Widescale Global Cooling

[ShovelStrokeEd]

But if manmade climate change is real, then let's also be realistic about whether we can mitigate it in any meaningful way without regressing back to the stone age. I'd rather see us putting our efforts into finding ways to adapt to the changes as they come.

 

You betcha!!!

 

I won't be around for it if the global warming folks are right but Floridians better be prepared to live on boats or stilt housing with boats as primary transportation. Solution? Move North.

 

Wait a minute, maybe the cooling guys have it right and there will be glaciers in Michigan, isn't that what formed the great lakes? Better move South.

[smiller]

Actually there is a lot of careful science behind the projections and they are not simply conjured up as you imply. Are they accurate to a certainty? No, of course not, and may never be, providing an eternal excuse to ignore the data if that is your predisposition.

 

I find it amusing that so many claim to know that any suggestion that human activities may be contributing to global warming must somehow be ideologically motivated when it seems pretty clear from the insightful comments in this thread that it's just possible that ideological influences may be occurring on both sides of the controversy.

[smiller]

But if manmade climate change is real, then let's also be realistic about whether we can mitigate it in any meaningful way without regressing back to the stone age. I'd rather see us putting our efforts into finding ways to adapt to the changes as they come.

That statement makes two rather large assumptions: that it won't be practical to mitigate human effects in any meaningful way and that we will be able to adapt to any changes even though we have no idea of what their magnitude might be. Maybe both assumptions are correct, and maybe neither are.

[ghaverkamp]

My position has been, is, and will continue to be that we simply don't know enough about climate change to warrant doing ANYTHING about it, cooling or warming.

 

What is your knowledge of climate science that makes you qualified to make such an assertion and take such a stance?

 

Simple, as has been demonstrated over and over the last twenty years, we cannot accurately measure the atmosphere. Since we are unable to accurately measure it, we cannot really tell what it is doing, hense all of the revised theories and computer models.

 

Compound that with the obvious fact that we also cannot accurately measure historical atmospherics. Sure, we can check CO2 from a carbon-dated sliver of ice. But, that only gets us a glimpse of that particular spot on earth, within a timeframe of a couple hundred years.

 

To be clear, your position is that we don't know enough. That is based on your position that you do, however, know enough to know that we can't accurately measure changes in greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, your very justifications betray you. While it is true that the measurement of CO2 from a single location measures the concentration only at that location, the concentration of CO2 at that location is certainly impacted by the global atmospheric concentration.

 

So, what do we have to do to support your position that current sampling methodologies are insufficient to spur any action? We have to ignore the bulk of the scientists in the field. We apparently have to believe that these fat cat scientists are conspiring, all for the sake of wealth. We have to buy into the arguments from the fringe. Finally, we must determine that our own, personal knowledge of atmospheric and climate science is superior to that of those practicing the science.

 

Do all of that, and indeed, it sure does look like a crock.

[steve.foote]

What is your knowledge of climate science that makes you qualified to make such an assertion and take such a stance?

 

My knowledge is that if the science is sound, the scientists wouldn't need to keep asking for more research money. And, they wouldn't continue to drastically revise their findings.

[smiller]

My knowledge is that if the science is sound, the scientists wouldn't need to keep asking for more research money. And, they wouldn't continue to drastically revise their findings.

So climate science is either so complex that we can't be sure of anything, OR it's straightforward enough that scientists should have it all figured out by now and not require any further research. Which is it?

[ghaverkamp]

My knowledge is that if the science is sound, the scientists wouldn't need to keep asking for more research money.

 

Do you know anything about science? About the scientific method? By your position, there is no such thing as sound science. Don't get me wrong, in an Intelligently Designed universe you'd hope that everything would be simple and all aspects of a problem could be understood at once. That's just not the way things work.

 

 

And, they wouldn't continue to drastically revise their findings.

 

Define drastic.

[Deadboy]

Just got home from a nice ride….Here are the 2006 MC #'s in California from CARB (much cleaner than EPA requires)...feel freee to compare those to the accepted EPA tier II automobile standards (just to make it fun, the CARB automobile standards would be even stricter)....

