todd1200

Your post is riddled with contradictions. How can you start by saying: But then follow with: What does that have to do with scientific data? Does man's ability to cope with a certain event make that event any less likely? I hope you can see how thoroughly that statement reveals the real motivation of your skepticism. You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing and allowing the cart of your political beliefs to come before the horse of science.


Exactly. What effects do economic consequences have on scientific conclusions?

Also, you may not want to trust the Met and the U. of East Anglia research unit any more -- that article you keep quoting that claimed "the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997" was immediately refuted by the very agencies whose data was quoted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

...

However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
link for anyone that cares: Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

The fact that you cannot accept the potential effects of acting on a certain conclusion betrays your inability to accept that conclusion. The fact that you question the economic consequences of scientific data utterly convicts you of being prejudiced when viewing that data. You have perfectly proven that objection to the science behind anthropogenic climate change is purely political.

jungle

You have made your ideology perfectly clear. It is also clear that ideology has no effect on science.

What you are missing is that practical applications that deal with outcomes have yet to be shown.

If you think that science has the answer, then you have gotten ahead of yourself. Are we now to control the sun? Are we now to cut off carbon fuels?
They are both impossible solutions, like it or not.

You have spent most of your efforts pointing to imagined ideological defects and damn little time on science or practical solutions.
I find this typical in this debate.

We all understand that pure science is worth little without practical application.

JamesNoBrakes

I'd probably imagine that the people before the age of renaissance would think the aspect of living in orderly cities, suburbs and civilizations to be impossible. Those living before the industrial revolution would probably think modern mechanization and processes impossible. Those living before the time of efficient living and reducing impacts probably thought those things impossible (but it's happening right now, houses powered entirely by their solar array, hybrids like the volt getting amazing mpg, things getting better everywhere). While the "cost" of these things is often higher than keeping the old systems and things at first, given some decent time things change and evolve. We all want our cake and we want to eat it too. Only someone completely ignorant would think that we can procreate and keep expanding without any consequences. There are those of us that want our civilizations to exist without collapsing on themselves, which has been noted time and time again in history.

We are weaning off from dependency on carbon deposits in the ground. That doesn't mean we are not dependent, and that we won't be for a while, but we have electric airplanes soaring around, cars getting amazing mpg compared to years ago, high efficiency solar powering homes and running power back into the matrix, different ways of re-capturing and regenerating fuels being pursued. None of these is any kind of end-game solution to anything, they are just the evolution of a society as noted above. There are those that will cringe and fear the change, hold out to what they know and believe regardless of what is happening, and there are those who will embrace it. I don't mean to come off like some of us here do not, but the attitudes I see seem to indicate that "no science will ever be good enough".

tomgoodman

Technological innovations and new power sources may indeed improve the environment, but that's not why they are developed. It's because somebody sees a way to make money on the deal. Show 'em that, and "green" arguments are completely unnecessary.

todd1200

Jungle, what are we debating? Science or policy? You attack the validity of scientific findings because you don't the repercussions of dealing with those findings? Scientific data shapes public policy, not the other way around -- if you don't like the direction of the policy debate, reshape that debate within the sphere of public policy, don't get upset and attack science.

Doctor: Looks like your showing some early signs of lung cancer. My advice to you is to stop smoking.

Patient: It is difficult to stop smoking, therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer.

How we deal with climate change is a complicated and divisive matter, the scientific reality of climate change should not be.

todd1200

James & Tom, I heard a good analogy the other day - The Bronze Age didn't end when man ran out of bronze, but when he found something better.

jungle

The reality of climate change is that it has always existed. I don't attack the science, nor do I accept that science has a full understanding of all the factors involved in climate change.

The policy debate has offered no solutions, because there are no viable solutions.

It isn't possible to present it all in a neat little package, and offer a solution in the science or the practical application of science to a solution.

What is really unfortunate is that the true believers in MMGW have a whole laundry list of ideology to go with the science.

FDXLAG

Wow imagine that, acurate temperature readings have only been available for the last 100 years or so and only in certain parts of the world and what do you think they discover? Why yes, uncontrolled warming caused by co2. Never mind that co2 is as natural as water and is just as essential for life on the planet. Never mind that we can document that the planet has been much colder and much warmer; it is essential that we confiscate your wealth and property so we can share it and make the planet a healthier place and much more profitable for friends of the DNC.

FDXLAG

Quite or Obama will throw another trillion to jumpstart the tungsten age. Do you think the bronze age bloggers were sitting around and central planning the start of the iron age?

jungle

Todd, I find it interesting that you went first to Hansen, he left the scientific reservation a long time ago. His statements, starting in 1988, make it clear he has broken from science. His predictions of climate change have proven to be laughable at best.
Hansen represents a certain political viewpoint.
Despite all that, he does have some very interesting ideas on the future of nuclear energy, which I happen to agree with-he understands that windmills and solar cannot possibly supply future energy needs.

His theory has long since been proven wildly inaccurate in predicting climate, and he is clearly willing to fudge the numbers whenever he can.

The problem is that most predictions have been proven inaccurate over time and the concern over a decades worth of data has ignored the big picture. The big picture shows we are as cool as we have ever been over the last 2000 years.

The public has heard all the predictions of calamity over many decades, both for heating and cooling, but the fact remains that none of them have come true.