.

Ok, let's take a step back. You accuse me of dismissing out of hand the people who signed that WSJ statement. This is not accurate, as I had seen that before and am acquainted with the reputations of many of the authors. But that's not important. What is important is that you are dismissing out of hand the thousands of climate scientists who actually work every day to model the climate and understand the history of our planet. Tell me, Nobunaga, have you ever read an IPCC report or a climate science paper? I am guessing the answer is no. Until you do, stop throwing around terms like "blindly following" or "dismissing out of hand."

Start here.

[DoomYoshi]

Here's one completely unrelated to climate, but the statement, and the man who made the statement should, I think, demonstrate how dangerous it is to so blindly follow the findings of "experts", and the ensuing policies based on those findings.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”

- - Albert Einstein, 1932

And one more thing, regarding this point. It is certainly possible that there will be a revolution in physics soon, that will upheave everything we know about atmospheric science. But you shouldn't bet on it. If you saw 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you have cancer, you'd be a great fool to not start treatment.

I predict a revolution in set theory quicker. Cantòr has left us with too many problems.

[Nobunaga]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

You gotta be more precise and specific with these folks, NightStrike. It's a religion we're trying to argue with here.

The 16 who signed off on the WSJ article were dismissed out of hand.

Ok, let's take a step back. You accuse me of dismissing out of hand the people who signed that WSJ statement. This is not accurate, as I had seen that before and am acquainted with the reputations of many of the authors. But that's not important. What is important is that you are dismissing out of hand the thousands of climate scientists who actually work every day to model the climate and understand the history of our planet. Tell me, Nobunaga, have you ever read an IPCC report or a climate science paper? I am guessing the answer is no. Until you do, stop throwing around terms like "blindly following" or "dismissing out of hand."

Start here.

A barbed response, though accurate enough.

I have never read a climate report. I do not understand climate science. I have to rely on the skilled to handle that.

What I do know, however, is that taxes are increasing and businesses (especially manufacturing) are suffering under the policies brought about by those reports.

I guess I'm just too simple. These are the things I consider when talking about climate change, in no certain order of priority:

1. It used to be "global warming". Now it's conveniently morphed to "climate change"... And the so-called experts 10 years ago were certain we'd be cooked by now ... while we're cooling... ?

2. The policies based on the findings of the IPCC result in nothing but losses for my country. Surely you recall my previous, where the IPCC official stated that climate science is no longer about climate, but about negotiation for resource redistribution? The hit to industry is also very large. The Chinese aren't signed on to the deal, while they are polluting terribly - while consuming a huge percentage of newly created manufacturing jobs that could have been US - based.

3. There's just too much money involved with this. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again - before, where there was nothing - now there are billions of dollars in revenue for government to collect, while those dealing in the credits themselves are making fortunes. Call me cynical, but I find this suspicious.

4. The UN is perhaps the most dysfunctional organization on the planet. I realize that the IPCC works independently, in theory, but is there no pressure put on the IPCC by the UN and member nations to show results that favor a desirable "redistribution of resources"? I know I've already demonstrated that such pressure does indeed exist (the leaked to AP documents mentioned in my previous).

5. With so much money on the line in terms of taxes that we will be forced to pay, as well as US jobs being threatened, why have I seen no investigative reports on this? I mean, a lead MIT scientist is a pretty damned bright guy. Might his expressions, and the expressions of many other similar people in high positions not motivate news organizations to investigate and report on the validity of what's being done? Even if global warming is in reality running amok and the IPCC has nailed it exactly, this, to me, is very, very strange.

6. It bothers me that the global warming hero, Mr. Gore, stands to make billions as chairman of General Investment Management, trading those carbon credits. I give the man a lot of credit for being wily as hell the way he's pulled this all off on the public, though. (I admire success, even if I don't like the individual succeeding).

