GOP may have Rush, Hannity and Levin moderate debates...

[arnisador]

So whats the solution if we have all this proof? Hold the US and Europe to different pollution standards then China India and Africa? Oh and plant a tree so I can fly my private jet to Italy for a slice of pizza.

Here's the thing--knowledge that the solutions are hard is indeed what drives people to deny the "inconvenient truth" about global warming. It's like saying that cancer doesn't exist because it's so hard to cure. Global warming can be true and it can also be true that trying to do something about it is not at all easy. Nations don't share land but do share the atmosphere.

 

[Tgace]

Anthropomorphic causes of global warming are far from "fact" or consensus.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

I got no issues with finding new sources of energy and nothing is stopping people from trying it..

Republicans. And the oil companies' lobbyists.

 

[ballen0351]

Can events have more than one cause, or be affected by more than one factor?

Sure somethings but are we capable of reversing the earths orbit or stopping a hurricane or making it rain? Some things are beyond our control

 

[ballen0351]

Republicans. And the oil companies' lobbyists.

If there was money to be made nothing could stop it.

 

[ballen0351]

Here's the thing--knowledge that the solutions are hard is indeed what drives people to deny the "inconvenient truth" about global warming. It's like saying that cancer doesn't exist because it's so hard to cure. Global warming can be true and it can also be true that trying to do something about it is not at all easy. Nations don't share land but do share the atmosphere.

So should we go to war to force other countries to give a hoot and not pollute

 

[arnisador]

Anthropomorphic causes of global warming are far from "fact" or consensus.

Agree on the second part--it's a fact, but there's little consensus on it in the American public. Among scientists knowledgeable on the matter, however, the consensus is strong. Most Americans are some variety of creationist--no consensus. Among scientists knowledgeable on the matter, however, the consensus is strong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[SUP][5][/SUP] though a few organizations hold non-committal positions.[SUP][6][/SUP] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[SUP][5][/SUP]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[SUP][6][/SUP]

 

[arnisador]

So should we go to war to force other countries to give a hoot and not pollute

Again, you're conflating the problem with the solution. Global warming is a fact. That doesn't mean we're all going to die or that we have to invoke the Republican solution of invading random countries.

It isn't the case that admitting that global warming is real and largely man-made means you have to agree that any particular means of addressing it has benefits that outweigh its costs. But until the GOP can be made to accept that science is a valid way of knowing the world, we will be unable to even clearly state the political dilemmas caused by physical facts.

 

[arnisador]

Sure somethings but are we capable of reversing the earths orbit or stopping a hurricane or making it rain? Some things are beyond our control

Closer than you might think on that last one. But again--science finds the facts; engineering and politics attempt solutions. But until the Congress agrees on the facts, we can't attempt solutions.

 

[arnisador]

If there was money to be made nothing could stop it.

Some things need to be done even though they're not profitable. But the bigger issue here is short-term profit vs. long-term profit. Companies and Congress are notoiously short-sighted.

 

[ballen0351]

Closer than you might think on that last one. But again--science finds the facts; engineering and politics attempt solutions. But until the Congress agrees on the facts, we can't attempt solutions.

Once we know the FACTs then maybe we can agree

 

[ballen0351]

Again, you're conflating the problem with the solution. Global warming is a fact. That doesn't mean we're all going to die or that we have to invoke the Republican solution of invading random countries.

It isn't the case that admitting that global warming is real and largely man-made means you have to agree that any particular means of addressing it has benefits that outweigh its costs. But until the GOP can be made to accept that science is a valid way of knowing the world, we will be unable to even clearly state the political dilemmas caused by physical facts.

I was asking your opinion you said we all share atmosphere so how do we get other countries to go along with this master plan of parking cars and shutting down factories

 

[arnisador]

Once we know the FACTs then maybe we can agree

Once we agree that science is a valid means of determining facts and that it trumps other approached we'll be done with that. As Rush showed, many Republicans are turning to the Bible as their source for facts on this matter.

 

[arnisador]

I was asking your opinion you said we all share atmosphere so how do we get other countries to go along with this master plan of parking cars and shutting down factories

Actually, I'm not in a panic about the effects of global warming. I expect engineering solns. will sooner or later become available. Of course, I live well above sea level. It's a thorny issue--China won't listen despite the horrible air quality problems in big cities there, and it's unfair to deny Africa and other poor countries the benefits of having their own Industrial Revolutions. The recent news from Ecuador is discouraging. My plan: The developed countries should build and if necessary run nuclear power plants in poorer countries. That kills coal. Pushing electric cars that run on the electricity from these nuclear power plants reduces oil usage. Meanwhile, fund research on green sources of energy and apply pressure by the usual diplomatic/economic means on those who don't play ball--nothing draconian, just the usual.

