Global warming' gets a rebranding.

i remember well he push to ban aerosols (in the 70's i believe) - because the ozone had holes, that would never heal, and we would all be dead under the glacier iof the new ice age - my duaghter in fact called me, terrified, over the movie 'day after tomorrow'.

it showed how science had proven the ice would extend from the north pole, all the way to the equator, because all the heat was leaking out thru those ozone holes.

well ........... the holes have closed (even tho the experts said it was impossible) - banning aerosols may well have helped.

i simply do not trust the self proclaimed, highly degreed experts. too many have phd's only because they can memorize things, and not because of any reasonable thought.

i do not believe the deniers of global warming, and i do not believe the promoters of it.

period.


i like this line in the article tho More than two years since Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan died in Congress, because it didnt really die - it was given a new name, a ton of money, and illegally granted power to the epa who suddenly has the authority to do exactly what the law would have done ......... and was denied to them, by the legislative branch ........

time will tell - just as it did with the new ice age

Del, You try telling the hard bitten warmegedisnests on Gather that you remember what was said in the 70s be it aerosols or what the scientists said about an Ice age and they scream at you that you are wrong it never was said.

The problem with experts is that they now use computers to get their information from and to put data that someone not them have collected, take the fact as to how they gather how the earth is warming. Someone goes along to a station somewhere in a town or a city opens the cover of the heat station that is next to an air condition unit that is pumping out hot air from an office reads the information then sends it to the so called expert who then puts that data into a computer model. It never crosses the mind of the expert where that information came from it’s from a weather station so it just has to be true, he or she has never gone out to those weather stations or they would see the mistake for themselves, the mistake being that it can’t be a true reading as hot air is fanning across the sensors from that air condition unit. No wonder our planet is warming when the official weather heat thermometers are next to these sorts of things. The so-called expert with his or her PhDs if they got of their backsides and went out into the field instead of sitting in a nice cool office somewhere waiting for the data to come in they would instantly see the flaw

Photographs of the polar ice show it's melting.

Just your biased perception Larry.

Dan,

I'm human so I am definitely biased about almost everything. But I am not so biased that I can't see that the extent of the ice in one photograph is more or less than the extent in another photograph of the same place. You'll have to find some other reason to disregard my comment. That one is not up to your usual standard.

No Larry,
It's your biased perception;

"Sea Ice News Volume 3, #2"
Posted on March 18, 2012 by Anthony Watts

In today’s report
Arctic Sea Ice on the rise again, presently in the range of normal levels
Antarctic Sea Ice is at slightly above normal levels.

Dan,

Don't you look at your own links? That link shows exactly what I said, reduced polar ice.

You will also notice that it's just for this year, not showing the trends over the last 50 or so years. As you well know, the variability of weather makes any one year or season inadequate as a test of whether global warming is occurring. (Otherwise I could point to our hot winter here in the eastern half of the U.S. :-) )

It does not matter how much ice there is now Larry, it’s just not relevant as way before we started to take photos or to keep records it’s been shown and proven that from official documentation such as ships logs from ships that have sailed in those areas two three hundred years ago that the ice had melted and then come back. We talk today as if the loss of ice is something new in those areas and it’s not, and I have to say a few people have been brainwashed by Green activists into thinking the ice loss is a big deal.

Graham,

Somehow I think it matters very much how much ice there is now. Somehow I have to believe that affects the climate as well as our weather.

You say that since there have been times when the ice was not there in the past then everything must be all right. Do you actually believe that? You might then reassure the people of northern Africa that the Sahara being dry is just a temporary thing of no concern since it was a lush, well watered place just a few thousands of years ago and will be that way again, no doubt.

Larry, it matters not a jot that I believe that the quantity of ice in Northern Pole was not there it’s an historic fact not something that I have pulled out of a magicians hat like a rabbit. At this moment in time, the ice is beginning to once more form just as it did many times before.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/warming-island-greenland-sea-regional-climate-and-arctic-sea-ice-reconstruction/

As for the Sahara, you may well find that it will once more become a lush paradise; we might not see it in our lifetime or even in our great grandchildren’s lifetime but it might be entirely possible as this scientific research shows.
http://www.livescience.com/10472-deserts-grow-tropics-expand.html

Now you may mock this but science and evolution of our planet shows us that its possible.

Graham,

What you believe matters little. The actual situation with regards the polar ice matters quite a lot.

Your own link shows charts and graphs indicating the polar ice (north pole in this case) is reduced quite a lot.

We have considerable reason to believe that the reduction is due to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since that CO2 will not go away quickly, the reduction in polar ice can be expected to continue.

Well yes I do look at my own links Larry,
I'm also aware of the extent you global warmists will go to deny what the links say.
Here's another;
"Longest Winter On Record In The Arctic?"

"It appears quite possible that the winter of 2011-2012 will be the longest winter on record in the Arctic. Freeze-up began during the first week in September, and probably won’t end until the last week in March. Nearly seven full months of increasing ice extent - almost a full month longer than normal."

"We have considerable reason to believe that the reduction is due to CO2 in the atmosphere."

Not likely Larry,

If that were true then the above mentioned extended winter could not be happening, the C02 concentrations have risen from 365 to 393 PPM in the last 15 years, according to the idea that C02 is responsible for the warming the warming should not have subsided like it has done for the last 15 years.

Dan,

It's the "longest winter" because the jet stream is keeping that cold air to the north rather than bringing it south for us to suffer. (Or didn't you notice the extremely warm winter season in the U.S.)

Larry,
Did you notice that the longest winter will grow the arctic ice to a greater "extent" this year?
And did you notice that;



The U.S. has been cooling for the last 15 years?

But the climate does change Larry, always has and always will!

Dan,

The lower 48 states is not the whole world. Check out the world average over those same 15 years.

Single years and seasons do not climate make. (Or something like that.) Try taking a longer term view.

Neat picture, though, Dan. Looks like the Nautilus.

Larry,
My chart counters your "warm winter" claim.
Try as you may, you can not divert away from the fact that at almost every turn my argument shows that your "perception" is wrong.
You are like a politician when you are proven wrong you say "Don't look here.....Look yonder" LOL!

Your own link shows charts and graphs indicating the polar ice (north pole in this case) is reduced quite a lot.

I haven’t said that the ice in the North hasn't lost ice it clearly has, what I am saying and what has been proved historically that this has happened before and has come back in fact quite a few times. And quite clearly now it’s started to once more get back to normal just like it has done in the past.

We have considerable reason to believe that the reduction is due to CO2 in the atmosphere.

What pray then was the reason when the reduction of the ice happened hundreds of years ago?

