How does the UN stop China from polluting? Threat of war? Threat of economic sanctions? Saying 'pretty please' over and over?

It's interesting to me. Obviously, democrats in power are generally completely ineffectual across the board and are basically political waifs floating ideas but never doing anything.


Republicans in power on the other hand have generally had a more cohesive (albeit evil) message. You know where they stand on issues and how stupidly stubborn they can be.


In regards to this particular dilemma, the dems certainly recognize the problem, think something ought to be done about it, but they, in fact, do nothing, like always, and nobody bats an eye.


It's much more telling looking at how republicans are attacking the issue: deny, deny, deny.


That tells me that this is a problem without a solution. Obviously, the intelligent core of the republican apparatus doesn't discount science. They know what the numbers mean. But yet we are still in denial mode.


I think the republicans have a very cynical (realistic?) take on how this will all play out, especially on a global, political level. Consequently, the idea is if they don't acknowledge the problem, they don't have to deal with it.

---

It's interesting to me. Obviously, democrats in power are generally completely ineffectual across the board and are basically political waifs floating ideas but never doing anything.


Republicans in power on the other hand have generally had a more cohesive (albeit evil) message. You know where they stand on issues and how stupidly stubborn they can be.


In regards to this particular dilemma, the dems certainly recognize the problem, think something ought to be done about it, but they, in fact, do nothing, like always, and nobody bats an eye.


It's much more telling looking at how republicans are attacking the issue: deny, deny, deny.


That tells me that this is a problem without a solution. Obviously, the intelligent core of the republican apparatus doesn't discount science. They know what the numbers mean. But yet we are still in denial mode.


I think the republicans have a very cynical (realistic?) take on how this will all play out, especially on a global, political level. Consequently, the idea is if they don't acknowledge the problem, they don't have to deal with it.

 

This is the way I see it: 

 

1) Generally, people of all political stripes believe what they want to believe.  They first take a position and then find facts to support that position. 

 

2) Global warming will be expensive and troublesome to deal with effectively.  Therefore, people feel a lot better if they believe it doesn't exist at all.  See #1 above. 

 

Therefore, the global warming denialist leaders have a winning formula: they provide a steady stream of talking points and arguments for all the people who have decided to believe that global warming doesn't exist.  And that sows enough confusion and dissension on the issue that we will never be able to deal with it effectively. 

 

I've had conversations with conservatives who deny global warming, and every one of them is the same: they all fear that if they acknowledge global warming exists, it will lead to a big government solution.  That is their real fear: big government.  This is why global warming denial is concentrated among small government conservatives.   They don't like the solution, therefore they refuse to acknowledge the problem. 

 

Like I said before, it's like telling someone there's a car coming and they better get out of the road.  And since they don't like people telling them what to do, and they don't want to get out of the road, they decide there is no car. 

---

So political!


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...mental-job

---

It's interesting to me. Obviously, democrats in power are generally completely ineffectual across the board and are basically political waifs floating ideas but never doing anything.


Republicans in power on the other hand have generally had a more cohesive (albeit evil) message. You know where they stand on issues and how stupidly stubborn they can be.


In regards to this particular dilemma, the dems certainly recognize the problem, think something ought to be done about it, but they, in fact, do nothing, like always, and nobody bats an eye.


It's much more telling looking at how republicans are attacking the issue: deny, deny, deny.


That tells me that this is a problem without a solution. Obviously, the intelligent core of the republican apparatus doesn't discount science. They know what the numbers mean. But yet we are still in denial mode.


I think the republicans have a very cynical (realistic?) take on how this will all play out, especially on a global, political level. Consequently, the idea is if they don't acknowledge the problem, they don't have to deal with it.

 

Now Republicans are evil?  LOL...and many cant see why I cant agree with the left.  Everyone is out to get everyone.

 

Fyi, Malabar Jag is slaying everyone in this thread.  His knowledge in this area is far beyond the groups...combined.

---

 

 

Fyi, Malabar Jag is slaying everyone in this thread.  His knowledge in this area is far beyond the groups...combined.

 

Tallest dwarf in the room! 

---

Now Republicans are evil? LOL...and many cant see why I cant agree with the left. Everyone is out to get everyone.


