Why do so many people deny climate change

[Abraham3]

If you admit that GHGs will add to the warming of the Earth, then, given the trends of GHGs in our atmosphere, you have made a projection: the Earth will get warmer.


pre·dict [pri-dikt] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2.
to foretell the future; make a prediction.

proj·ect [n. proj-ekt, -ikt; v. pruh-jekt] Show IPA

verb (used with object), pro·ject.
6.
to propose, contemplate, or plan.
7.
to throw, cast, or impel forward or onward.
8.
to set forth or calculate (some future thing): They projected the building costs for the next five years.
9.
to throw or cause to fall upon a surface or into space, as a ray of light or a shadow.
10.
to cause (a figure or image) to appear, as on a background.

One involves events, the other suggests trends.

 

[Abraham3]

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill. So, while we cannot know, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique. And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts. You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you. They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate. They even explain how they came up with the odds. The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do. They do not make mysterious pronouncements. They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[Abraham3]

If you don't think that over-population isn't doing something to our planet and its climate, you're done. Go back to bed. You need a long rest.

Over population? That's a bit out of left field. When did we start talking about over population?

It's about whether humans are affecting the climate, so if there weren't so many of us, we'd have no effect.

That's true.

 

[bripat9643]

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

Wrong. The best way to determine the likelihood of a prediction is to look at the track record of the people making the prediction. So far the record for the AGW kooks is abysmal.

If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill.

Horseshit. You predict the sun will come up tomorrow because it has done so trillions of times in the past. It has nothing to do with your knowledge of physics.

So, while we cannot know, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique. And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

ROFL! Based on what? Certainly it isn't based on physics. I think any genuine physicist wouldn't dare to make a prediction about climate 100 years from now since the number of variables approaches infinity.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts. You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you. They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate. They even explain how they came up with the odds. The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do. They do not make mysterious pronouncements. They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

If there is one thing the IPCC isn't, it's trustable. The fact that they explain their methods doesn't make those methods correct.

 

[Abraham3]

I think you should take a break for an hour or two and then come back and have a look at your responses. See if you're still happy with them.

 

[orogenicman]

It shouldn't be used at all. Government shouldn't be in the business of molding society. It's only legitimate function is to protect your rights, and that's it.

So you are proposing re-writing the Constitution, then. Hmm.

The Constitution was a good attempt at limiting government, but it is fundamentally flawed. The concept of limited government is an oxymoron.

In what way is it fundamentally flawed. Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?

 

[orogenicman]

Excuse the **** out of me

No problem. I excuse the **** out of you. ;-)



Yes... are you saying that is a bad thing?



You may be confusing a few different, admittedly overlapping, groups. There is a general opposition to fossil fuels among people concerned about AGW which would - or has - produced some of the opposition towards fracking. However, the bulk of the opposition towards fracking, at least from my own observations, is in response to other dangers fracking presents. From Wikipedia's article on the subject: "Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[ Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01] .



I'm sorry to disappoint you but I fully support nuclear power. I don't think we should put plants near major faults, in flood zones or areas subject to tsunamis, but other than that, I love nuclear power.



I like the idea of carbon taxes. I would like the government to subsidize (via any of several means) wind and solar power projects. I would also like them to work to enable greater use of nuclear power and research into other alternative energy sources (wave and tide power, OTEC, geothermal, etc). I believe that is needed and will benefit all.



I don't know that you have. The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and the Earth as a whole continues to warm. Do not be fooled by the transition which has moved a large portion of the heat formerly accumulated in the atmosphere to the deep ocean. The energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere HAS NOT CHANGED.



It would be nice if our science was perfect and omniscient, but it's not and never will be. However, it IS better - MUCH better - than the views and actions pushed by those who reject our science. And, since global warming continues apace, it is NOT actually the issue. GHG's are still causing increased amounts of solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere, our lands and - for the greatest part - in our oceans.

Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.

I agree with your first clause - they are not evidence. And what we are talking about are, for the most part, not predictions but projections. There's a difference.

It is grossly misguided to classify a multivariate projection of a complex process as right or wrong. They are more or less accurate, but they are not right or wrong. It would be nice if the world were that simple, but it is not. That's why I look to the folks with the most education and applicable experience for the best information. That practice tells me that the world is still warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause. It tells me that the path we are on presents a real risk to us and our descendants. It tells me that overcoming this issue will be expensive and will require deep and enduring dedication. And all of that - and the existence of folks with opinions such as yours - tells me we will fail.

A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

An important part (some would say critical) of the scientific process is the ability to make testable predictions. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[orogenicman]

ROFL! Based on what? Certainly it isn't based on physics. I think any genuine physicist wouldn't dare to make a prediction about climate 100 years from now since the number of variables approaches infinity.