7. It is too damned political. A person's political alignment is probably a 90% indicator of their opinion on climate change. It has evolved into that, perhaps naturally, but it's just ugly as hell. Like most topics favored by the left, no doubt or discussion is brooked. Anybody who questions the concept is almost immediately demonized. Does the term, "flat-earther" ring any bells? Likewise, cons assume it's a governmental power grab and will not be dissuaded. Unfortunately, a preponderance of evidence (see above) seems to back them up.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything related to climate, so I readily admit I could be wrong. But it bugs the hell out of me that we're all more or less walking in lock-step to this thing and nobody dares challenge what's being said without being attacked.

And I don't mean to be rude or dismissive here, I just tend to get excited. I apologize if I came across that way.

Cheers.

[Night Strike]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

So, what? Is the main reason you believe them that a minority of scientists has been correct before?

Nope, just that the overwhelming majority isn't always correct. More so when billions of dollars are at stake.

Ok, let's take a step back. You accuse me of dismissing out of hand the people who signed that WSJ statement. This is not accurate, as I had seen that before and am acquainted with the reputations of many of the authors. But that's not important. What is important is that you are dismissing out of hand the thousands of climate scientists who actually work every day to model the climate and understand the history of our planet. Tell me, Nobunaga, have you ever read an IPCC report or a climate science paper? I am guessing the answer is no. Until you do, stop throwing around terms like "blindly following" or "dismissing out of hand."

Models always start on assumptions and then input more assumptions alongside data to produce predictions. If any of the assumptions are faulty, the output of the model will be faulty. And even the data can be wrong/skewed to provide faulty outputs. They have data saying the earth has gone through numerous warming and cooling periods without humans, yet today's warming is caused by humans. That is a very limited assumption to make, but it becomes more clear why it's made when billions of dollars are at stake. Global warming is the modern mantra of taking wealth away from the rich and handing it over to the poor. Just take Obama's statements saying that Africans aren't allowed to have modern technologies until countries like the US are punished for the harm we've caused to the world. There's some very warped thinking going on in relation to global warming and how it's being used to move money around.

[Dukasaur]

I have never read a climate report. I do not understand climate science. I have to rely on the skilled to handle that.

What I do know, however, is that taxes are increasing and businesses (especially manufacturing) are suffering under the policies brought about by those reports.

And we come full circle to exactly what TGD said a couple of days ago: There are very serious doubts that reasonable people can have about the governments' (governments, plural, not singling out any specific jurisdiction) proposed "solutions" to the problems presented by global warming. It's unfortunate that so many thinking people are wasting their time denying that the problem exists, instead of accepting that it exists and critiquing the proposed "solutions."

[Lootifer]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

Haha, and I wonder what side the 1600's version of Nightstrike would have been on in that particular debate...

[Phatscotty]

Most or all of these are not working climate scientists. Why should I listen to these 16 people rather than the many thousands who actually model the climate? Don't you have to intentionally cherry pick your arguments to think that these 16 people outweigh the thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles that confirm the reality of anthropogenic global warming?

It was a handful of scientists that first believed the earth revolved around the sun.

Haha, and I wonder what side the 1600's version of Nightstrike would have been on in that particular debate...

Probably not the big government control-your-life side that forces people to think their way and forces them to accept their ideas of what is right and wrong and mocks and teases and smears and destroys anyone who disagrees with their theories.

NS is not a big government Leftist, so there's not anything to wonder about from o'er here

[Lootifer]

Hey I am not mocking nor teasing nor destroying anyone because they doubt climate science. I am a big fan of question everything at every turn.

My point was NS using that particular example considering the two main groups of people who opposed the heliocentric model were a) theologians and b) conservative* thinkers.

* This definition may differ from modern american conservatism.

[Phatscotty]

Hey I am not mocking nor teasing nor destroying anyone because they doubt climate science. I am a big fan of question everything at every turn.

My point was NS using that particular example considering the two main groups of people who opposed the heliocentric model were a) theologians and b) conservative* thinkers.

* This definition may differ from modern american conservatism.

I didn't say you were smearing. You are above that. I meant the movement, specifically the leaders of the movement.