Fyi, Malabar Jag is slaying everyone in this thread. His knowledge in this area is far beyond the groups...combined.

Hah.


I don't think Malabar has slayed anything in decades. He likes to try and obfuscate the reality of the veracity of the science with scientific-looking "arguments" which are all in fact shams. I'm not sure why he continues to do it. But his posts aren't worth debunking anymore so I don't bother.


If you are interested in the politics of climate science, read the latest article I posted.


If you are interested in the actual science, I can help out with that, too. The over-arching mechanism of the greenhouse effect which is driving global warming is a very easy one to understand.

---

It's interesting to me. Obviously, democrats in power are generally completely ineffectual across the board and are basically political waifs floating ideas but never doing anything.


Republicans in power on the other hand have generally had a more cohesive (albeit evil) message. You know where they stand on issues and how stupidly stubborn they can be.


In regards to this particular dilemma, the dems certainly recognize the problem, think something ought to be done about it, but they, in fact, do nothing, like always, and nobody bats an eye.


It's much more telling looking at how republicans are attacking the issue: deny, deny, deny.


That tells me that this is a problem without a solution. Obviously, the intelligent core of the republican apparatus doesn't discount science. They know what the numbers mean. But yet we are still in denial mode.


I think the republicans have a very cynical (realistic?) take on how this will all play out, especially on a global, political level. Consequently, the idea is if they don't acknowledge the problem, they don't have to deal with it.

This post was insanely hilarious.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

This post was insanely hilarious.

Thanks, Trav. Sometimes you can only laugh at the absurd, ammirite?


Lol

---

http://today.duke.edu/2014/11/solutionaversion

---

http://today.duke.edu/2014/11/solutionaversion

 

Great article.   It's exactly what I have been saying over and over in this thread.  

---

That tells me that this is a problem without a solution. Obviously, the intelligent core of the republican apparatus doesn't discount science. They know what the numbers mean. But yet we are still in denial mode.

 

 

If you believe it is a problem, then there is no solution. The US is not going to war with China.


The science is a lot less alarmist (and less certain) than the press realeases you post here make it out to be. Continue to believe the guys with the "The End Is Near!" signs if you wish. They have always been wrong. Always! But you really believe this time is different?


I can give you a really good price on this bridge in NYC! You'll make it up in tolls in less than a month!



 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If you are interested in the actual science, I can help out with that, too. The over-arching mechanism of the greenhouse effect which is driving global warming is a very easy one to understand.

 

In a laboratory, a doubling of CO2 will increase the effect an equivalent of 1.1K for the planet. That temperature increase not a problem; it is a boon to the biosphere (as is the additional CO2).


The models that predict more warming than 1.1K include a positive feedback from H2O. They ignore the negative feedback from clouds, and positive feedbacks are very rare in nature. The laboratory physics is well understood. How it translates to an entire planet is not. The fact that the models have grossly overestimated the warming, and failed to predict the cessation of warming this century, is a strong indication that they are wrong about positive feedback.


 

But please, describe the science. In your own words. Not with links. Especially not with links to press releases, which seems to be all you have ever read on the subject.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The science speaks for itself, friend. No echo chamber needed.


Care for me to explain it? Be advised 4th grade level math and science skills required.

 

The scientific proof is exactly why I fully disagree with the junk science.  Sorry.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

In a laboratory, a doubling of CO2 will increase the effect an equivalent of 1.1K for the planet. That temperature increase not a problem; it is a boon to the biosphere (as is the additional CO2).


The models that predict more warming than 1.1K include a positive feedback from H2O. They ignore the negative feedback from clouds, and positive feedbacks are very rare in nature. The laboratory physics is well understood. How it translates to an entire planet is not. The fact that the models have grossly overestimated the warming, and failed to predict the cessation of warming this century, is a strong indication that they are wrong about positive feedback.


 

But please, describe the science. In your own words. Not with links. Especially not with links to press releases, which seems to be all you have ever read on the subject.

 

I hope you're right.  I hope the majority of climate scientists are wrong. 

 

What's really fishy about the whole thing is the way global warming denial is concentrated among conservatives.  That to me is a big red flag that tells me that global warming denial is not about science.   It's about politics. 

