[Checks WUWT, Forbes, many other “skeptic” sources]
Nope, they still link or post denialist, full of errors or contradictory articles even if they still claim that they do accept the science.
For more information that shows how inadequate and far away from science those sources are check the best debunking of misinformation math propeller head Tamino at “Open Mind”:
Well, knock yourself out. I am not going to try to stop anyone from making efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. And a lot of the things I do try to get accomplished, like greater use of bicycles and public transit and curbing suburban sprawl, dovetail with this effort anyway. And personally I do not own or drive a car and get around by bike. I’m just stating my opinion that I think the Chicken Little-ism is rampant on this issue.
The way I see it is that false skeptics have made a big deal of that accusation,** in reality the IPCC is conservative and moderate** compared to what other scientists are reporting.
I’m on the record of taking them down a notch too, what I have found is that they are not as important or financially supported as the fake skeptical sites that **do **influence our congress critters. In any case, most of what you have posted here in the thread is wrong so far and the subject is the new IPCC report.
Most people who say they’re worried about CO2 will not make any significant and painful changes to their lifestyles in order to really reduce their emmisions. They will walk a couple of extra times, change to CFLs and maybe a couple of solar panels, but teir lifestyle will be 99.9% the same.
“curbing urban sprawl” is a nice way of saying “ther houses”, nobody wants forced changes to their own houses.
Unless one is willing to make (especially if you’re middle class and up in the US, Canada, Europe) massive cutbacks in their lives, it’s a lot of posturing.
I do not see it that way, I have seen virtually all fake skeptics tell people that the IPCC is an alarmist organization; however, while many experts reported that the loss of ice on the poles and glaciers was accelerating, the IPCC in the previous report had to acknowledge the reality that there was no good evidence to declare that it was.
So the previous report on ocean rise was a conservative one. But I do think that it was necessary. One can not just add policy recommendations based just on strong suspicions, IIUC the new report will point at the recent evidence found on the field and the most provable rise of the oceans can be used now in the efforts that will need to be done to mitigate it if nothing is done to control emissions. The point here is that an example like this one is always ignored by the fake skeptics, many who still insist that the IPCC is an alarmist organization.
And that is just a lot of ignorance, many times in the past it has been pointed out that the costs are exaggerated by few skeptics with the only intention to seed FUD.
As for the sprawl, there is new information that is showing that maybe we should not be so sanguine about it:
You have to realize you and your family are an exception that will never ammount to more than a small fraction of all those who express worries about GW.
When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, did the government sit back and hope ordinary Americans would grab their pitchforks and look for ships going to Japan?
When Abraham Lincoln wanted to improve public education, did he just hope a few citizens would start teaching their neighbors’ children altruistically?
When FDR wanted to fight the Great Depression, did he say “Government’s not doing anything. Maybe some of you people should look for a job, or something.”
Why is it so hard for people to understand that problems requiring government coercion … require government coercion??
It should be the onus of the governemt to show that coercion is the best way, that what is being coerced is the proper thing, and that the results will be met.
If coercion is required then the moral argument is lost; you do it because it’s the law. You didn’t change the behaviour, you were forced.
Someone is not reading or checking post #31. This issue is the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, in the past no private group could afford and build the massive sewer systems that gave us clean water and less disease in the modern cities, so it is now with all the people treating the atmosphere as a sewer, government intervention is not only important but needed.
" … with all the people treating the atmosphere as a sewer, government intervention is not only important but needed."
This is correct, and apparently it’s the prevailing wisdom that only the Democratic Party will endeavor to clean up the atmosphere and work to counteract Global Warming, right?
My question is: since Democrats are pretty much on board with Climate Change, and Republicans either deny it or will “officially” deny it for political reasons, exactly who are the Global Warming Boosters trying to convince? I honestly doubt the “teach Creationism in the schools and ban abortions” crowd will admit they’re wrong until L.A. is ankle deep in the Pacific, and the more clever Republicans will continue to wink at each other and maintain the status quo of the party platform for the sake of the Republican Hoi Polloi and their support. Are you preaching to the choir, or do you think there will be a Sea Change among right-wingers based on things like facts and evidence?
He convinced me to take it seriously. Before coming to these boards, I’d only ever heard unfalsifiable claims about the stuff; to this day, I’ve still only ever come across unfalsifiable claims on television and in the newspapers; were it not for GIGO, I’d presumably have kept rejecting it out of hand as Not Even Wrong.