I've never heard that before. There are many types of theologians. 17th century Conservatives??? I want to explore that a bit. I know the Church had major influence in the government, but that wasn't in every single country, and certainly there were varying levels of control and different types of systems and government as well. What is a 17th century Conservative? It's true that Liberal has changed to Conservative and vice versa over the centuries, so it's kind of pointless to even bring that up or associate it with a Conservative today, which is small government. The persecution of science per the geocentric model being forced as truth is a lot like global warming being forced as truth, if you ask me. and that government in the 16th century was big-government, as a small government would not have been able to pull it off with limited power.

I've never even thought about breaking those events or that time period into Conservative/Liberal. To me, it was always big-brother government force trying to hold onto power, and not tolerating anything that threatened it. kinda like the way oil producing countries buy out green technologies and close them down, or the way Obama blocked the Tea Party from organizing by violating the Constitution and abusing power via the IRS.

[Lootifer]

What I mean by conservatives is those who favor established or traditional concepts over new or radical concepts. Much of the opposition to Copernicus came from the scientific body (as NS rightly points out) who were arrogant in their assumptions that they had already established the correct model (geocentric model)

[Phatscotty]

What I mean by conservatives is those who favor established or traditional concepts over new or radical concepts. Much of the opposition to Copernicus came from the scientific body (as NS rightly points out) who were arrogant in their assumptions that they had already established the correct model (geocentric model)

Just mincing meat here, but I'm not so sure Conservatism means what you say you meant anymore, in the age of redefinitions. Example: the Conservatives today on American campuses and in government are the radicals. In the welfare state, welfare is the tradition and establishment, at least over the last 100 years. And just because a power structure is religion based does not make it Conservative. Plenty of churches and religious ideologies are left and even far left.


I think 'establishment' would have been a far better word to use.

[Lootifer]

You're welcome to define Conservative the noun however you like, I was referring to conservative the adjective.

[Metsfanmax]

1. It used to be "global warming". Now it's conveniently morphed to "climate change"... And the so-called experts 10 years ago were certain we'd be cooked by now ... while we're cooling... ?

Both terms are used in the literature, because the climate does actually change in ways that don't involve total global warming. But if you want to know who may be the most responsible for the fact that the term climate change became so widely used, look to Frank Luntz, Republican strategist for President Bush:

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

Oh, and no we're not cooling (though if you look at the last 10-15 years, the slope of the warming curve is lower than that of the previous 10-15 years. There's plenty to talk about on that issue, which we can get into if you like).

2. The policies based on the findings of the IPCC result in nothing but losses for my country. Surely you recall my previous, where the IPCC official stated that climate science is no longer about climate, but about negotiation for resource redistribution? The hit to industry is also very large. The Chinese aren't signed on to the deal, while they are polluting terribly - while consuming a huge percentage of newly created manufacturing jobs that could have been US - based.

We're not talking about resource redistribution to China though. We're talking about resource redistribution to countries that played basically zero role in global warming and are suffering the most from it. As I've mentioned earlier in the thread, island nations like the Maldives may literally be swallowed up by the ocean within a couple centuries. Affluent and large nations like the U.S. have a lot more capability to adapt than those island nations. The bottom line is that if we are doing this to them, we should fix it. It may hurt us a little (though I think a Pigovian carbon tax, optimally implemented, wouldn't do significant damage to the economy -- did you know there are like three times as many people working in the green sector than in the oil industry?), but we're talking about the destruction of entire nations here.

Also, China too is a big greenhouse gas emitter and very much to blame for this problem. However, China is actually doing much more to limit their emissions than we are. They've already rolled out regional cap-and-trade networks in several places in their country, which they plan to turn into a national network soon. They also will institute a carbon tax within three years or so.

3. There's just too much money involved with this. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again - before, where there was nothing - now there are billions of dollars in revenue for government to collect, while those dealing in the credits themselves are making fortunes. Call me cynical, but I find this suspicious.