Graham,

There are many factors besides CO2 that affect climate. There are even many sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the only way you can recognize things which influence the climate is if they are the only factor and there's no time delay in their effects you will not recognize much of anything relevant.

Larry,
Don't look here...Look yonder! LOL!
If there are many others factors driving climate change then why are your fellow global warmists so concentrated on C02?

I will answer that Dan. CO2 is the big bad wolf that the warmegedisnests can hit us with in their quest against oil and make no mistake about it OIL is there quest in life the demise of it along with every fossil fuel known to man and they will not rest until they see their mission complete.

Dan,

Because CO2 is a significant influence.

All greenhouse gasses are of concern, not just CO2. (Methane is a big threat, for example.)

We are concerned with these factors because we can as a species do something about them. We can't really control how hot the sun is for example.

Graham,

Who cares about fossil fuel if it does no harm? Please explain what would be considered insanity if fossil fuels use were harmless.

"Because CO2 is a significant influence"

How so Larry?
We have seen C02 atmospheric concentrations increase significantly in the last 15 years and the planet has not warmed much at all.

Where's the significance?
And if all of the 800+ gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere has not driven the planets temperature (much) higher in the last 15 years then how is it that restricting human production by a fraction is going to effect the climate?

Dan,

How fast do you think such things are? We have seen CO2 in the atmosphere increase for longer than 15 years and yes, the planet has warmed some.

The significance? You might try those decreases in polar ice. You might consider the adicification of the oceans and the effects on coral. There are lots of effects.

Which fraction did you have in mind. 1/100, 99/100, something in between?

Larry,
If the real answer is 'I don't know" then at least be honest enough to say so.
But you dodge and weave trying to evade answering simple questions thinking that clever answers will suffice.
You are no different than most all of the Global Warmists here on Gather...You don't know...You believe!

Dan,
If you merely want to discuss my approach to the issue rather than the issue I suggest we not bother. How I comment is a boring topic to other people.

If you have no evidence or reasoning to offer there's no point in continuing the thread.

Larry,
Well that is what you do when the discussion gets to the point where your "belief" is sufficiently challenged with facts, this isn't the first time you've used this tactic so you can bail out of a discussion.

This is how bad CO2 is for us Larry.


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981213956

On the other hand, is it this bad?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979940273

On the other hand, maybe it’s this bad

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981028155

Graham,

CO2, in proper balance, is good for us. Too much or too little is bad for us.
The same is true for water. Only an idiot would say that CO2 is a bad thing.

A rapid change (as these things go) in almost any of the components of our atmosphere will be difficult for us at best and disastrous at worst.

Water covers most of the earth. What the activists want you to believe is that warming is the product of CO2 levels. What the data, in the geological records shows is that ocean outgassing in response to temperature rises ups the level, then plant growth reduces it, creating oxygen for eons past, not the reverse. The CO2 doesn't raise the temperature as they propose. I believe that, and even those in the IPCC were unable to prove otherwise without "fixing" the reports to a data set they manipulated. Sorry, but biomass and eons of core samples prove it! Track the trend versus CO2 and temperature always goes first, that's why they couldn't account for the cooling with their model. It is wrong, so they just fudged it to get the desired result.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977941919

See my support of this at the above post. The ONLY thing man can do is stop deforesting the planet!!! Are they going to do that??? The thing they MUST do? NO, where is the money in that?

Char,

Only the ignorant think that CO2 is the only greenhouse gas. The climate scientists are not that ignorant. But CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas. A substantial increase in CO2 in the atmosphere does have direct consequences including global warming. That's a fact like it or not.

That's right Char follow the money every time, of course the warmegedisnests will point everyone in in the path of the oil giants giving piddling little sums of money to keep their industry going, I say piddling sums of money as pales in comparison to the vast amount of money given to Warmageddonist organisations to keep alive the notion that CO2 is the real integrator of climate change $65 billion the last time I looked in your country, and £1.5 billon in a three year spending spree in my country. However, as you say do something useful for the planet and they will tell you to be stuffed quite nicely of course, unless the person telling you is a member of Gather then all the insults on earth will come your way. :-)

Larry switched to other subjects, rather than confront the fact that CO2 is a necessary part of rebuilding oxygen. There are numerous studies that prove the growth rate, and recuperation of the earth also speeds up with higher CO2 levels, so oops, let's talk about acid rain. OK! Now you are talking pollution, different subject. But back to our effects, what about the deforestation? Sigh.... I wish I thought it was really about the planet, but ancient forests are almost all gone...

Yes Char that is one of Larry's tactic's,
When you effectively challenge him on one subject he dodges and diverts to another subject.

Y'all might try actually reading my comments above. Or would that spoil the fun?

LOL!
We all do read your posts Larry.

One could not tell that by your comments, Dan.

I did feel you changed what I said to discuss another tack Larry. The rise in warming's main origin was what I was disputing. Not the "other" factors. I also discussed the best way to limit the rise, since it was to come, in spite of what man contributes. That is by encouraging green things! They will help with the reversal of the natural effects of the higher temperature cycle... How about you respond to what I actually said. Or dispute the premise of it?

Char,

The main origin of the earth's warming is the sunshine that falls on the earth. We both agree on that. No one is saying that CO2 is the only factor nor that it is the main greenhouse gas. (I would imagine that water is the main greenhouse gas what with the influence of clouds on the weather.) But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does have some influence (much smaller influence than water for example) and it has increased in the atmosphere substantially over the last hundred or so years. We are also producing other greenhouse gasses such as methane. We are changing the balance of the atmosphere. We don't have to change that balance very much for it to have a noticeable effect on the climate. This is apparent from the climatic changes that have afflicted mankind in recorded history which were not a result of human activities.

I think your approach of encouraging green things (plants like trees) is an excellent idea. Increased CO2 also helps plants to grow more quickly.

Did my comment here address what you actually said this time?

Well Graham,
What can you expect, even the environment is not cooperating with the Global warmists. but what we can expect is that when we ever have 'weather related' patterns that seem to support the global warmists ideals we will hear from them loudly!

It must be my age Dan but I find myself having very little patience with these people who think they know about climate change. They would be well advised to take a little peek into how weather patterns work and how a high weather pressure can give you warm and sunny days sometimes hanging about for months on end especially if that high pressure is coming from the South . However, you see Dan when a weather pattern comes into play like the one you are seeing in parts of your country it all fits nicely into the silly scheme of things and it’s just got to be global warming. A very misinformed bunch of TOSSERS

My thoughts on this subject is one of economic growth - blowing out candles stuff - stop the smog, dust and grime and get on with a clear view ahead. Sounds good on paper, though in reality another matter. Some stories go too far..for a decade ago it was the Ozon layer..before that it was something else. All keeping the people in power busy with stuff that removes whatever it is over vast amounts of time. Economics..money making the world go pear shape :-) In the next decade it will be something else..it keeps them busy. It doesn't get anyone anywhere but just goes round in circles..just like the planet..round and round it goes..no-one does anything with it..

