Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

One big thing for everyone to remember the climate scientisis on all sides are being paid to study the issue not find a solution. ( if they conclusively prove or disprove it and the paycheck goes away.)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Why would the US government, or Obummer, or whoever want AGW to be a top-level concern in the US, if scientifically-speaking it really isn't? ". Now as others have said. Follow the money. ( government its tax money , the rest its just money)

You really think the current US government is going to fake a global crisis to make some tax money? And the governments of most of the developed world are going along with it?

Forgive me, I'm not American; is there something you could link to that makes this case coherently, for an international audience?

There's an easier way to raise taxes btw: by raising taxes. No global catastrophe necessary.

Curious how your AGW money-following doesn't extend to the fossil-fuel industry, and the money (especially future profits) that they think is at stake.

Originally Posted by newhaul

One big thing for everyone to remember the climate scientisis on all sides are being paid to study the issue not find a solution. ( if they conclusively prove or disprove it and the paycheck goes away.)

"Paycheck" thing - Absolutely unfounded. And again with the climate science conspiracy! There was climate to study before AGW (remember air pollution?), there are other climate issues to study now; there will be other climate issues to study in future. There are students to teach.

(And if the science isn't 'settled'... why would you expect/want them to be finding solutions? The point of the debate, for the anti-AGW camp, is to block solutions.)

Help yourself to some foil.

[Exile]

L-E -- Why do you feel compelled to childishly & blatantly misrepresent other people's opinions & words?

In response to your asking rhetorically why climate scientists would be any less professional & collegial than other scientists, Stu said this:

Regardless of motives, it's quite apparent that they are.

But you twisted his reply to read like this:

Regardless of motives, it's quite apparent that [climate scientists] are [less professional and collegial].

Then in response to your same question to me, I said this:

Generally speaking they are not (any less professional, etc.).

But you twisted my reply to claim I said this:

Generally speaking [climate scientists] are not [professional and collegial].

I don't understand the whole tin foil thing, so maybe this was an attempt at humor that I failed to appreciate. My loss, obviously.

But you have shown a lot of consistency resorting to putting words in mouths of other people that you don't agree with. Unlike the case with more reasoned & knowledgeable advocates of the MMGW position like Jack, JimBun, Mike & many others who have chimed in, your approach just shows intolerance, an unwillingness to engage in a meaningful debate, and only hurts the credibility of your cause.

I find this quite odd since it's probably safe to say that your position on the science remains the majority one, has the backing of many well-respected & articulate scientists & institutions, and enjoys the support of much of your govt. & mine. But the process of reaching a conclusion on complex scientific theory is not a democracy, and there happen to be equally accomplished, respected & integral scientists who believe the impacts of MMGW have been grossly exaggerated. That's not my particular opinion or advocacy, but merely the state of the existing record.

So this back & forth on scientists being corrupted for one reason or another has been pretty thoroughly thrashed out. But I agree that, without further evidence of the impact of the money, professional prestige, religion, ego, career advancement, and other factors on individual scientists' professionalism, then looking at this only provides limited help in understanding the actual science. This is exactly the point I was trying to make about the allegations against Dr. Happer. And while I abhor reading about the type of self-dealing Prof. Shukla appears to have engaged in, it also doesn't prove that his actual CC science was corrupted. Does this kind of stuff really have to be spelled out for you again & again?

Frankly, your intolerance for even well-founded challenges to the mainstream science only confirms Third Day's repeated comments that it is akin to cult-like behavior. At the very least, it's certainly not science when you ignore contrary evidence and miscontrue basic facts.

Are you finally ready to move on now?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

One big thing for everyone to remember the climate scientisis on all sides are being paid to study the issue not find a solution. ( if they conclusively prove or disprove it and the paycheck goes away.)

Solutions are policy decisions; and policy decisions by the politicians should be based on evidence.

The irony is that those climate scientists, like Hansen, who have suggested policies and have been accused of being political, not scientific.


Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

[newhaul]

L-E it does extend to all industries you just don't seem to grasp the full effects of say for example a nickel per gallon carbon tax would be passed on to consumers with a ten cent per gallon raise in price. Which would mean five cents more for the fossil fuel companies. And five for the government. It all breaks down to money for someone.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Still interested - Why would the US government, or Obummer, or whoever want AGW to be a top-level concern in the US, if scientifically-speaking it really isn't?

I'll try and keep it simple for you:

(a) Because the current administration and the Democratic party believe in the science that says MMGW poses a significant threat;

and/or,

(b) It's an easier path to the type of more heavily regulated, higher taxed, more centrally planned socio-economic system that they favor for the country.

[newhaul]

Jack on that we agree darnd if you do and darned if you don't.
Policy's are however unfortunately at least here in the USA is made by money that can be fleaced not on good or even bad evidence.
BTW here's something to look at its a presidential election year with no incumbent
Look at what's happened to fuel prices.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solutions are policy decisions; and policy decisions by the politicians should be based on evidence.