Look at the alternative. The US imports like half a trillion dollars worth of oil every year. That's a lot of potential revenue for governments too. You might think that major oil and natural gas producers have a vested interest in ensuring that we don't disrupt their product. What might be surprising, though, is that the major producers have been some of the most upfront in saying we should implement a carbon tax and invest more in alternative power sources. I'll just leave you with a quote from ExxonMobil, which pretty accurately sums up my views on the correct policy action:

Keeping in mind the central importance of energy to economies of the world, ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks to society associated with increasing GHG emissions.

Effective strategies must include putting policies in place that start the world on a path to reduce emissions while recognizing that addressing GHG emissions is one among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.

...

If policymakers do move to impose a cost on carbon, we believe that a carbon tax would be a more effective policy option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than alternatives such as cap-and-trade. And to ensure revenues raised from such a tax are indeed directed to investment, and to assist those on lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on energy, a carbon tax should be offset by tax reductions in other areas to become revenue neutral for government.

4. The UN is perhaps the most dysfunctional organization on the planet. I realize that the IPCC works independently, in theory, but is there no pressure put on the IPCC by the UN and member nations to show results that favor a desirable "redistribution of resources"? I know I've already demonstrated that such pressure does indeed exist (the leaked to AP documents mentioned in my previous).

I concede that the IPCC assessment report is, to an extent, a political document as well as a scientific one. This is the unfortunate result of the fact that the media has constantly politicized this science instead of simply accepting the consensus and debating the solution. You can't blame countries like Hungary for wanting to carefully word the document, because like it or not, the policy decisions of many countries depend heavily on what this document says. It needs to be absolutely clear about what we believe about the state of the climate. We wouldn't be forced into this position if there weren't a number of people sniping at every possible inconsistency as a way to negate the legitimacy of the entire document.

5. With so much money on the line in terms of taxes that we will be forced to pay, as well as US jobs being threatened, why have I seen no investigative reports on this? I mean, a lead MIT scientist is a pretty damned bright guy. Might his expressions, and the expressions of many other similar people in high positions not motivate news organizations to investigate and report on the validity of what's being done? Even if global warming is in reality running amok and the IPCC has nailed it exactly, this, to me, is very, very strange.

I think that this request stems from an understanding of the scientific method that doesn't accurately reflect reality. Not to put too fine a point on it, but to me this sounds like saying that the New York Times should investigate decades of work on general relativity because one guy with a Ph.D. thinks that actually everyone else missed something obvious about the way celestial objects move. Richard Lindzen is a bright guy and of course his point of view has merit. But if you're the media, your job is to accurately report on where there is scientific consensus and where there is not. And there is no doubt that the scientific consensus exists on this one. If you've never seen a report on the validity of the IPCC's work, that only reflects the fact that very few 'in the know' on this issue seriously questions it at this point (not least because the people who write the actual chapters of the IPCC report are the actual climate scientists who do the work).

6. It bothers me that the global warming hero, Mr. Gore, stands to make billions as chairman of General Investment Management, trading those carbon credits. I give the man a lot of credit for being wily as hell the way he's pulled this all off on the public, though. (I admire success, even if I don't like the individual succeeding).

This is just the way "crony capitalism" works, as Saxi might say it. If you're an old white dude and veteran of the highest levels of government, you get a cushy job no matter which way you slice it. Al Gore could have made a lot of money doing whatever he wanted to do. There was no reason for him to spend years trying to convince people of the reality of this if he didn't actually believe it.

7. It is too damned political. A person's political alignment is probably a 90% indicator of their opinion on climate change. It has evolved into that, perhaps naturally, but it's just ugly as hell. Like most topics favored by the left, no doubt or discussion is brooked. Anybody who questions the concept is almost immediately demonized. Does the term, "flat-earther" ring any bells? Likewise, cons assume it's a governmental power grab and will not be dissuaded. Unfortunately, a preponderance of evidence (see above) seems to back them up.