 

CA 2006 Model Year Emissions by Major Manufacturers

Manufacturer HC+NOx range Avg HC+NOx

Am. Ironhorse 1.25 1.25

BMW 0.22-0.98 0.44

Buell 0.80-1.07 0.87

Ducati 0.47-1.33 0.75

Harley Davidson 0.75-1.71 1.07

Honda 0.3-1.2 0.79

Hyosung 1.16 1.16

Kawasaki 0.4-1.6 0.84

Suzuki 0.24-1.49 0.83

Thunder Mtn 1.00 1.00

Triumph 0.22-1.98 0.53

Victory 0.75-1.06 1.05

Yamaha 0.2-2.1 0.86

Total Sales 0.2-2.1 0.87

 

I would suggest you stick to your chosen strategy of only focusing on one issue (CO)...

 

What does a SD resident with no car do in the winter anyway?

[ShovelStrokeEd]

I spend a lot of time in and around the scientific community although I'm not one myself. Those of you who think they are getting rich on those multi-million dollar grants need to think again. Almost all of them are on salary in whichever institution they are associated with and few of them make much more than the average successful plumber. Most of the grant money goes into equipment and time and expense money for travel. Even many of the government labs are associated with university or corporate worlds.

 

A good deal of the dirty work is performed by graduate students (paid a meager stipend) by their universities or post doctoral fellows who, typically, are paid around 40-50K a year.

 

Another big chunk, perhaps the largest, goes into the facility expense to set up and maintain the labs. You wouldn't believe how expensive that can be. Simply setting up a cabinet for hydrogen gas cylinder storage and plumbing it to the location of an instrument cost one client $50,000.00, it was required by the site safety people so, no choice. I didn't have a complete breakdown but I do know that facility labor in the form of pipe fitters, carpenters, electrical workers and sheet metal guys, each trade being involved to one extent or another was well over $200/hr/man and it took almost 2 weeks. No, they weren't billed 2 weeks for each trade and the cabinet was a commercial item.

 

There is considerable oversight on how and where the grant money is spent. Quite a bit at the government level and even more in corporate sites. They are required to publish results and said results are subject to considerable scrutiny and peer review. They ain't out there on the yacht idly musing on the colors of the sunset.

[smiller]

Well said Ed.

 

I don't know what secret New World Order directive is behind the global warming conspiracy, but the idea that they are in it for the grant money is pretty absurd.

[RFW]

Crichton does a good job of researching his books, but this one has such a stupid plot to hang his researching on; I can't imagine it getting as much attention as some of his others.

Yes, the plot is rather hokey. But as he says at the start of the book, the book is fiction, but THE FOOTNOTES ARE REAL...and there are almost a dozen pages of extremely well researched footnotes that seriously call into question the claim that mankind is causing the global warming fisaco.

 

By the way, ever noticed how few actual climatologists are among the "majority of scientists" that are always claimed to be fully supportive of the absurd claim that a mere 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 is enough to cause a global termal runaway? Especially when CO2 is the least effective greenhouse gas (water vapor being a hundred or more times worse than CO2)?

 

This entire global warming fisasco has always been tenuous, and needs to nbeseen for what it is... an attempt at social engineering by a monority, aided by a media that loves bombastic, "the end is near", headlines. It is interesting to note that luminaries like geneticist David Suzuki (who has made a living out of the global warming industry) were the same "scientists" that were warning against imminent global COOLING 25 years ago.

[Ron_B]

It is interesting to note that luminaries like geneticist David Suzuki (who has made a living out of the global warming industry) were the same "scientists" that were warning against imminent global COOLING 25 years ago.

 

Would that be the same David Suzuki who has proposed Nuremberg-style trials for "climate criminals" and "deniers?"

 

I'm keeping my mouth shut, I really don't want to spend any time in a reeducation camp, err, I mean facility.

 

[steve.foote]

So climate science is either so complex that we can't be sure of anything, OR it's straightforward enough that scientists should have it all figured out by now and not require any further research. Which is it?

 

Yes.

[ChrisNYC]

Not_Sure said So by all means, install CFL's, drive more fuel-efficient cars, turn down your thermostat,

 

...and eat veggie burgers, I guess. Seems meat production releases more "greenhouse gas" than transportation ...

 

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

 

LAtimes article

 

 

------------------

Chris (aka Tender Vittles )

Little '77 KZ400 in the Big Apple

Black '99 RT for Everywhere Else, such as ...

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Not_Sure said So by all means, install CFL's, drive more fuel-efficient cars, turn down your thermostat,

 

...and eat veggie burgers, I guess. Seems meat production releases more "greenhouse gas" than transportation ...