Thanks for sharing and submitting to
The Surreal Circus.

"The Warmegedisnests and doomotoligests who walk amongst us have changed tack like snakes in the grass that slither here and there hissing their lies they are now beginning to talk about rebranding global warming. Like the snakes they are they are now saying Shhhh! don’t talk about global warming! Let’s talk about rising gas prices and people mainly our children chocking on polluted air"

Well heck. As per usual, I'm out of the loop. I didn't get the call from the grand climate change fear monger pooba. That's the thanks I get for having been on this band wagon since the 1970s.

If climate change has become a religion of dogma ruled devotees, there is a way to blow this religion to kingdom come. It surprises me that those who would like to blow this religion to kingdom come never seem to hit upon the obvious way to get er done, which is to call your elected representatives and request that NASA fund such programs as CLARREO. You're just positive that those climate models are nothing but fiddling with the knobs to get the desired predictions? Then lets make the measurements of earth's energy budget that would enable us to lean less heavily upon climate models.

The one thing I am an expert on is my motive for having been on the global warming band wagon since the 1970s. My motive has been for people to face up to this concern about greenhouse gases like grownups. Where I got this notion is not from Al Gore. Not from Karl Marx. Not out of hate for America. I got this notion from the conservative folks who raised me.

It kind of burns me up that we've had to slither around on our bellies for 40 years trying every tactic in the book and then some of begging and pleading with people to please take this seriously and by all means, please do blow the concern out of the water. Honestly.

If climate change is a hoax, here are some excellent programs that could make that clear:

http://climate.nasa.gov/NasaRole/

We who’re on the global warming bandwagon probably most frequently get accused of being believers. A believer, see, is impervious to evidence. A believer will filter reality so as to validate the belief. Course that never happens on the right. No. Being human, I can’t entirely dismiss that charge. I don’t think I’m overlooking things in service of my attitudes, but then again, being human, I’d naturally have some pretty clever ways of keeping that information from myself.

If it’s possible that I’m deluding myself as a believer that greenhouse gas emissions pose a credible substantial risk to the well being of future generations, at least be honest enough to consider that our deniers might also have some tricks up their sleeves too.

How do we know a denier when we see one? Here’s the so far infallible indicator I’ve found: A denier never produces anything but doubt. I mean, yes, doubt is essential to science, but science is also about clarity. One thing you absolutely never get from a denier is enhanced clarity on the subject of climate and the role of human releases of greenhouse gases within it. A denier will finds reasons to doubt and then he’s done. Why go any further? Nobody knows anything for sure and so therefore nobody is responsible is anything. Mission accomplished.

Let’s assume for a moment that our deniers are right and every major scientific body around the globe has become corrupted by this evil new dogma of global warming / climate change / or however these evil dudes want to brand it today. I mean these people really are a public menace. Not only have these people corrupted science on which we depend for our lives in today’s world, they’re causing immense harm through robbing humanity of low cost energy resources. Coal fired power plants that we need to create jobs aren’t getting built. Why, these evil snakes in the grass even stopped a coal-fired power plant from being built right here in God’s country, Utah, back in ’08. Not even a bastion of conservatism such as Utah is safe these days. It’s no longer enough to merely foment doubt about these evil people. Bogus bad science must be met with genuine credible science. Unfortunately, NASA, as we know, is part of the conspiracy. Wait a minute though. We’re free market capitalists, right? What’s to stop us from getting together a consortium of private interests, contracting with private companies to build an earth observatory, and contracting with a private company to launch it? One thing above all else we conservatives know how to do is to hire trustworthy competent people whose findings we can take seriously. Enough of this bogus science. We conservatives, we can do conservatives, who are all about facing the honest facts, will get honest credible trustworthy science done, bring some much needed clarity to the subject of climate and greenhouse gases, stimulate our economy, enhance our own credibility, and finally at long last discredit once and for all an evil maladaptive ideology that has been harming America since the 1970s. Seems to me that’d be well worth the expense and probably cost less and do more good in electing conservatives into office than the campaign donations from a single modest sized global oil company. Huh? Are you with me?

Hi Charles,
Quiet a lengthy (albeit broken up) diatribe. First off since you are an admitted Global Warmist I'll ask you what your though is concerning the fact that for the last 15 years we have been adding gigatons of additional C02 every year to the atmosphere and for the most part the previous warming has not returned.
And if you dispute what I have posted....Facts please.

"I got this notion from the conservative folks who raised me."

And what did those who raised you rely on to verify that "greenhouse gases" were actually a problem?
Again....Facts please.

Why would he bother, Danny? You've been spoon-fed data by the trainload, only to dismiss it as false. You (and Graham) don't understand how CO2 increase affects climate, so you dismiss that. None of you deniers has any ability to evaluate climate change data on its face, so you dismiss all of it. So why show it all to you again, and have it dismissed again?

Here's a fact or two for you. First, (as several of us have pointed out before), "Climate Change" is what climate scientists have always studied. Global Warming and Global Cooling are both subsets of Climate Change. It was the press, not the scientists, who began touting "Global Warming." Next, CO2 is, always has been and always will be, a primary "greenhouse gas." It doesn't take a lot of it entering or exiting the atmosphere to cause climate change in one direction or another. And humans definitely do chug enough of it into the atmosphere to effect change... in the warm direction. Finally, the fact that you, personally, haven't the knowledge, education or intelligence (any one or all three) to understand something,doesn't make it wrong. Dismissing and ridiculing facts in evidence simply because you don't understand them is the height of foolishness.

No, you don't get another dose of facts. You've had them all already, and you get no more until you demonstrate a basic understanding of the ones you have. Of course, should that ever happen, more facts (of which there are none, anyway) won't be necessary.

Let's just cut to the chase on any discussion on climate change. I am an idiot. All I ask is that the concern be retired honestly or faced up to.

Climatologist Chuckles,
You continue with the Global Warmist habit of claiming that proof has been offered when in fact what evidence that has been offered has been shown to be lacking by more recent research.
You global warmists learned long ago that the evidence available was not strong enough to survive scrutiny....so you decided that claiming the science settled and consensus was your best course to take.
And as a matter of fact the only example of empirical evidence available to us...The fact that the planet has NOT continued its previously alarming rate of warming despite our adding gigatons more C02 to the atmosphere every year....Certainly does not lend itself to supporting your contention that we humans and our C02 output are to blame for global warming.
But you go ahead and keep believing that you are the smartest man on Gather! LOL!