The science is not political. No one who reconstructs historical temperatures writes about Obamacare in their research papers. The politicization of this science is a false construction of media reports on this. But it is true that people on the right are much less likely to accept the scientific consensus on this issue. The problem is that they do it for really terrible reasons, and constantly spout arguments that are long discredited by working scientists. If your stance is that you simply don't believe in the power of the modern scientific method and won't listen to anything a scientist says, at least be honest about it -- and then go turn off your computer, TV, refrigerator, stop driving your car, etc. No, most conservatives are fine with accepting the results of science when it is convenient for them, and reject it when it is not. Liberals are plenty gulity of this too -- I'm disgusted by how many self-described progressives won't even consider the benefits of genetically-modified food or nuclear power. The only meaningful difference is that liberals happen to be on the correct side of this debate. But your own opinion on the matter shouldn't really be influenced by what other peoples' political leanings do.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything related to climate, so I readily admit I could be wrong. But it bugs the hell out of me that we're all more or less walking in lock-step to this thing and nobody dares challenge what's being said without being attacked.

If you don't think anyone is challenging climate science, just turn on Fox News. I mean, what other explanation do you have for the fact that half of Americans don't believe that the planet is warming, despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists do?

[chang50]

You're welcome to define Conservative the noun however you like, I was referring to conservative the adjective.

Correct,conservative with a small 'c',does not refer to a particular place on the political spectrum left or right,whereas with a large 'C' it does.Who is more 'conservative',than the present rulers of N.Korea,or the leaders of the former USSR,or indeed old-style Union bosses,reactionaries all?

[PLAYER57832]

I have never read a climate report. I do not understand climate science. I have to rely on the skilled to handle that.

What I do know, however, is that taxes are increasing and businesses (especially manufacturing) are suffering under the policies brought about by those reports.

I see, so your entire premise is that its OK to ignore the science because admitting its real might be bad for business?

The problem is, if it is real, and yes, it is, it will be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad for not just business, but all of humanity.

I guess I'm just too simple.

tempting as it is to stop there (hey, admit you walked into it there...), I am going to address the other points.

These are the things I consider when talking about climate change, in no certain order of priority:

1. It used to be "global warming". Now it's conveniently morphed to "climate change"... And the so-called experts 10 years ago were certain we'd be cooked by now ... while we're cooling... ?

Not even close.

The truth is that the overall heat of the planet IS warming, BUT that never meant that all temperatures across the world would go up all the time. Unfortunately, its a lot easier to just say "the Earth if warming"... and to omit all the many details that are included in the science. I, others have explained this to you before, but you insist on staying with a lot of other people in just focusing on the misstated sensationalist (and wrong) headlines. More Recently, scientists and even the media have begun talking about "climate change" or even "climate wierding" in an attempt to clarify, but folks like you keep insisting on intentionally misunderstanding.

Sadly, despite the fact that you make no bones about not understanding the science, you still feel you have the right to dictate policy and to fight on one side against the other.

2. The policies based on the findings of the IPCC result in nothing but losses for my country. Surely you recall my previous, where the IPCC official stated that climate science is no longer about climate, but about negotiation for resource redistribution? The hit to industry is also very large. The Chinese aren't signed on to the deal, while they are polluting terribly - while consuming a huge percentage of newly created manufacturing jobs that could have been US - based.

And to you that means its OK to just pretend the climate is not warming that that nothing should be done?

And per China.. you forget that a lot of that industry was spurred on by US investment, and that its not just ignoring environmental regulation that spurred on the move, but also the ability to ignore safety rules, to pay poverty wages and below.

Our economy was spurred by destruction as well, but was that a good path? Knowing the harm, is it more intelligent to ignore it or to move in different directions to find real, long term solutions?

I can remember when the idea of people being able to drive hover cars and to live on the moon seemed more realistic than the idea of a vast communication tool you could hold in the palm of your hand. Even on (the first) Star Trek, tricorders were the size of a large hand-held shortwave radio!!! And that was to have been over 200 years into the future!

3. There's just too much money involved with this. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again - before, where there was nothing - now there are billions of dollars in revenue for government to collect, while those dealing in the credits themselves are making fortunes. Call me cynical, but I find this suspicious.