 

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

 

LAtimes article

 

All of these things are an issue. Talk about perfect timing, I saw this article this morning:

 

"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

 

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide."

 

When they say "cease carbon emissions altogether," we're talking no meat production; no hydrocarbon-fueled vehicles (not just cars, but trucks, trains, airplanes, cargo ships); no coal-fired power plants; No wood-burning stoves; No fuel-oil or natural gas for heating your house in the winter. Not just in the US, where we have the tech and resources to push toward these sorts of things, but in second- and third-world countries all over the world.

 

Hopefully some day we can find a way to make nuclear fusion work for us. Meanwhile, we would need to accept the need for more dams, nuclear (fission) power plants, and wind farms. Failing in that, if the latest studies are accurate, we must regress to a stone-age lifestyle if we want to stave off global warming.

[Mike]

So climate science is either so complex that we can't be sure of anything, OR it's straightforward enough that scientists should have it all figured out by now and not require any further research. Which is it?

 

Yes.

 

Good one, Steve. That pretty much sums it up.

 

It all seems much more like religion than science.

[smiller]

It all seems much more like religion than science.

Seems to me that description might be more apt of the 'global warming is a conspiracy' point of view.

[ChrisNYC]

Mike said It all seems much more like religion than science.

 

I guess that would be over here

 

 

Chris

[Mike]

It all seems much more like religion than science.

Seems to me that description might be more apt of the 'global warming is a conspiracy' point of view.

 

I wasn't referring to one side of the debate or the other, but since you raise the point, it strikes me as being the other way around. The scientists who disagree with what is portrayed as the mainstream view are vilified and accused of heresy. As noted above, those attacks aren't always pretty--they're described as shills for industry, likened to Holocaust deniers, and portrayed as criminals. It's really sad, and it chills legitimate scientific debate.

 

Perhaps the same thing has happened on the other side of the debate, but I haven't seen it.

[smiller]

The scientists who disagree with what is portrayed as the mainstream view are vilified and accused of heresy. As noted above, those attacks aren't always pretty--they're described as shills for industry, likened to Holocaust deniers, and portrayed as criminals. It's really sad, and it chills legitimate scientific debate.

There may have been a few extreme cases such as you describe but to make a blanket statement implying that this behavior is the norm among the scientific community is simply incorrect.

 

For my part I don't profess to be enough of a subject matter expert to confirm or deny the possible meanings of climate change data (unlike, apparently, many others here.) Has every conclusion that has been drawn correct? Certainly not. Is the popular media propgagting half-truths because it sells and the layperson public can't understand real science anyway? Yep. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject all the data based on the fact that it conflicts with some ideologically-founded belief system doesn't exactly represent an entirely objective response either.

[Mike]

There may have been a few extreme cases such as you describe but to make a blanket statement implying that this behavior is the norm among the scientific community is simply incorrect.

 

I agree 100%. For the most part, I think the scientists are behaving pretty responsibly and I respect their work. The most malicious attacks seem to come from non-scientsts who have an agenda (and this applies on both sides).

 

For my part I don't profess to be enough of a subject matter expert to confirm or deny the possible meanings of climate change data (unlike, apparently, many others here.) Has every conclusion that has been drawn correct? Certainly not. Is the popular media propgagting half-truths because it sells and the layperson public can't understand real science anyway? Yep. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject all the data based on the fact that it conflicts with some ideologically-founded belief system doesn't exactly represent an entirely objective response either.

 

No, and that's where I struggle as well. I fancy myself as halfway intelligent, though I am about as far from being a scientist as one can be. When I read the accounts of scientific that go both ways, I see credible evidence for and against the notion of manmade global warming. My concern is that there truly is no definitive answer, but that public policy that will change our lives dramatically is being based on who's winning the PR war.

[smiller]

My concern is that there truly is no definitive answer, but that public policy that will change our lives dramatically is being based on who's winning the PR war.

Well yeah, that's a reasonable concern regarding any political debate. But like you I would like to see the politics removed and the science looked at in an undependant light, as in attempting to determine whether a concern exists as a first step and then dealing with whatever ramifications may exist, vs. looking at the ramifications and deciding that they're undesireable and letting that influence the scientific debate. They are (or at least should be) two separate things.