The irony is that those climate scientists, like Hansen, who have suggested policies and have been accused of being political, not scientific.


Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Yep. Hansen, specifically, has been "accused of being political" because by most measures, he has been...to the point of being arrested during a demonstration against approval of the Keystone Pipeline.

From his bio on wikipedia...

In June 2009, New Yorker journalist Elizabeth Kolbert wrote that Hansen is "increasingly isolated among climate activists."[122] Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said that "I view Jim Hansen as heroic as a scientist.... But I wish he would stick to what he really knows. Because I don't think he has a realistic idea of what is politically possible, or what the best policies would be to deal with this problem."[122]

Many other climate scientists have "been political" both in their public support and non-support of policy decisions, and their political support of peer science that bolsters their work and non-support of peer science that does't.

Not surprising. Such activities are motivated by something called "human nature" and practiced by both "sides" of the arguments. To assert that one group's nature is somehow pure while the other's isn't is naive. Or deception or ignorance.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Solutions are policy decisions; and policy decisions by the politicians should be based on evidence.

The irony is that those climate scientists, like Hansen, who have suggested policies and have been accused of being political, not scientific.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Not quite that simple. While it's certainly true that policymakers need scientific evidence to formulate solutions, they need that evidence to be credible and not hyped. Hansen didn't seem to need much help impugning his own credibility with a lot of his alarmist talk. There's actually a separate hit on Google that lists the top 25.

How was the boat show? Welcome back.

[sailorboy1]

Has anyone converted someone to their viewpoint/position on this thread yet?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Has anyone converted someone to their viewpoint/position on this thread yet?

Yes. I've decided to hedge my bets and move my boat to Newfoundland.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

L-E -- Why do you feel compelled to childishly & blatantly misrepresent other people's opinions & words?

In response to your asking rhetorically why climate scientists would be any less professional & collegial than other scientists, Stu said this:

Regardless of motives, it's quite apparent that they are.

But you twisted his reply to read like this:

Regardless of motives, it's quite apparent that [climate scientists] are [less professional and collegial].

Then in response to your same question to me, I said this:

Generally speaking they are not (any less professional, etc.).

But you twisted my reply to claim I said this:

Generally speaking [climate scientists] are not [professional and collegial].

Oh come on, it's simply common courtesy to put in the specific thing in place of the indefinite article or phrase, to provide context. In no way were you or Stu misrepresented or your words twisted.

they = [climate scientists]
[less professional and collegial]... the directly intended object
... what both of you intended with your comments, no?

If you're this desperate to find flaws in my comments, how about taking on the argument?

[edit... I'm still certain I understood Stu correctly, but now I'm thinking that I have indeed misconstrued your statement. If that's the case... my apologies]

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh come on, it's simply common courtesy to put in the specific thing in place of the indefinite article or phrase, to provide context. In no way were you or Stu misrepresented or your words twisted.

they = [climate scientists]
[less professional and collegial]... the directly intended object
... what both of you intended with your comments, no?

If you're this desperate to find flaws in my comments, how about taking on the argument?

What argument?

No desperation here. I'm quite comfortable accepting the unsettled state of CC science and look forward to seeing how it develops either way. But I'm not religious or cultish -- I actually appreciate dissent. Among other things, I hear it improves reading comprehension skills.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Many other climate scientists have "been political" both in their public support and non-support of policy decisions, and their political support of peer science that bolsters their work and non-support of peer science that does't.

Not surprising. Such activities are motivated by something called "human nature" and practiced by both "sides" of the arguments. To assert that one group's nature is somehow pure while the other's isn't is naive. Or deception or ignorance.

Or just compulsively partisan.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

there happen to be equally accomplished, respected & integral scientists who believe the impacts of MMGW have been grossly exaggerated. That's not my particular opinion or advocacy, but merely the state of the existing record.

Just because you can find X scientists to argue for and X scientists against does not mean the entire field is 50-50 on the subject. If there's truly significant numbers of climate scientists who are not in agreement with the findings that the world has been presented with... where are they? Where's their petition/presentation/meeting or whatever saying "hey, the consensus isn't". Why would such scientists let the case be misrepresented and the "consensus" exaggerated, if so many aren't in agreement? I'm talking the many rank and file climate scientists now, not the few outspoken (and well-publicized) critics.

So this back & forth on scientists being corrupted for one reason or another has been pretty thoroughly thrashed out.

I thought so too, except you keep insisting that the government is supporting "one side", and that the institutions are playing ball (ie not doing unbiased work).

Frankly, your intolerance for even well-founded challenges to the mainstream science only confirms Third Day's repeated comments that it is akin to cult-like behavior.

As I've mentioned before, I don't think the case is made that there isn't a responsible, formidable, and trustworthy consensus, and without that, everything else is noise.

Prominent in that noise are your assertions that government is behind the deliberate promotion of a crisis they may know is false. I think that's pretty close to your religion, no?