Dan E: "...in fact what evidence that has been offered has been shown to be lacking by more recent research."

A-au-u-u-ugh! Ya got me! Great shot Danny! Right thru the heart of my argument! As Mercutio said to Romeo, "I am hurt..." Oh, wait... no I'm not. Missed me entirely. That "...been shown to be lacking by more recent research" part? Utter BS. Total nonsense. And it's untrue. Sorry Danny, but thanx for playing anyway. Try again some day... but leave the obdurate ignorance at home.

But of course you, climate scientist Chuckles, have posted tons O that empirical evidence haven't you?

No! Oh that's right you are a clever Progressive who is the smartest man on Gather! I almost forgot! LOL!

How might this concern be retired honestly.

First, please have the presence of mind and humility to accept the possibility that your amatuer analysis might not be the final word on it. I mean you're probably right on the money with it, but could you humor me and allow an expert analysis on the subject. This is not to suggest that you're not well educated, intelligent, and competent in your field, but seeing as the future of humanity is at stake, let's get this done right. It's the conservative thing to do.

"I got this notion from the conservative folks who raised me."

And what did those who raised you rely on to verify that "greenhouse gases" were actually a problem?
Again....Facts please.

What I got from my conservative relatives is that there's no shame in needing an expert opinion on an important matter especially as it relates to a high value asset. I'd say the earth's capacity to support human activity is a high value asset, wouldn't you agree?

From my perspective, seems to me the IPCC is credible, but conservatives don't seem to think so. But here's a thing that baffles me. Conservative narrative: the IPCC is not credible. Case closed.

Huh? Presumably, if you're not merely in denial mode, you'd go beyond that to oh say something like the IPCC is not credible but that in no way diminishes the need for a a thorough study of this matter by competent trustworthy people whose findings we can take seriously. And hence, we conservatives propose A, B, C to get this done. Why do we never see anything like that response to it?

"that your amatuer analysis might not be the final word on it."

Charles,
I am not even a scientists so I rely on experts who are who have analyzed the data and performed the research who are experts.

"Conservative narrative: the IPCC is not credible. Case closed."

"Empirical Data Vs. Predictions"

The above is a list of predictions that the global warmist community made which never came to fruition.. and within that list you will find analysis that shows that nearly every prediction made by the IPCC has also failed to materialize.
The reason the IPCC is not credible is because their science is faulty.

Good point. To us conservatives, results matter.

That being the case, where is the better climate model? Right wing narrative: climate models, shmimate models. These climate models are bogus. Anybody can fiddle with the parameters of a model to get whatever result they want.

True enough. So therefore, give us a better climate model that more accurately models earth's climate and that indicates that increasing CO2 by 30% has no significant influence on climate.

I mean yes, a phony climate model is misleading. But, presumably, a genuine real authentic honest competent climate model would be a thing of great value. We'd be able to run this experiment on the climate model instead of on our one and only home. Presumably, mathematical models can be useful when used honestly and competently. Otherwise, why would oil companies use them to predict where to drill?

So where is the better climate model. The day that our deniers come up with a better climate model is the day they are about anything but obfuscation.

Or, better yet. Let's fund the earth observatories and make direct measurements of earth's energy budget.

Dan E: " Charles,
I am not even a scientists so I rely on experts who are who have analyzed the data and performed the research who are experts."

You do no such thing, Danny! You rely on non-experts who are paid by the energy industry to tell you they are experts and to lie to you about what the data says. Actual experts in the field you reject out of hand.

Well chuckles,
As always it takes more than just your claim to make something true....Damn if only you has some proof! LOL!

Charles,
Models, Some are suggesting that considering the enormous complexity of the environment that we may not be able to develop an accurate model.

Suppose it were a matter of oh say winning WWII. I bet it'd get done and it'd get done right.

@Dan E: I've seen the names and fields of "study" you've shown for your experts. Those names are my proof.

You mean people like Roy Spencer?

Clever has never been a good argument Chuckles.

"Suppose it were a matter of oh say winning WWII"

Charles,
Reality wins out over wishing every time!

My point is whether some is impossible has a lot to do with the motivation. Today's right wing seems to have quite a long list of things that are impossilbe. Competent climate science is impossible. Building a useful climate model is impossible. Economical renewable energy is impossible.

One thing is for for sure. Once you get started on something, it instantly gets a whole lot less impossible.

That used to be what conservativism was all about.

Oh and add to the list of impossible things developing and putting into practice an environmental ethic.

Which really is unfortunate, because conservatism was made for such a task. It's maddening to see conservatism so badly wasted by today's right wing.

But the climate does change Larry, always has and always will!

That's like saying lions are dangerous, always have been and always will be.

True enough. But would you go poke one with a big stick?

What would have us do then Charles?

We have seen human efforts to reduce C02 fail miserably as it takes it's toll on those members of society who can least afford it.

We see the last 15 years of almost no additional warming as we continue to add greater and greater amounts of C02 to the atmosphere, and the Global Warmists suggest that by cutting human out put by but a fraction that it will save the planet.

Oh, well said Danny! Well said! Um-m-m-m... except for the part about "...the last 15 years of no additional warming as we continue to add..." That part is simply completely false. But other than that... well said.

Linky to climate scientist's blog.

'Nother linky to Professor's earlier blog that better demonstrates the stupidity of short term cherry-picked data in the statistical analysis of global warming.

"Linky to climate scientist's blog."

"About the Carbon Brief"
"Our writers

Editor Christian Hunt has previously worked as a web editor for Greenpeace and as a researcher for the Public Interest Research Centre. He has a degree in Mathematics and Philosophy from the University of York and an MA in Conflict Resolution.

Robin Webster studied biology at Bristol University and has an MSc in Conservation from University College London (UCL). She worked as a campaigner for Friends of the Earth for six and half years, including as a Senior Campaigner on Climate and Energy. She has also worked as a freelance environmental researcher.

Dr Verity Payne has a PhD from the University of Leeds. She researched how trace elements become incorporated into microfossil shells, and how this affects using geochemical proxies to reconstruct ancient environments.

Ros Donald is a journalist who, prior to joining Carbon Brief, covered competition law and economics. She has a BA in French and Spanish from Cardiff University and an MA in International Studies and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies, where she specialised in global energy and climate policy.

Which one is the climate scientist Chuckles?