 

As to achiving a definitive/certain answer in advance of any action, it is possible that may not be achiveable and some judgement calls may be required... and I'm not sure that the only two options are either doing nothing or returning to the stone age. In any event I don't think a good first step is to simply dismiss all data out of hand as attributable to a global conspiracy, scientists looking for grant money, etc. (and I realize that you personally didn't do that, just making a general observation.) If there's a lack of objectivity here it is very clearly occurring on both sides of the debate.

[steveknapp]

The tough part is the system they are trying to predict is so complex, that it's pretty darn hard to get your arms around. Short of calling up Slartibartfast and ordering up a few extras to perform some experiments on it's going to be pretty hard to use the scientific method to help prove/disprove this theory. More so to do anything in the time frame some predict is needed!

 

Reading that article, the key point hidden in all of that is there do appear to be other factors that impact our climate other than those which are man made. Which seems like a reasonable theory, given the sun's cycles etc..

 

It's not saying that man made factors are not an issue, that I read into at least. But it does present a perspective that the media, in my opinion, lacks...which is simply that there are multiple factors on the climate.

 

Or in other words, nothing we do, no matter how hard we try, is going to result in a constant average temperature for this planet.

[ghaverkamp]

Reading that article, the key point hidden in all of that is there do appear to be other factors that impact our climate other than those which are man made. Which seems like a reasonable theory, given the sun's cycles etc..

 

It's not saying that man made factors are not an issue, that I read into at least. But it does present a perspective that the media, in my opinion, lacks...which is simply that there are multiple factors on the climate.

 

Well, anyone who bothered to read (rather than just ignorantly criticize) the IPCC report would know that the scientists are well aware that there are many "forcing" factors of warming. RFW, for instance, would know that the scientists have considered the forcing effects of water vapor, but without his vast expertise, they have declared its forcing factor to be lower than that of CO2.

 

The point is, there are plenty of places to find out the real story about what the scientists are saying, and the mainstream press, which generally is not loaded with people with scientific backgrounds, is hardly the place to turn. Hence, each day brings a new story that, taken out of context, "drastically" alters the landscape.

[steveknapp]

For those who didn't get this beaten into their heads in college...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Introduction_to_scientific_method

 

The loop is basically, observe, form a theory, test that theory, use what you learned to refine the theory... And it's pretty hard to do without bringing in any personal bias. The good thing is if you iterate through the process, it tends to flush out those biases.

 

They have the theory, but there is no good way to test theories on climate change within such a complex system.

 

Just to frame up where my head is at, this is also one of my major beefs with drugs. I don't believe (and it is a belief not a theory) that the human body is well enough understood to know all the impacts of a drug. Hence only take them when needed, or when well proven. My "tests" have just been personal experiences including "how can this flu med make me feel suicidal? ... Oh, it's a known side effect, fantastic..."

[ghaverkamp]

For those who didn't get this beaten into their heads in college...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Introduction_to_scientific_method

 

The loop is basically, observe, form a theory, test that theory, use what you learned to refine the theory... And it's pretty hard to do without bringing in any personal bias. The good thing is if you iterate through the process, it tends to flush out those biases.

 

Which is why any argument that if scientists are asking for more money for research, they don't know anything completely ignores the basics of how science is done.

[steveknapp]

The point is, there are plenty of places to find out the real story about what the scientists are saying, and the mainstream press, which generally is not loaded with people with scientific backgrounds, is hardly the place to turn. Hence, each day brings a new story that, taken out of context, "drastically" alters the landscape.

 

Greg, where to turn for good summaries?

 

In an age with easily accessible information, you can pretty much research ANYTHING. But where to draw the line? We've seen the issues that asking a simple question like "What oil is the best" has on a motorcycling forum. Is every voter expected to learn the full history on the candidates, and also the detail of every bill they voted on?

 

This is where my head starts spinning and I ponder living with the Amish, as if they would take me.

[steveknapp]

Which is why any argument that if scientists are asking for more money for research, they don't know anything completely ignores the basics of how science is done.

 

Agreed. I do wish we even the scientists weren't prone to bias. I guess that's part of the method right, use experience to come up with a theory.

 

My belief is still that of a skeptic tho. They need some funding, but in essence they are trying to model long term weather. Last I checked even the well funded (or so it seems) weather forecasting community rarely agrees on what things will be like tomorrow, much less gets it right.

 

Maybe this is part of the unique California perspective? The "wacky-weatherman" style forecasts of 70 and sunny every day make climate prediction near term seem like a proven technology, hence more trust in it long term?