But I say again: As you long as you reject science, what's the point of a conversation like this? The same science that goes into your machines, your medicine, your electronics is what's behind the research in global warming. We don't develop a new scientific method each time. Selective trust of science is the key problem here.

 

[ballen0351]

But I say again: As you long as you reject science, what's the point of a conversation like this? The same science that goes into your machines, your medicine, your electronics is what's behind the research in global warming. We don't develop a new scientific method each time. Selective trust of science is the key problem here.

Its not selective trust there are still people in that very field that are not sure what the facts are

 

[arnisador]

Its not selective trust there are still people in that very field that are not sure what the facts are

That's true of just about every theory. A Nobel laureate still disputes that HIV causes AIDS. There's a geocentrism society. There are people who question whether atoms exist--after all, you can't see 'em. There are people with medical degrees who practice homeopathy and chiropractors who believe absolutely insane things. It's about consensus, not uniformity--and the consensus is very strong among scientists. It's only among Republicans that there are controversies over global warming, evolution, etc.

 

[ballen0351]

That's true of just about every theory. A Nobel laureate still disputes that HIV causes AIDS. There's a geocentrism society. There are people who question whether atoms exist--after all, you can't see 'em. There are people with medical degrees who practice homeopathy and chiropractors who believe absolutely insane things. It's about consensus, not uniformity--and the consensus is very strong among scientists. It's only among Republicans that there are controversies over global warming, evolution, etc.

True there are crackpots in every professions however when it comes to Global warming we are not just talking about 1 or 2 rogue climate nerds

 

[billc]

Why is it that the whole ClimateGate scandal is ignored by the supporters of man made global warming...the guys responsible for the data that everyone signs off on was faked by these guys...they refused to share their data sets with skeptics...they destroyed their data to prevent skeptics from analyzing it...they had skeptics kept out of the peer reviewed journals...and they tried to get the editors of peer reviewed journals fired...

And yet we are supposed to believe anything that came out of this swamp as being true?

The computer models don't work, the temperature stations are compromised, NASA went back and changed data to favor the global warming agenda, they didn't tell the truth about the Maldives sinking...it goes on and on and yet we are supposed to believe that 90% of scientists believe in man made global warming...knowing the data they signed onto was faked?

In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]

Scientific literature based on broken computer models, faulty temperature measuring, and made up data by scientists...and the fact is with all of this CO2 pumping into the atmosphere...global warming has stopped for the last 15 years...

 

[billc]

As to computer models...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/07...are-Doesnt-Meet-the-Best-Standards-Available/

Gary Strand, a software engineer at the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), admitted climate model software “doesn’t meet the best standards available” in a comment he posted on the website Climate Audit.
“As a software engineer, I know that climate model software doesn’t meet the best standards available. We’ve made quite a lot of progress, but we’ve still quite a ways to go,” Strand wrote on July 5, 2009, according to the website WattsUpWithThat.com.
Strand’s candid admission promoted WattsUpWithThat’s skeptical Meteorologist Anthony Watts to ask the following question:
“Do we really want Congress to make trillion dollar tax decisions today based on ‘software [that] doesn’t meet the best standards available?’”
Meteorologist Watts also critiqued the current climate models, noting, “NASA GISS model E written on some of the worst FORTRAN coding ever seen is a challenge to even get running. NASA GISTEMP is even worse. Yet our government has legislation under consideration significantly based on model output that Jim Hansen started. His 1988 speech to Congress was entirely based on model scenarios.”
Another Government Scientist Admits Climate Model Shortcomings
Another government scientist — NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt — admitted last week that the “chaotic component of climate system…is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically.”
Schmidt made his admission during a June 29, 2009 interview about the shortcomings of climate models. Schmidt noted that some climate models “suggest very strongly” that the American Southwest will dry in a warming world. But Schmidt also noted that “other models suggest the exact opposite.”

 

[billc]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...the-data-to-support-global-warming-claims.php

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory rely on global temperature data over a period of centuries that purport to be accurate to within a tiny fraction of one degree. Common sense warns us to be skeptical of such spurious certainty. But the truth is much worse: climate alarmists have systematically fudged the historical record by changing past temperature data to make it look as though the earth is warming, consistent with their theory.

We have written about this before; the latest comes from Watts Up With That, the world’s most widely read web site on climate science:

I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.

However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

​

GISS is NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which was commandeered some years ago by global warming hysteric James Hansen. Its data are widely relied on to support claims of unprecedented warming. But GISS has been playing games with the historical record, changing previously reported temperatures going all the way back to the 19th century.