Dan, Is Greenpeace the same Greenpeace that have infiltrated the IPCC and whose Chairman is a fully paid up member of that organisation and help write the papers that we are told are true evaluations of climate change? I know its true they are Dan I just thought I would be a bit sarcastic and to show my contempt for that organisation. I would rather believe that a money tree grows down the bottom of my garden watered each night by the little fairy's that live in the toadstools just behind it than believe a single word that comes out of that biased and corrupt organisation. Moreover, I can’t believe that any sane person with an ounce of intelligence can either not when the evidence is out there and has been shown many times.

You got it Graham.

"We have seen human efforts to reduce C02 fail miserably as it takes it's toll on those members of society who can least afford it."

True. But it misses the point.

It's a popular view here in Mormon country that comes up whenever one of the rare few Mormon environmentalists try to frame this as a classical ethical question of short term greed vs long term morality. Greed represents the short term. Morality represents the long term.

Apologists for carbon energy come back with well, it'd be immoral to deprive people of low cost energy. True. But it misses the point. Thing is, the short term already is well represented in today's world. It's the long term that is getting the short shrift here.

Right wingers tend to see things in terms of war, in this case a war between God, country, Constitution, liberty freedom loving Americans and job killing socialist yearning environmentalists. No.

Environmentalists aren't or shouldn't be about killing greed as though we're at war with it. What we're about is bringing the long term to the table. Not to kill the short term but to keep the short term from killing itself, which unchecked it absolutely will do.

Environmentalists are about low cost energy. Think of a climate scientist as an accountant. The accountant is not your enenemy in seeking to convey to you the true costs of your energy. Your accountant will help you to find the genuinely lowest cost energy.

Wow! Charles what an ideological statement.

"it'd be immoral to deprive people of low cost energy. True. But it misses the point. Thing is, the short term already is well represented in today's world. It's the long term that is getting the short shrift here."

Fact is, is that you in a more sophisticated manner are saying that if we don't follow the global warmists alarmists suggestions that we are all gonna die!

You and yours...The global warmists, have NOT provided enough proof that human produced C02 is the cause of our planet's warming.

As a matter of fact a whole lot of the facts that have been discovered in recent years deny the theory of man caused global warming. And the only empirical evidence that we have corroborates that doubt in man caused global warming.

Dan I opened my computer today and went onto one of our British newspapers to see these headlines. Is this finally proof we are NOT causing global warming?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html

Now I know what the usual bunch warmegedisnests will say about it, it will be its only paper talk and it has no place in the discussion, and that will be one of the more polite references to it. However, it will be quite interesting when the actual scientific paper comes out. If it is true, what they have found I just wonder how they will wheedle their way out of this one

Thanks Graham,
There has been a lot of research in the past few years that put the Medieval warming beyond Europe, but I think this is the first that drives it so far.

"Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up. It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'. A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe. In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions."

Encouraging findings. What a responsible person will do with encouraging findings is weigh them with other findings. What a denier will do with encouraging findings is declare it case closed.

I think I am right in saying that it was the warmists a couple of years ago that were saying case closed Charles and other people were saying hang on a moment science never stands still so how can the case be closed.

Therefore, it all goes back to what I have been saying for quite some time now the real deniers in society are what I call warmegedisnests and doomotoligests

Sorry Charles,
But the Global Warmists declared the debate over long ago...and then the science and research started coming in that caused some to question the theory of man caused global warming.
So you're trying to turn the tables is ineffective.

Genuine conservatism could the world a huge favor in developing and putting into practice an environmental ethic.

We see the last 15 years of almost no additional warming as we continue to add greater and greater amounts of C02 to the atmosphere, and the Global Warmists suggest that by cutting human out put by but a fraction that it will save the planet.

I do confess to a change of tactics on arguments like this. In the past, I would have tried to argue in terms of evidence and scientific principle. I mean I do have some credentials as an electrical engineer to speak to the complexity of the case.

See there. The climate hysterians have changed tactics. They won't even speak to the evidence anymore.

Well yes, there is a grain of truth to that on my part. In my case it's just that I have embroiled in this debate since the 1970s. I have heard every amaturish take on it from every angle a hundred times at least. And so I have changed tack on it.

Show me, I say. Show me a better more accurate climate model than what the evil James Hansen has produced. Better yet, show the better earth observatory that you propose.

For the first oh maybe 20 years since then I took the deniers at their word. They were simply about the evidence and science. It's beginning to dawn on me there can't be enough planets of evidence from enough independent sources to ever phase our deniers. You might as well have waited for slave owners to have been presented enough evidence that slavery was not consistent with the ideals on which this country was founded.

These climate models are they the same ones that data is put in by climate scientists that never go out in the field to do proper research and rely on data collected across countries by minions who collect some of the data from weather stations that measure temperature's that are situated next to air condition units, that are blowing hot air taken from offices so that the office workers can have nice cool offices, airport runways where large modern jet engines spew out hot air that waft over the thermometers as they get ready to take off or even land, or large poop plants that take human waste and clean it and give of large amounts of heat as the waste lies in large open vats. Yes, no wonder those models tell everyone that the planet is warming up I would be a bit warm standing next to a jet engine for a few seconds or a few minutes in fact I think I am right in saying that would pass out, but hey those models have to be right don't they.

Ah now we get to the nittyand gritty of things. So far, you have not shown one ounce of evidence of what you believe in but have the nerve to call me arrogant stupid a trait that we all see with you warmegedisnests and doomotoligests whenever we show as we have done that they have been so silly as to be taken in by the biggest fraud in world history. I have to laugh at how you warmegedisnests call the saner of us in this world deniers as without a doubt the biggest deniers are the ones who cannot see how they have been conned into believing that CO2 is the main instigator of warming without a shred of actual evidence when all it is as I have shown many times not only on this post but on others a harmless trace gas that we would all be dead without.

However as I have said before and will continue to say about you activist warmegedisnests, it’s not about the climate that's just a side line that is convenient for your activity’s into the demise of fossil fuel with oil as the biggest demon in your religion. I am afraid far from being friends of the earth and having our planets best interest at heart you would give the chance take everything away to take us back into the dark ages.

Thanks for commenting on my post but unless you can show evidence with links I think this conversation is over

Well Dangels - perhaps we could be a tad grownup here and not employ childish demeaning to both of us monikkers such as Chuckles and Dangels but if not just remember he started it - seeing as the climate discussion is going so well, I might mention a related topic.

Conservatism. Why have the wheels come off?

How in the sam hill did conservatism turn into the opposite of itself? How did it become an engine of obstructing one of its central principles, the value to society and antidote to tyrrany of every brand within society of ethics. How did it forget one of its most important mandates, which is to preserve the value of our most valuable assets?