 

Where in the Midwest here it could snow tomorrow, it could be 60F with tornadoes (both have happened this year unannounced), they really don't know.

[Boffin]

I read somewhere (I think it was the UK met office but I can't locate it now) that it is possible to be reasonably accurate forecasting the weather a few hours ahead, fairly accurate a day or two ahead then it gets progessivly less accurate as you go out in time. It is however, possible to predict with fairly good accuracy general weather trends out past a month, eg, unsettled, mostly sunny etc. This is because chaos theory prevents micro accuracy but allows macro accuracy at that level of abstraction.

 

Andy

[SeanC]

Whu...Steve, are you saying any of this might be financially motivated???????? The horror!

 

There's no question that articles like the one that started this thread are financially motivated.

 

Who's got the biggest financial stake? Those scientists getting filthy rich, living the life of luxury in their labs or pulling those "slices" of ice from the poles, or writing grant proposals to hire some post-doc to write some software to do modeling?

 

Or those selling the stuff the scientists see as a problem?

So, um, have law schools stopped teaching the principle of follow the money? Carbon Credits, Greg. I'm no economist, but I think there's probably more potential for financial activity there than in the climate modeling software/grant-writing sectors of our economy...

 

Weather Channel Founder Advocates Suing Al Gore

[TyTass]

Ed, yes - your point is correct in that No, scientists do not get rich from grant money. The grants pay for their research and that has oversight. They don't personally earn the entire grant as a gift. I'll also acknowledge that all too often they have comparatively meager salaries for their educations and the potential importance and/or utility of their findings. (After the books come out, however, all bets are off. )

 

However, I'm sure that you'd acknowledge that often (again perhaps too often) without any grant, they make no money at all. You may or may not acknowledge that there is a whole industry of people who lobby for grants being awared.

 

The point is, it isn't unfettered from politics.

 

(Great - point, Seanc)

[steveknapp]

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

 

This is the stuff that concerns me. On the surface it sounds like "agree with my science or I'll take your ability to be a scientist away!"... Challenging theories should be welcomed.

[ghaverkamp]

Carbon Credits, Greg. I'm no economist, but I think there's probably more potential for financial activity there than in the climate modeling software/grant-writing sectors of our economy...

 

And how does that financially benefit the scientists who are supposed to be faking their scientific conclusions for the sake of money?

 

It's the scientists who are being called money-grubbing liars here. The incoherent rantings of the founder of the Weather Channel or suggestions of graft in the carbon credit market at a conference -- Oops, conferences are a haven for money -- targeted at debunking human contribution to global warming hardly add to a reasoned discussion.

[ghaverkamp]

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

 

This is the stuff that concerns me. On the surface it sounds like "agree with my science or I'll take your ability to be a scientist away!"... Challenging theories should be welcomed.

 

That is, unsurprisingly, not what she said on her blog at all. However, it clearly helps the side that would rather suggest that there's an all-out assault on those who suggest humans haven't contributed to global warming.

[smiller]

The 'follow the money' argument makes no logical sense whatsoever. All scientific grant and carbon credit monies combined wouldn't amount to a small fraction of the profits being made by the purveyors of fossil fuel. If 'the money' is of any influence at all it certainly isn't on the side of global warming theorists.

[steveknapp]

I did read her blog, and came away seeing the same harshness.

 

I'd like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)

 

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.

 

I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!

 

So it's clear, any counter argument is "junk science".

 

The quote that started this was:

History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don't know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That's all I will say about this.

 

BTW, I don't buy into the "follow the money" theory much either. It's a serious issue which needs serious study.

 

Tho I do think "carbon credits" are a sham. And I have a hard time trusting any scientist who's too well polished.

 

[ghaverkamp]

I did read her blog, and came away seeing the same harshness.

 

The only way to read that with the same harshness is to make the same mistake the meteorologist at issue did, and conflate weather cycles with climate change and, therefore, weather with climate. If a meteorologist can't understand the differences between those two things, then indeed, that meteorologist is unable to "speak to the fundamental science of climate change . . . ."

 

Nowhere did the blog post say that meteorologists must believe that human CO2 has accelerated climate change or even that the climate is changing (naturally or otherwise.) However, it hardly seems harsh to expect a meteorologist to understand the differences between weather and climate and the differences between weather cycles and climate change.