HUH? Carbon credits? There was a time when I thought it might be an idea worth trying, though it was NEVER a real solution.. that point is long past. Anyway, what does whether one idea or another might work or not to fix the problem have to do with whether there is a problem? Those are 2 entirely different issues!

4. The UN is perhaps the most dysfunctional organization on the planet. I realize that the IPCC works independently, in theory, but is there no pressure put on the IPCC by the UN and member nations to show results that favor a desirable "redistribution of resources"? I know I've already demonstrated that such pressure does indeed exist (the leaked to AP documents mentioned in my previous).

Here you go again, criticizing science while you just admitted you "don't understand" how it works.. nicely convenient, that.

Here is how it works. Scientists get data using specific methodology developed and accepted because it works. There can be bias, yes, but that bias is almost always in what questions are investigated (things not popular don't tend to get funded), not the analysis. Beyond that, there can certainly be error.. take 2000 professionals doing ANYTHING, and there will be errors or even a few cases of outright fraud. That happened, BUT..the fact remains that none of the errors or problems were enough to dismiss the findings. Not among anyone who even halfway believes that science actually works.

So, here is the real deal. Its not just that you "don't understand science", its that you REFUSE to understand it. Its far more convenient for you to point to some big esoteric conflicts and conspiracies than to admit things are bad enough that change might really and truly be warranted.

Now.. WHAT that change should be, that is another debate, and that is where the debate should be concentrated. THAT, by-the-way is what was meant by the above scientist. There is no longer any climate DEBATE, its now just a political debate, but not because the science is wrong and its all politics, because the science is correct and the solution has to come, in part through politics.

5. With so much money on the line in terms of taxes that we will be forced to pay, as well as US jobs being threatened, why have I seen no investigative reports on this? I mean, a lead MIT scientist is a pretty damned bright guy. Might his expressions, and the expressions of many other similar people in high positions not motivate news organizations to investigate and report on the validity of what's being done? Even if global warming is in reality running amok and the IPCC has nailed it exactly, this, to me, is very, very strange.

What is your point here?

And... what "investigative reports" are you wanting? There have been plenty of reports, but folks continue to think Senators building Igloos in a Washington snowstorm is more newsworthy than real science.

6. It bothers me that the global warming hero, Mr. Gore, stands to make billions as chairman of General Investment Management, trading those carbon credits. I give the man a lot of credit for being wily as hell the way he's pulled this all off on the public, though. (I admire success, even if I don't like the individual succeeding).

Al Gore did one thing... used his political influence to put forward global warming. He gets some credit for that, but personally, I think he did as much harm as good by blurring the debate. He is NOT a scientist. At any rate, he is pretty much out of the picture now, so why keep bringing him up?

7. It is too damned political. A person's political alignment is probably a 90% indicator of their opinion on climate change. It has evolved into that, perhaps naturally, but it's just ugly as hell. Like most topics favored by the left, no doubt or discussion is brooked. Anybody who questions the concept is almost immediately demonized. Does the term, "flat-earther" ring any bells? Likewise, cons assume it's a governmental power grab and will not be dissuaded. Unfortunately, a preponderance of evidence (see above) seems to back them up.

Well, thanks for proving one point I have made repeatedly, folks using the internet to find "facts" and to "research" too often wind up just finding support for their political position. Folks no longer seem to understand what a fact even is.

At any rate, ANY big change, issue is going to be politically ugly! I lived through much of the Vietnam era, definitely through the aftermath. Disagreement and debate are painful . Is that reason to ignore the subject?

The FACT is that Global climate change is happening. The debate should be over how to fix it, if we even CAN fix it, not the facts. But yeah.. plenty of people are getting rich over pretending that the Earth's climate isn't changing. People got wealth and power from many dastardly things in the past, too. And we now paint them as heinous villains. I hope there will be humanity left enough to paint the current set as villains, or better yet.. that maybe the good people will prevail.

