That, and other conclusions by climate researchers posted **before **shows me that the conclusion from that Globe and Mail opinion that “many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out.” is pure BS.
And the bolded part shows what happened in the end with the pumped up Climategate. I predicted that a log time ago, science was not affected by the lies and innuendo by the denial media regarding the the cherry picked stolen e-mails.
If a warehouse full of food catches fire is the solution to stop making food? No, you throw $10 worth of water on it. the correct solution to global warming is to spend money in the most efficient way on methods that lower atmospheric temperature.
I used the warehouse example because Co2 is food for most of the planet’s life forms.
What is silly is the notion that the United States and assorted European nations will spend trillions of dollars on alternative energy while billions of people in India and China cook their meals over an open fire.
I’ll give you a simple of example of how to waste money. We use to have E-checks in Ohio to the tune of $10 a year for each car. Since virtually all the cars checked have computers adjusting the fuel mixture many times a second it was a complete waste of money. We could have purchased Co2 Scrubbers for older power plants with the money or at least gotten hookers on our birthday. But no. Millions of dollars were pissed away until they finally stopped the program.
No, the silliness in the realization that a burning warehouse example has only one analogue in the current climate discussions: that of worse case scenario were we are turning into Venus, indeed, too late to do anything. That worse case BTW is something that very few researchers propose as likely.
Also no one is denying that regarding CO2, the problem is that the quantities of CO2 sent to the atmosphere by human activities are overtaking the previously balanced natural CO2 cycle.
I should not forget to mention that Lindsey Graham is a Republican and a conservative.
Here in arizona there is a different test for computerized engines and in Ohio the program has been modified, in any case I never said I was in favor of what you are mentioning.
China doesn’t care about Global Warming. They’re building coal fired plants at a tremendous rate. Look at the pollution problems they had with the last Olympics. They’re making money off of Global Warming like a $cientologist.
That is not what you said anyhow, what is clear that you are wrong in all your points so far.
And I care more about what Chinese scientists say, the government may say otherwise but I have seen that Chinese researchers are not so skeptical as many denier sources imply.
What is clear is that you don’t understand my point and live in a fantasy world. Co2 reduction is not a solution in the real world because nobody is going to follow it.
All I care about is spending money effectively to solve a problem. If Arizona is taking your money for E-checks and you think this is making 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 th of a difference then you are a person whose money is easily parted. I’ll light a candle in honor of your faith.
Right now you have a point, and I already have mentioned this before: I do not trust that politicians will do much right now, but as science progress and evidence piles up, politicians will be idiots if they do not act then.
Another silly example, the solution for this issue will require many different approaches. Just one example will not do.
No argument there. We can reduce co2 from cars by 2/3 and coal fired plants by 1/2 if we perfect algae based bio-diesel. It’s a one-shot change that utilizes current automotive technology and energy distribution nodes. We could be driving Ford’s 65 mpg dieselright now in the United States. It would be my next car purchase.
I’m delighted to see independent reviews of the IPCC conclusions. There is no chance we average individuals can possibly come to reasonable conclusions; it’s too complex a subject with way too many political and financial overtones, not to mention the stakes of all the various parties. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere many times, I find no behavioural differences between AGW alarmists and extremists proselytizing for any other religion, and that behaviour alone increases my personal skepticism.
I expect to see a great many more independent reviews led by increasingly robust and formidable opponents, and I welcome it. I find the pro-AGW position very annoying that the science is settled, opposing skeptics are ignoramuses and the current research is unbiased.
Were I Don Quixote, my current windmill would be the cap and trade farce, with particular reference to the validation of carbon “offset” credits and the fortunes made in a shady market dealing in a sham commodity overseen by the naive, the greedy and the shysters. See, for instance, Terry Gross’s interview with Mark Schapiro on NPR: Cap And Trade And The New Carbon Economy : NPR
Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers | The Independent | The Independent In England the polling says doubters of global warming have gone from 15 percent to about 25. It goes along with Exxon paying a lot of money to global warming deniers and providing them with forums. If you spend enough money you can convince the people of damn near anything. I suppose there are still people who think smoking does not cause cancer. In the US with the Supreme Court opening up the floodgates of corporate money, you can be sure they will inform the populace of the TRUTH. The one that makes more money for them. It is sad times ahead .
As opposed to the media blitz we’ve been having for the past 4-5 years from Global Warming chicken little types? You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting programming on cable or satellite that mentions Global Warming, and usually mentions it in ways that paint a grim and dire picture. Hell, I was watching something on the Military Channel and they mentioned Global Warming for the gods sake!
I seriously doubt that any amount of money that Exxon spends is going to seriously dent the public’s perceptions about Global Warming at this point. The only thing that will do that is if new data comes out that contradicts the Global Warming hypothesis…and even then I think it will take a long time to do. That said, I think there will be a bit of push back from the public due to how over the top the media blitz has been (at least here in the US) from the more fervent (and over the top) pro-GW folks. I think that, as with the anti-nuclear movement here in the US that eventually you get to the saturation level, where you have bombarded the public with so many dire warnings and over the top The World is ENDDDDIIINNNNGG! type predictions that you get a lot of the public going ‘meh’ or pushing back and becoming knee jerk skeptics.
And, of course, scandals catch headlines. Whether justified or not, I think that the pro-GW crowd (distinguished, IMHO, from the scientists and serious climate researchers and related scientists who are actually out doing the work, and who, by and large are NOT making all the dire predictions) has over played it’s hand, and now they are getting a bit of backlash from the public over some of these scandals and revelations. Personally, as with the more ridiculous claims by the pro-GW crowd concerning how the world is ending soon, I think that a lot of these scandals are vastly overblown. That said, though, I think that the pro-GW faithful have hurt the serious scientists by saturating the air waves with their non-scientific drivel, especially in light of the public’s reaction to things like that mentioned in the OP.
To me, it’s kind of ironic, in a sad sort of way, that the public can be influenced first by the dire warnings and predictions bombarding them from every direction about GW, and are now being influenced in the opposite way by equally dire reports about the supposed conspiracy concerning manipulating the public about GW.
Yes, but even evolution had their scandals, it did not change the science, and this is where I also disagree with **Gonzo **here, it is the denier media that are in reality overplaying their hand. And even science reporters, are beginning to lose patience with the howlers the denier media is tossing. One favorite of mine was posted in a previous thread, he had also criticized Al Gore for falling for exaggerations, however the CRU hack showed to reporters like him how the deniers had fallen for conspiracy theories.
If there is a pattern it is that deniers are the ones that are marginalizing themselves where in the end it counts: in the scientific areas, research and academia.
It is sad, but as I take the history of evolutionary science into account, it is not hopeless. In any case, not all sources or media resort to the mendacity noticed in citations like the one in the OP.
There was another thought that you made me realize xtisme.
It is that there is another pattern that the climate truthers and anti-evolutionists will share. Among anti-evolutionists, no matter how many decades or even centuries will pass, scandals like the Nebraska man and Piltdown man are still mentioned. Like-wise, as I see in this thread, climate truthers will always repeat items like the CRU hack and errors in the IPCC reports. It will never matter that investigations continue to make clear how unreliable are the so called skeptics of the climate science.