Imagine a genuine conservatism in America? What might it look like?

Well, for starters right out of the shoot, it'd be on the forefront of funding climate science and in taking the findings seriously.

Instead of being in the businss of obstructing the continued development that is essential to keeping capitalism alive, such as in developing and putting practice an environmental ethic, it'd be on the forefront of that task.

I'm not out to attack conservatism. I'm out to advocate that it get a fair trial, which today's right wing is devouring like maggots on a carcass.

Such a missed opportunity for Republicans that I weep for them. Imagine a history of the Republican Party that could be:

Here was your go to Party that set a standard for how repsonsible ethical people can rise to a challenge.

No? Here was the Party of people who lacked the brains and the guts to take responsibility for their own actions? That's how you want the history books to read?

The history books will read,
Conservatives, smarter than the dupes who fell for the lies the Al Gores of the world were spewing.

I think this conversation is over

That's what they said back in the 1970s.

Guess what? It's not going away until you face up to it like a grownup>

No Charles the Global warmists said the conversation was over in the 1990s,
But since then (1998) the planet has hardly warmed at all.

but have the nerve to call me arrogant stupid

I never said that. Well, okay, I did. But I quickly deleted it.

I apologize.

I remember vividly bringing this topic up to a relative back in the 1970s and his response was to attack me. That so surprised me both in the hostility and the unwillingness to consider the case for its. Here is person who is your face facts conservative who respects science. Why the departure on this one case?

And I have been wondering that every since. Why the irrationality on this one topic when it is so incongruous with everything else that this person is about?

Obviously, there's more than rationality at work here. Which is why the topic is so interesting.

And, by the way, I'm not ducking out on the evidence. I'm glad to see new evidence on this. It's just that I realize that, for many people, evidence isn't the issue.

Apology accepted Charles.

I think that we make for too much of an issue on climate change. Three years ago, I actually did not know much about it all I saw was something called Global warming and a rather large augment going back and forth, much as it as it still is. The more I looked into it considering all aspects at my leisure and saw how quite a few people actually attacked quite forcibly me when I came out and said, hang on something is not quite right with what you are saying there are far more aspects at work than greenhouse gasses that are changing our climate, our Star for one, El Nino La Nina, and more recently clouds. The more I said these things the more I was ridiculed along with one or two more on this site. I then began to notice other things that were not quite right such as the IPCC and the more I delved into that organisation I saw that it was run by active members of Greenpeace and anyone in that organisation that disagreed with what the IPCC was saying remember that its chairpersons both are active members of Greenpeace were marginalised and ridiculed for speaking out.

Then I began to notice something rather odd in the world especially in your country and mine I am British by the way, I saw that both our governments were spending an absolute fortune $65 billion in your country and £1.5 billion in my country the £1.5 billion was in a three year spending spree when my country the UK was in dire financial straits and much of that money was being spent on wind farms that don't work in the winter months when we actually need them the most, and on Sola that to be quite honest in Britain when we have short dark winter days that we have they don't work properly either.

And all this money was being spent because an official body that was been run by Greenpeace activists were telling any government that would listen and listen they did that the warming that we saw before the turn of this century was all down to CO2. Hardly anything else was said about the more dangerous greenhouse gasses that we have the big bad wolf was CO2 and hardly anything else was to blame.

Now I asked myself a question, what was the reason why Greenpeace and other organisations like Greenpeace had infiltrated a government body such as the IPCC, and I have to say the answer was staring me right in the face every time I logged on to Gather. There are certain members on Gather who don't just hate oil and fossil fuel they absolutely loath it to such an extent that they would in all honesty rather see your country and mine go down bank at a steady rate of knots as long as all oil and fossil fuel was vanquished just like their hero's in the IPCC who would like us all to turn the clock back a few hundred years. In fact, I would be very surprised if quite a few of them actively contribute and are fully paid up members of these sorts of organisations

It took quite some time for them to show their true colures but over time they did. I am afraid when people like Dan and John and myself ask these sort of people to show their evidence they flounder and then come out with the insults it happens time and time again, if you go on any on posts on climate change that Dan has commented on you will see him ask time and time again for the evidence and you will see time and time again Dan being ridiculed and insulted but what you won’t see is any scientific evidence to back up the claims that they have.

I have to laugh sometimes. Our face facts conservatives here in Cache Valley Utah can stare right into air pollution that you could cut with a knife and say "where's your evidence?" You show them the figures and there're always reasons why those particular figures aren't trustworthy. The power of these people to deny what is right in front of their face is just astonishing. Compared to that, what is a mere melting of the polar ice caps? What is a mere contraction of glaciers around the world? What is mere increasing acidity of oceans? Come on. Challenge them a bit. It's all too easy.

And I realize that you could show these people any number of planets of evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are putting major assets their own offspring depend upon into peril and it absolutely would not phase them in the slightest. These people have something that way trumps evidence.

Well then Charles,
Fight the pollution...C02 is NOT pollution.

I wrote a post the other week about what eras we would wish to go back to if it was possible, the era I missed out going back to was actually not far away from this era it was the 1930-1960 and the place would have been the city where I grew up in a place that was so industrialised making pottery that our mothers who washed our clothes and put them outside on the washing line to dry as in them days we in Britain did not have electrical drying machines most washing days had to take that washing in and do it again because of the pollution dirt from the coal fired pot banks that fired the ware so that the civilized world could drink and eat from fine china pottery. Men including my father died who worked in that pottery industry died from that pollution in there thousands, now that's pollution on a grand scale.

In Stoke on Trent where I grew up every day, even Sundays you could not walk down the street without specks of black dust falling on your clothes and many warm hot summer days were spoiled by the smog that would not shift, and that happened as well in many other industalized cities throughout the UK such as Sheffield that made knives and forks, Birmingham and London that were the centre of our car industry.

The pollution that we have now is nothing compared to what we had in those days, cleaner ways were found for firing pottery and all the other ware that we made, cars today are run on lead free petrol (gas in your country) they are fitted with better systems to clean the fumes that come out when we drive, we can once more breathe the air that we were meant to breath. As Dan says if you have pollution were you live then fight that pollution as we did in our country legislate for it but for goodness sake do not blame CO2 that is a minuscule trace gas.

The irony of this among our Tea Partiers who hate everything government is that they drive the very government they despise.

Cache Valley, Utah, is a good case in point. The EPA has been on our case for years that we've been out of attainment of air quality standards. It's the same folks who like to assert that its their Constitutional right to pollute as much as they feel like who aint gonna take no gumment telling them what to do who are bringing the EPA down on our heads here.