I don't claim to be an expert on anything related to climate, so I readily admit I could be wrong. But it bugs the hell out of me that we're all more or less walking in lock-step to this thing and nobody dares challenge what's being said without being attacked.

At some point, you just have to admit that gravity is real.. even if you don't understand the math behind Einstein's equations.

And, the one thing that has to happen for science to matter over politics, for facts to have more say than opinion, is that people have to, once again believe that science actually works..that everything is not just a matter of debate and opinion.

Because, it doesn't matter if you are Republican, Democratic, Independent, Communist or a Purple spagghetti monster afficianado -- One molecule of Oxygen combines with 2 molecules of Hydrogen to make water; Water boils at a slightly lower temperature at higher altitudes, etc, etc, etc.

The Earth IS warming, overall. A half degree or even a full degree on average may not seem like much to a layperson, but climatologists assure us it is a phenomenal difference. Why it is warming is not 100% understood, but it is almost certain that humans are contributing to the problems through our burning of fossil fuel AND emissions of various other substances. We can control our emissions.

Finally, no matter how difficult the changes to head off global climate change will be, dealing with a warming planet will be many, many times more difficult. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be.

[Nobunaga]

(Responding because my golf match got rained out)...

I see, so your entire premise is that its OK to ignore the science because admitting its real might be bad for business?

... Yeah - that was my point.

The problem is, if it is real, and yes, it is, it will be REALLY, REALLY, REALLY bad for not just business, but all of humanity.

... I see. I thanks for shedding some light on that point. I REALLY REALLY REALLY appreciate it.

Al Gore did one thing... used his political influence to put forward global warming. He gets some credit for that, but personally, I think he did as much harm as good by blurring the debate. He is NOT a scientist. At any rate, he is pretty much out of the picture now, so why keep bringing him up?

... Yet he keeps making speeches and getting coverage - is that really "out of the picture"? Anyway, he's now cashing in big time on a (con) job well done. ...

At any rate, ANY big change, issue is going to be politically ugly! I lived through much of the Vietnam era, definitely through the aftermath. Disagreement and debate are painful . Is that reason to ignore the subject?

... I'm sorry, was I ignoring the subject? I didn't think I was. My wife makes similar accusations. You guys should hang out.

The FACT is that Global climate change is happening. The debate should be over how to fix it, if we even CAN fix it, not the facts. But yeah.. plenty of people are getting rich over pretending that the Earth's climate isn't changing. People got wealth and power from many dastardly things in the past, too. And we now paint them as heinous villains. I hope there will be humanity left enough to paint the current set as villains, or better yet.. that maybe the good people will prevail.

... The FACT is, jelly beans mixed with peroxide can be used to make bombs. (not true at all, but see how easy it is to just say so?)

... Who's getting rich over realizing the truth... sorry, I mean, "pretending that the climate isn't changing"? Let me take a wild guess! Corporations and millionaire CEO's right?!

... I love how you refer to the tin foil hat types as the "good people". I get the feeling humanity will be laughing, not lauding.

And, the one thing that has to happen for science to matter over politics, for facts to have more say than opinion, is that people have to, once again believe that science actually works..that everything is not just a matter of debate and opinion.

... zzzzz ...zzzzz... Do you live in a closet? Separate the whole thing from the UN and massive taxation and I would be much more open to hearing what you just said...

Because, it doesn't matter if you are Republican, Democratic, Independent, Communist or a Purple spagghetti monster afficianado -- One molecule of Oxygen combines with 2 molecules of Hydrogen to make water; Water boils at a slightly lower temperature at higher altitudes, etc.. etc..

... First thing you've said that makes sense to me. Is it true that water spins in the reverse in the southern hemisphere when you flush the toilet?

... Yeah, I know it doesn't. Just making conversation.

...

[PLAYER57832]

Al Gore did one thing... used his political influence to put forward global warming. He gets some credit for that, but personally, I think he did as much harm as good by blurring the debate. He is NOT a scientist. At any rate, he is pretty much out of the picture now, so why keep bringing him up?

... Yet he keeps making speeches and getting coverage - is that really "out of the picture"? Anyway, he's now cashing in big time on a (con) job well done. ...