I can predict that 100 years from now manmade ghgs will still be a major cause of global warming if we don't substantially reduce our emissions. See you at the finish line.

 

[Abraham3]

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

Wrong. The best way to determine the likelihood of a prediction is to look at the track record of the people making the prediction. So far the record for the AGW kooks is abysmal.

Horseshit. You predict the sun will come up tomorrow because it has done so trillions of times in the past. It has nothing to do with your knowledge of physics.

So, while we cannot know, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique. And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

ROFL! Based on what? Certainly it isn't based on physics. I think any genuine physicist wouldn't dare to make a prediction about climate 100 years from now since the number of variables approaches infinity.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts. You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you. They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate. They even explain how they came up with the odds. The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do. They do not make mysterious pronouncements. They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

If there is one thing the IPCC isn't, it's trustable. The fact that they explain their methods doesn't make those methods correct.

Okay. From the top. You contend that the best way to determine how good a prediction will be is not to look at the data and the science, it is to look at the individuals. Gollee.... where to start?

This is the faulty side of ad hominem. Someone's past behaviors do not control their futures. If it were, every kid that ever missed a math problem or couldn't name the capital of North Dakota would be doomed to complete educational failure. Have you never lied? Have you never stolen a piece of gum? Have you never been mean to someone that didn't really deserve it? I suspect you've done all those things but somehow, you managed to avoid becoming a brutal criminal. Amazing.

Next, you contend that my confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow has nothing to do with my knowledge of physics but because it has risen trillions of times before. Again, where to start? Let's look back to ancient Greece. Pretty smart people. They developed a lot of our math and a fair bit of our science. They saw the sun rise as many times as have we. Yet they believed the sun was the god Apollo with a chariot of fiery horses dashing across the sky. The only reason the sun came up every morning was because Apollo chose to continue carrying out his duty. What's the difference between the ancient Greeks and us? Our knowledge of what is actually happening and what it would actually require to prevent the sun from rising one morning. And, just as a by-the-way, since the Earth was formed, the sun has risen approximately 1.28 trillion times. However, I myself have been around for less than 22,000 of them.

As I explained, but as you seem to have missed, the accuracy of any prediction can be said to depend on several factors. The less we know about a process for which we are attempting to make a prediction, the less the odds that it will be accurate. The more precise the prediction, the less the odds that it will be accurate. The further out the prediction, the less likely it will be accurate. I suspect you actually agree with those three points, but you did not pay enough attention when you read what I wrote and chose to describe those contentions as "horseshit". They are not and it would be folly to disagree with them.

Finally, you tell us that the IPCC is untrustworthy and their provision of descriptions of the processes and functions they use doesn't help. I can only point out that it is a great deal easier to determine if the IPCC is producing good information KNOWING how it is they arrived at their conclusions, then it would be did we not. The biggest IPCC goof that I am aware of you and yours identifying was the matter of the melt rate of the Himalayan glaciers. That leaves you another 1,699.75 pages to refute. I suggest you get hot.

 

[Spiderman]

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill. So, while we cannot know, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique. And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts. You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you. They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate. They even explain how they came up with the odds. The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do. They do not make mysterious pronouncements. They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Poor example.

You cannot tell me what will happen if the earth is 2 degrees C warmer. In fact that 2 degrees is in itself only a probability.

If as you say the doom and gloom propaganda are calculated "projections" then there should be calculations of where there will be droughts, how severe thy will be how many people will die etc

You cannot compare the warming predictions to a building cost calculation as they are not analogous at all.

Building cost projections takes known quantities of materials into account using pricing data from the past.

Saying that a 2 degree rise in temperature will result in X number of floods, Y number of droughts, Z number of people dead who wouldn't have died if the temp didn't rise etc is speculation.

Unless of course you want to show me the actual calculations for those things.

 

[PMZ]

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill. So, while we cannot know, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique. And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts. You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you. They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate. They even explain how they came up with the odds. The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do. They do not make mysterious pronouncements. They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Poor example.

You cannot tell me what will happen if the earth is 2 degrees C warmer. In fact that 2 degrees is in itself only a probability.

If as you say the doom and gloom propaganda are calculated "projections" then there should be calculations of where there will be droughts, how severe thy will be how many people will die etc

You cannot compare the warming predictions to a building cost calculation as they are not analogous at all.

Building cost projections takes known quantities of materials into account using pricing data from the past.

Saying that a 2 degree rise in temperature will result in X number of floods, Y number of droughts, Z number of people dead who wouldn't have died if the temp didn't rise etc is speculation.

Unless of course you want to show me the actual calculations for those things.

You continue to confuse climate and weather.