And these people have the nerve to consider themselves conservative.

These people have one half of conservatism, the part about less government and lower taxes. They've banished the other half of conservatism, which is how to achieve less government and lower taxes through ethics and taking personal responsibilty.

Conservatism minus the ethics is not conservatism. Conservatism minus the ethics is adolescence.

There's America's right wing of today in a nut shell. A bunch of overgrown adolesents.

I see no rational argument here, Charles. None. I see a man ridiculing people for not believing some computer modelers at the UN are infallible gods. A worshiper of the authority with the biggest megaphone, telling everyone that there is no way the authority with the biggest megaphone can be wrong, or corrupt. Kid stuff to me.

PS,

". . the other half of conservatism, which is how to achieve less government and lower taxes through ethics and taking personal responsibilty."

Sure, and that means you check out what is being claimed, not that you obey some authority or other without question. That's my responsibility, as I see it, and I accepted it. I checked it out, and though I expected to see some very convincing evidence, I found instead that some computer modeler's (the "climategate" crew) forecasts were being hyped into a pretend "consensus" of thousands of scientists. And that this in turn was being accepted by some other scientists, who ought to have known better, I feel.

If you wish to discuss the science, have at, but just giving opinions about the people you think are for or against handing over vast wealth and power to the UN, because they say so? Nah, the just ain't being responsible to me. You ought to take responsibility too, I say, and check it out for yourself.

But can you see the polar ice caps of your one and only home disappearing? That's what I wonder.

No, I am a human being, not an all knowing God . . so I can't see that, I can only imagine it. How 'bout you imagine them not disappearing? Not really very significant, is it? ; )

What a nice set up for you. You get all the benefits of carbon energy. God takes the responsibility for the consequences.

I pay . . and that has nothing at all to do with falling for a scam, being the responsible thing to do. I conclude this is a scam, after I checked it out rather thoroughly, myself. You telling me that going along with what I see as a horrible solution to an imaginary problem, is the responsible thing to do, ain't exactly what I'd call a slam-dunk, sir ; )

Perhaps you’re right. So what if the polar ice caps melt? Why get all exercised about some ice. It’s not like there’s a theme park there or something that might be impacted. Or, if there is, I don’t own any stock in it. Big deal.

And anyway. Polar ice caps are God's department. Has nothing to do with me. I'm not responsible.

Course, on the other hand, how many millions of people and how much of the world’s economy is located on the world’s coastlines?

The impact of the polar ice caps melting entirely would be what? Oh maybe Katrina times 10,000 or so?

You know? Maybe those solar panels aren’t so pricey after all. Especially seeing as they attract women.

That's my responsibility, as I see it, and I accepted it. I checked it out, and though I expected to see some very convincing evidence, I found instead that some computer modeler's (the "climategate" crew) forecasts were being hyped into a pretend "consensus" of thousands of scientists. And that this in turn was being accepted by some other scientists, who ought to have known better, I feel.

And. And. And so the next step is let's get organized toward doing better. Enough of these dishonest incompetent uses of mathematical models. Course, as we know, a mathematical model is an obedient servant. It can be used to deceive, or designed responsibly, competently, and honestly, it can be a powerful tool.

And that's why we conservatives are all over the task of seeing to it that this gets done. Right? Dang right I'm right.

Because we are can do conservatives who are all about honest facing up to the honest facts. Right? Dang right I'm right.

So Charles,
Now all you have to do is prove that the icecaps are melting because of human produced C02.

"The impact of the polar ice caps melting entirely would be what? Oh maybe Katrina times 10,000 or so?"

Wow,
Charles your just full of suppositions, postulations and what ifs...Got any FACTS?

Think of a climate scientist as an accountant. Your accountant is not your enemy. Through revealing otherwise hidden costs to your energy, your accountant will help you to develop the genuinely lowest cost energy.

Course, yes, solar energy has some unexpected costs too, about which I must come clean. Solar energy is very attractive to women. This could get you into trouble. I'm no psychologist but I gather women are just naturally instinctually drawn to indications of an ability to acquire resources, and males are naturally instinctually drawn to conspicuous symbols of resource wealth, which traditionally has been your two story high budget busting behemoth vehicle. Thing is, with the two story high budget busting behemoth, one, it's been done to death already and getting stale as a male status symbol, and two, women are just naturally attracted to men whose toys indicate intelligence and moral leadership. That's my theory anyway.

Did you forget to take your meds Charles?

Of course I'm nuts. I live in a suicidal society.

Dirty energy is unattractive.

Once we get Madison Avenue on this, renewable energy will fly off the shelves.

"Dirty energy is unattractive."

It sure is, and that's a big part of what is actually going on, as a result of the carbon swap/credits/taxes mechanisms already in place, unfortunately. according to what I've seen, just from the idiotic use of farmland to grow "alternative fuels" which naturally increased the price of food. And much environmental damage is being done right now, according to studies done by the EU and others, through clearing tropical forests, to make huge Palm oil plantations (subsidized with carbon credits and the like).


'Study suggests 'green' biofuels are more environmentally harmful than fossil fuels'

"New research comparing the environmental effects of "green" biofuel to those brought about by traditional fossil fuel has revealed some shocking findings. Rather than reduce the overall carbon load and protect the environment as previously believed, biofuel derived from palm oil may actually be more environmentally harmful than fossil fuel.

Upon conducting a comprehensive review of emissions created by oil palm plantations, a team from the University of Leicester (UL) in the UK found that much of the existing data used to back current biofuel policies is incorrect. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from oil palm plantations are more than 50 percent higher than most estimates which, when considered along with pollution generated by the burning of biofuel, has more of a detrimental environmental impact than the burning of fossil fuel.

Palm oil represents a major source of oil used in food production around the world. Palm oil is a rich source of vitamin E, and is far healthier than other food oil alternatives like soy and canola . But increased demand for it as a biofuel has resulted in the untold destruction of the rainforest throughout southeast Asia to make way for massive oil palm plantations."

"Back in 2010, an EU report revealed that the burning of biofuel releases as much as 400 percent more CO2 than the burning of fossil fuels. And like the UL palm oil study, the EU study found that the mass conversion of a pristine rainforest into biofuel crop fields is playing a major role in the destruction of biodiversity worldwide"

http://www.naturalnews.com/034089_biofuels_fossil_fuels.html#ixzz1dKBxgDJ5


We are not talking about saintly god-beings selflessly implementing the complex financial/regulatory consequences of going along with this UN solution and pouring trillions of dollars into those vast trading/investing schemes. We are talking about big corporations for the most part, (like giant oil companies and Agra biz) finding ways to maximize profits, in the end.