---

Once conservatives have been driven out or forced into hiding in the academic world where else will the repudiation of this nonsense come from?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I hope you're right.  I hope the majority of climate scientists are wrong. 

 

What's really fishy about the whole thing is the way global warming denial is concentrated among conservatives.  That to me is a big red flag that tells me that global warming denial is not about science.   It's about politics. 

 

There's a lot of political influence on global warming viewpoints for those who are not scientifically trained. Both political sides are choosing the side of the debate that fits their agenda. If you look at the actual science, there are points of agreement (such as the effect of CO2 in a laboratory, and that the planet has warmed since 1979 and also since the mid 1700s) and points of disagreement (such as how significant the greenhouse effect of CO2 is on the planet as a whole).


If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any). You seem like a sensible person, tell me how likely it is that a dozen different adjustments that are all in the same direction have not been affected by political bias.


By the way, the use of the term "denier" is just another example of the religious fanatic nature of the believers side. It's meant to conflate those who don't buy into the dogma to holocaust deniers. This is used in the same sense that "devil worshippers" was/is used to describe those of another religion. Questioning the use of unproven assumptions, suspicious adjustments, and failure to account for known effects is not "denying" anything.


One other factor is at work here. Science sets up tests of a theory and looks for evidence that disproves a theory. Religion looks for evidence that supports a belief and ignores what doesn't support the belief. Tell me which applies to global warming 'science.'


 

 I'm not a 'denier', I'm a heretic.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There's a lot of political influence on global warming viewpoints for those who are not scientifically trained. Both political sides are choosing the side of the debate that fits their agenda. If you look at the actual science, there are points of agreement (such as the effect of CO2 in a laboratory, and that the planet has warmed since 1979 and also since the mid 1700s) and points of disagreement (such as how significant the greenhouse effect of CO2 is on the planet as a whole).


If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any). You seem like a sensible person, tell me how likely it is that a dozen different adjustments that are all in the same direction have not been affected by political bias.


By the way, the use of the term "denier" is just another example of the religious fanatic nature of the believers side. It's meant to conflate those who don't buy into the dogma to holocaust deniers. This is used in the same sense that "devil worshippers" was/is used to describe those of another religion. Questioning the use of unproven assumptions, suspicious adjustments, and failure to account for known effects is not "denying" anything.


One other factor is at work here. Science sets up tests of a theory and looks for evidence that disproves a theory. Religion looks for evidence that supports a belief and ignores what doesn't support the belief. Tell me which applies to global warming 'science.'


 

 I'm not a 'denier', I'm a heretic.

 

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject.   May I ask a few questions? 

 

If we could split the world's climate scientists into two camps: believers and skeptics, what percentage would be believers and what percentage would be skeptics?  

 

Do you think the scientists who are "believers" are biased in some way?   If so, is the bias intentional?  

 

You say, "If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any).
"

Can you explain that a little more?   What sort of adjustments are being made, and, according to the people making the adjustments, why are these adjustments being made? 

 

What is your background?  (Of course, you don't have to answer if you don't feel like it.  A lot of people don't like to give out information about themselves on the internet.  So I will understand if you don't want to answer.) 

---

You seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject.   May I ask a few questions? 

 

If we could split the world's climate scientists into two camps: believers and skeptics, what percentage would be believers and what percentage would be skeptics?  

 

Do you think the scientists who are "believers" are biased in some way?   If so, is the bias intentional?  

 

You say, "If you look deeply into the temperature and sea level data processing, you will see that there are several adjustments. By coincidence, these adjustments always add alarm to the raw data (cooling the past, warming the present, adding sea level rise to the satellite data that didn't show any).
"

Can you explain that a little more?   What sort of adjustments are being made, and, according to the people making the adjustments, why are these adjustments being made? 

 

What is your background?  (Of course, you don't have to answer if you don't feel like it.  A lot of people don't like to give out information about themselves on the internet.  So I will understand if you don't want to answer.)

It's not worth it.

---

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world.../18244249/

---

It's not worth it.

 

I am genuinely curious.   Besides, what's the point of having this message board if we don't engage each other? 

---