Climate change per se has no impact on humanity. Most of us would never notice it. Weather, and sea level, both of which are effects caused by AGW, depending on degree, will impose massive consequences on all of us. Why? We built civilization around the climate that we're changing from.

Weather is caused by the exchange of energy between water, land, life, ice and atmosphere. Now that we have trapped much more energy here, the weather will change in response. We can't predict weather decades in advance.

 

[PMZ]

Excuse the **** out of me

No problem. I excuse the **** out of you. ;-)



Yes... are you saying that is a bad thing?



You may be confusing a few different, admittedly overlapping, groups. There is a general opposition to fossil fuels among people concerned about AGW which would - or has - produced some of the opposition towards fracking. However, the bulk of the opposition towards fracking, at least from my own observations, is in response to other dangers fracking presents. From Wikipedia's article on the subject: "Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[ Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01] .



I'm sorry to disappoint you but I fully support nuclear power. I don't think we should put plants near major faults, in flood zones or areas subject to tsunamis, but other than that, I love nuclear power.



I like the idea of carbon taxes. I would like the government to subsidize (via any of several means) wind and solar power projects. I would also like them to work to enable greater use of nuclear power and research into other alternative energy sources (wave and tide power, OTEC, geothermal, etc). I believe that is needed and will benefit all.



I don't know that you have. The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and the Earth as a whole continues to warm. Do not be fooled by the transition which has moved a large portion of the heat formerly accumulated in the atmosphere to the deep ocean. The energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere HAS NOT CHANGED.



It would be nice if our science was perfect and omniscient, but it's not and never will be. However, it IS better - MUCH better - than the views and actions pushed by those who reject our science. And, since global warming continues apace, it is NOT actually the issue. GHG's are still causing increased amounts of solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere, our lands and - for the greatest part - in our oceans.

Predictions are NOT scientific evidence and are wrong as often as they are right.

I agree with your first clause - they are not evidence. And what we are talking about are, for the most part, not predictions but projections. There's a difference.

It is grossly misguided to classify a multivariate projection of a complex process as right or wrong. They are more or less accurate, but they are not right or wrong. It would be nice if the world were that simple, but it is not. That's why I look to the folks with the most education and applicable experience for the best information. That practice tells me that the world is still warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause. It tells me that the path we are on presents a real risk to us and our descendants. It tells me that overcoming this issue will be expensive and will require deep and enduring dedication. And all of that - and the existence of folks with opinions such as yours - tells me we will fail.

A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

 

[skookerasbil]

Climate change predictions are gay.......proven many, many times over. Because they are based upon bogus computer models which are gay.

 

[bripat9643]

So you are proposing re-writing the Constitution, then. Hmm.

The Constitution was a good attempt at limiting government, but it is fundamentally flawed. The concept of limited government is an oxymoron.

In what way is it fundamentally flawed. Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

 

[Spiderman]

The way to determine the likelihood of a prediction or a projection coming to pass is to simply verify that it made use of the best possible information and made use of the correct statistical means and took into account everything we know about physics and the working of, in this case, the world's climate.

If George predicts that the sun will rise tomorrow and Bill predicts that it won't, I can use the above method to determine that George has a monstrously better chance of being proven correct than does Bill. So, while we cannot know, we can certainly improve our odds by using the best possible technique. And, depending on the subject, the attempted precision of the prediction or projection and how far out one is attempting to forecast, the odds of accuracy can be far better than 50%.

The harm that will ensue for a specific temperature increase over a specific time period is much more amenable to determinsitic calculation than other climatic forecasts. You haven't spent much time reading the IPCC's reports, have you. They explain very clearly how they come up with the risks we face and what are the odds of their predictions being accurate. They even explain how they came up with the odds. The IPCC ARs are very open and very... trustable - they substantiate their reasoning about as much as its possible to do. They do not make mysterious pronouncements. They use the best science on the best information and from that make reasoned and CONSERVATIVE conclusions as to what we all face.

Do yourself a favor and rather than taking some blogger's opinion about the IPCC, read the reports yourself. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Poor example.

You cannot tell me what will happen if the earth is 2 degrees C warmer. In fact that 2 degrees is in itself only a probability.

If as you say the doom and gloom propaganda are calculated "projections" then there should be calculations of where there will be droughts, how severe thy will be how many people will die etc

You cannot compare the warming predictions to a building cost calculation as they are not analogous at all.

Building cost projections takes known quantities of materials into account using pricing data from the past.

Saying that a 2 degree rise in temperature will result in X number of floods, Y number of droughts, Z number of people dead who wouldn't have died if the temp didn't rise etc is speculation.

Unless of course you want to show me the actual calculations for those things.

You continue to confuse climate and weather.

Climate change per se has no impact on humanity. Most of us would never notice it. Weather, and sea level, both of which are effects caused by AGW, depending on degree, will impose massive consequences on all of us. Why? We built civilization around the climate that we're changing from.