Good point. If clean energy means lower carbon footprint, then 4 times high carbon emissions than what it replaces can't be said to be clean.

At one time not that long ago there was no fossil carbon energy economy. It had to be built. It took a solar powered economy to build a fossil carbon energy economy. That transition was not instaneous or without set backs but it did get done. Today, it would take a fossil carbon energy economy to build a solar powered economy. It will require dirty energy to build clean energy. Too bad we didn't get serious with it back during the Carter administration like he advocated. Think of how much better off on every front, economically, militarily, environmentally, we'd be today had we gotten started then. How many fewer wars we would have had to fight. How much less anxiety there'd be over greenhouse gas emissions. How much more of our energy would be produced locally instead of being imported from the other side of the planet.

Still, better late than never.

It's a scam to me. Regardless of what else is true, or would be good, or clean or fair . . I checked it out for myself, and have like a hundred reasons to believe this is a money/power grab. Not an actual attempt to save anyone from anything. Wonderful as it would be to have a great savior appear, this ain't him ; )

to believe this is a money/power grab.

Oh yeah, the famous climate science scam. You got to watch out for that one. These people spend 10 years getting a degree and spend another few years as endentured graduate slaves and then they're ready to spring the great climate scam and go for the big bucks in goverment grant money.

It's all about greed. Greed, I tell you. And power. The raw power of climate scientists is just out of control.

Thank God for the Citizens United decision that has restored some balance to our country. Now finally, at long last, we can stop the persecution of the Koch Brothers.

You sit don't seem to know squat about "the science", and are being extremely unscientific about this matter. Scientific thinking means you check things out for yourself, and don't believe things you do not yourself understand. Just believing things 'cause some authority figure says so, is what science was intended to get us beyond, not to offer up high infallible preists in lab coats.

I am a man science, not an authority worshiper.

Now that's a bit unfair. I'm a man of science too. In fact, I make a fairly good living being thoroughly in touch with complex realities. I most certainly am not an authority worshiper.

I don't deny that your amatuerish analysis of this matter could be spot on the money. Given what's at stake, however, yes, I insist on authoritive work being done on this.

Our right wing is a bit of a mystery to me. Authority is generally a high value. Law and Order, respect for authority, respect your elders. Then again on the other hand, you wouldn't put any stock in these high infallible preists in lab coats.

You wouldn't? Even though they've saved your life countless times?

What, these authority figures are chopped liver now?

What I see all over the place are indications that rationalitiy is not at work here. I presume you would go to see a doctor when oh for example there's a new mole on your skin. You wouldn't say to yourself, doctors smoctors, I don't put any stock into these so called high infallible preists in lab coats. So why is it that climate scientists fit into some entirely new category of suspicion?

It's because rationality is not at work here.

The genius of these people is in pretending to themselves that their irrationality is all about rationality.

Now, if only we could apply that same level of genius to dealing with the challenge in front of us, we'd be all set.

Charles,
If you are a "man of science" why is it that you post no facts, research?

You want facts? I refer you to the bibliography of the last IPCC report.

Or, if you're convinced that the IPCC is dishonest and/or incompetent, then let's get about organizing a replacement for it.

I'll tell you what is the pentultimate of dishonest and incompetence. It's to charge that the IPCC is dishonest and incompetent and so therefore case closed on the subject. Here is the fate of humanity at stake here. This needs to be addressed responsibly.

A suggestion for you: stop meandering between two contradictory narratives:

Narrative A: Not happening, not happening, not happening.

Narrative B: Ok, so it is happening but it's no big deal, just the normal ups and downs of climate.

What that does, see, when you meander between those two, it gives the impression that you simply latch onto the most convenient ready excuse at hand that makes you feel alright with ducking your responsibilty for your actions.

See, you guys are all focused on science. I can't blame you. So was I for 40 years. No. It has nothing to do with science. It's all about sex.

Charles Ashurst Mar 27, 2012, 10:35am EDT
See, you guys are all focused on science. I can't blame you. So was I for 40 years. No. It has nothing to do with science. It's all about sex.

I mean yes, it should have been about science. If it had been about science, then after 10 years of well focused science on the consequences of greenhouse gas emission and then our country would have gotten started the reasonable rational goal of reducing carbon emissions.

But no. Science is not what drives humanity. Sex is what drives humanity.

What "good science" are you talking about? Just saying that does not make it true . . we have been told about some "good science", for many years. We were told there was years of expert "intelligence" that made it a fact that Mr. Huesein had oodles of WMD, too . . Turns out sometimes the biggest megaphone is not speaking the truth, no matter how loud or long it tell us things.

Don't lay that one on me.

It's a good example, though, of how people can pretend even to themselves to be making a rational choice when it has nothing to do with rationality.

And yes, that applies to me as much as to anybody else. At least I'm aware of it and don't deny it.

You worship at the alter of mass media if you wish, sir, but I'm all grown up now, and can figure things out all by myself ; )

I've sure got nothing against your figuring things out all by yourself. Still, a genuine conservative is capable of relying on expert advice, especially when it comes priceless irreplacable assets.

I don't call myself a conservative, sir, and don't see what difference it would make if I did, these are scientific matters. And yes, believe it or not, I don't accept things as scientific fact, that I do not myself understand. That is the scientific way to approach things. You put things to the test, you don't just nod in agreement to whatever the news calls an authority.

" . . especially when it comes priceless irreplacable assets."

Realize, please, that many millions, possibly billions eventually, of actual human beings will die if this theory is fully accepted and reacted to as proposed. The cost to produce the food they can barely afford right now, will skyrocket . . guaranteed by basic economic principles, and acknowledged. There is nothing incidental about the cost of food being driven up by the taxes and regulations this doomsday theory is bringing about, people are dying of malnutrition, right now, because this theory is causing increased costs for virtually all the necessities of life.

Good points. Thank you for taking the matter the seriously and not just dismissing it as if it were some kind of a joke.

There is a lot at stake here. There's a serious credible risk that greenhouse gas emissions could seriously degrade the biosphere's capacity to support people.

And yes, getting off fossil carbon energy is a daunting thing to undertake.

Seeing what is at stake here, I propose that what is needed is a world wide top notch comprehensive study with the best and brightest climate experts with top notch state of art tools to study this.

Is that not what the IPCC is? If not, then, for the love of God, let's get it done right.

Right winger: A person who makes very good use of science to pretend it's all about science instead of about sex.

Science, of course, is a very obedient servant. You can use it to pretend whatever you like. Or, you can use science to save your life.

It all depends upon what you value.