So do a lot of other people. Convenient to claim a non-scientist somehow has a lock on the idea of climate change.

At any rate, ANY big change, issue is going to be politically ugly! I lived through much of the Vietnam era, definitely through the aftermath. Disagreement and debate are painful . Is that reason to ignore the subject?

... I'm sorry, was I ignoring the subject? I didn't think I was. My wife makes similar accusations. You guys should hang out.

NIce try.

The fact that an issue is politically controversial doesn't mean that its OK to ignore the science. It means that LEADERS need to step forward and work harder at showing people why change is necessary.

BUT, today, too many leaders see it ONLY as political competition, and pretend its OK to pretend there is no such thing as science except when its convenient.

The FACT is that Global climate change is happening. The debate should be over how to fix it, if we even CAN fix it, not the facts. But yeah.. plenty of people are getting rich over pretending that the Earth's climate isn't changing. People got wealth and power from many dastardly things in the past, too. And we now paint them as heinous villains. I hope there will be humanity left enough to paint the current set as villains, or better yet.. that maybe the good people will prevail.

... The FACT is, jelly beans mixed with peroxide can be used to make bombs. (not true at all, but see how easy it is to just say so?)

Sorry, not science, not backed by science. Global warming is. You know this. So, yes, in this case you definitely are "avoiding the subject".

... Who's getting rich over realizing the truth... sorry, I mean, "pretending that the climate isn't changing"? Let me take a wild guess! Corporations and millionaire CEO's right?!

... I love how you refer to the tin foil hat types as the "good people". I get the feeling humanity will be laughing, not lauding.

Well, if you have anything other than insults to proffer...

but no, not just CEOs. The changes necessary to avert Global Climate change will impact everyone. However, people in power today benefit from keeping things going about as they are and have the most to lose from change.. so, yes, to some extent it is CEOs. The irony is that many CEOs actually are paying attention, behind closed doors.. but they are letting the US politicians play these games mostly because the politicians are themselves ensuring they are less and less significant.US politicians are be

And, the one thing that has to happen for science to matter over politics, for facts to have more say than opinion, is that people have to, once again believe that science actually works..that everything is not just a matter of debate and opinion.

... zzzzz ...zzzzz... Do you live in a closet? Separate the whole thing from the UN and massive taxation and I would be much more open to hearing what you just said...

I have.. and no, you have not. You have the issue conveniently narrowed to your terms, which you choose to debate.

In fact, the answers go a LOT further than mere taxation. But, rather than even getting to the point of discussing alternatives, you keep claiming climate science is garbage,etc,etc.

Because, it doesn't matter if you are Republican, Democratic, Independent, Communist or a Purple spagghetti monster afficianado -- One molecule of Oxygen combines with 2 molecules of Hydrogen to make water; Water boils at a slightly lower temperature at higher altitudes, etc.. etc..

... First thing you've said that makes sense to me. Is it true that water spins in the reverse in the southern hemisphere when you flush the toilet?

... Yeah, I know it doesn't. Just making conversation.

lol.. the Coriolis effect is real, but the shape of the bowl has more influence.

[DoomYoshi]

What I mean by conservatives is those who favor established or traditional concepts over new or radical concepts. Much of the opposition to Copernicus came from the scientific body (as NS rightly points out) who were arrogant in their assumptions that they had already established the correct model (geocentric model)

Even now, there is no reason to accept the Copernican model. Parsimony favors neither the Platonic or Copernican model as they are both circles, with other circles to explain the errors.

[thegreekdog]

Okay nobunaga, let me try a different tactic.

Why do you care about climate change science? In other words, how is your life affected if you can prove climate change is incorrect?

[AndyDufresne]

Okay nobunaga, let me try a different tactic.

Why do you care about climate change science? In other words, how is your life affected if you can prove climate change is incorrect?

Give me liberty, or give me death!!!!?!


--Andy

[Lootifer]

Screw liberty or death, GIVE ME CAKE!