Weather is caused by the exchange of energy between water, land, life, ice and atmosphere. Now that we have trapped much more energy here, the weather will change in response. We can't predict weather decades in advance.

I am not confusing anything.

The argument is that if the earth is 2 degrees warmer there will be drought, flooding, "super storms" etc etc and all that will kill people that would not have died if the temp did not rise 2 degrees.

And you yourself just admitted that those things cannot be predicted.

That's been the entire point of my argument about these dubious apocalyptic predictions.

 

[Spiderman]

No problem. I excuse the **** out of you. ;-)



Yes... are you saying that is a bad thing?



You may be confusing a few different, admittedly overlapping, groups. There is a general opposition to fossil fuels among people concerned about AGW which would - or has - produced some of the opposition towards fracking. However, the bulk of the opposition towards fracking, at least from my own observations, is in response to other dangers fracking presents. From Wikipedia's article on the subject: "Opponents point to potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these.[ Brown, Valerie J. (February 2007). "Industry Issues: Putting the Heat on Gas". Environmental Health Perspectives (US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) 115 (2): A76. doi:10.1289/ehp.115-a76. PMC 1817691. PMID 17384744. Retrieved 2012-05-01] .



I'm sorry to disappoint you but I fully support nuclear power. I don't think we should put plants near major faults, in flood zones or areas subject to tsunamis, but other than that, I love nuclear power.



I like the idea of carbon taxes. I would like the government to subsidize (via any of several means) wind and solar power projects. I would also like them to work to enable greater use of nuclear power and research into other alternative energy sources (wave and tide power, OTEC, geothermal, etc). I believe that is needed and will benefit all.



I don't know that you have. The Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate and the Earth as a whole continues to warm. Do not be fooled by the transition which has moved a large portion of the heat formerly accumulated in the atmosphere to the deep ocean. The energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere HAS NOT CHANGED.



It would be nice if our science was perfect and omniscient, but it's not and never will be. However, it IS better - MUCH better - than the views and actions pushed by those who reject our science. And, since global warming continues apace, it is NOT actually the issue. GHG's are still causing increased amounts of solar energy to be trapped in our atmosphere, our lands and - for the greatest part - in our oceans.



I agree with your first clause - they are not evidence. And what we are talking about are, for the most part, not predictions but projections. There's a difference.

It is grossly misguided to classify a multivariate projection of a complex process as right or wrong. They are more or less accurate, but they are not right or wrong. It would be nice if the world were that simple, but it is not. That's why I look to the folks with the most education and applicable experience for the best information. That practice tells me that the world is still warming and that human GHG emissions are the primary cause. It tells me that the path we are on presents a real risk to us and our descendants. It tells me that overcoming this issue will be expensive and will require deep and enduring dedication. And all of that - and the existence of folks with opinions such as yours - tells me we will fail.

A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

 

[Abraham3]

A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

 

[orogenicman]

The Constitution was a good attempt at limiting government, but it is fundamentally flawed. The concept of limited government is an oxymoron.

In what way is it fundamentally flawed. Which government has NEVER been used to mold society?

It's fundamentally flawed because it allowed our government to grow to its current gargantuan size.

The fact that every government now existing tries to mold society doesn't make it right. In the year 1800 virtually every government on earth allowed slavery. Is slavery right?

All governments grow and shrink according to the size of their populations. And why wouldn't they? It takes a bigger bureaucracy to service a larger population. Welcome to the 21st century.

 

[orogenicman]

A projection is a prediction.

You have no way of knowing what prediction will be correct and what won't.

You cannot tell me with any certainty that a 2 degree C rise in temp over the next hundred years will cause any "real risk" to us.

You cannot tell me that the temp will even indeed rise that much.

All you can say is that GHG emissions add to the warming of the earth. A fact I have never denied.

Doom and gloom apocalyptic propaganda may work on you but I not falling for it.

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

You do realize, of course, that that 2 degree figure is a global average, right. That it is entirely likely that among the numbers included in arriving at that 2 degree global rise includes extremes at both ends that can, do, and likely WILL kill people. Right? What? You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[bripat9643]

You ignore that 100 percent of climate science supports the predictions of huge impacts on civilization. Your position is entirely based on, you hope not.

When you drive do you merely hope for no accident, or do you actively manage the risks?

Sorry but a mere 2 degree rise in temp will not have a "huge impact" on humanity

Glad to hear it! Those scientists had gotten me worried what with their PhDs and their peer-reviewed studies and all. I guess I can relax now. Whoo-ee, that's a load off my mind. Thanks a million!

Appeal to Authority - a logical fallacy. Their studies are not "peer" reviewed. They are PAL reviewed.