[steve.foote]

Which is why any argument that if scientists are asking for more money for research, they don't know anything completely ignores the basics of how science is done.

 

Greg, that statement if pure hyperbole. Nobody is arguing that the scientists don't know anything, only that they don't know enough to warrant making drastic changes to our way of life.

[steveknapp]

Maybe she should get off the weather channel and find the "climate channel"? Or are we just nit-picking at that point?

 

One only needs to ride across Nebraska to be reminded that that area was once covered in ice, or so the theory goes, flattened to a boring wonder. Do that on a 103F day and it makes you wonder.

[steveknapp]

Which is why any argument that if scientists are asking for more money for research, they don't know anything completely ignores the basics of how science is done.

 

Greg, that statement if pure hyperbole. Nobody is arguing that the scientists don't know anything, only that they don't know enough to warrant making drastic changes to our way of life.

 

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/1114_OverviewFinal.pdf

 

The suggested solutions seem OK for the most part, just making them real is a huge challenge.

 

60MPG car? Where's even the reasonable 30MPG car? This stupid PT cruiser rental is not only an giant POS, but the MPG beats my 3/4ton diesel "Carbon Footprint II" by 10%.

 

Tons of new nuke plants, sign me up, but where to put the waste? Didn't nuke all but die because of the environmental concerns both for the waste and plant safety? The local plant here got shut down a few years ago and a good crop of natural gas "peaker plants" were built.

[smiller]

The suggested solutions seem OK for the most part, just making them real is a huge challenge.

It is indeed, but their implementation would not result in a drastic change in our way of life or a return to the stone age as some have posited. Again, hyperbole seems to be tool used freely by both sides in this debate.

[steve.foote]

Good, after a half dozen pages of diagnosing the problem, what is the solution? How can those sides come together to everyone's satisfaction?

[ghaverkamp]

Greg, that statement if pure hyperbole. Nobody is arguing that the scientists don't know anything, only that they don't know enough to warrant making drastic changes to our way of life.

 

"My knowledge is that if the science is sound, the scientists wouldn't need to keep asking for more research money."

 

If they knew anything, presumably the science would be sound. Otherwise, all they would know is a collection of facts they've amassed to line their pockets with the proceeds of the carbon credits market.

 

If the science is sound, some say they have no business asking for money.

 

If they can't prove to every skeptic on the block that their science is sound, they shouldn't be provided with research money, because the science isn't sound (sound science needs no more research), and because we shouldn't pay for anything that is backed by sound science. We also shouldn't pay for unsound science. Basically, it seems, the opposition is to science.

 

But why would that be a surprise, given the standard opponents?

[David]

I feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day."

[ghaverkamp]

I feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day."

 

Watch that first step. It's a doozy!

[steve.foote]

I feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day."

 

Thank you.

[steve.foote]

Greg, that statement if pure hyperbole. Nobody is arguing that the scientists don't know anything, only that they don't know enough to warrant making drastic changes to our way of life.

 

"My knowledge is that if the science is sound, the scientists wouldn't need to keep asking for more research money."

 

If they knew anything, presumably the science would be sound. Otherwise, all they would know is a collection of facts they've amassed to line their pockets with the proceeds of the carbon credits market.

 

If the science is sound, some say they have no business asking for money.

 

If they can't prove to every skeptic on the block that their science is sound, they shouldn't be provided with research money, because the science isn't sound (sound science needs no more research), and because we shouldn't pay for anything that is backed by sound science. We also shouldn't pay for unsound science. Basically, it seems, the opposition is to science.

 

But why would that be a surprise, given the standard opponents?

 

Greg, I think your vocation is well chosen. I believe you like to debate for the sake of debating.

 

In order for anyone to meet you in the middle, you have to also be willing to move to the middle. If your idea of prevailing is total domination, well, good luck.

[smiller]

Good, after a half dozen pages of diagnosing the problem, what is the solution? How can those sides come together to everyone's satisfaction?

Well first we probably have to agree that there's a problem to be addressed. Are we there yet?

[steve.foote]

Good, after a half dozen pages of diagnosing the problem, what is the solution? How can those sides come together to everyone's satisfaction?

Well first we probably have to agree that there's a problem to be addressed. Are we there yet?

 

Ok, let's describe that problem in a way that we can stay focused on it. You go first.

[David]

I feel like I'm watching "Groundhog Day."

 

Thank you.

 

Why are you thanking me? You're playing a leading role.