Quoting idiot political statements from political organizations masquerading as science organizations isn't science Linlyons. It is politics. As a geologist, I am well aware that the vast majority of geologists are properly skeptical of significant or harmful warming by our CO2. Personally, I am not interested in those organizations and they don't speak for me. I am too busy living my life and working. College professors are largely from the left and more gullible to human caused warming but honestly I doubt that many of my professors are alarmists with the exception of one, my environmental geology professor. He was a real piece of work. I agree that it seems alarmists can rarely provide any actual facts and instead quote organizations, try to imply a consensus, and insult those who are skeptical.
Science is hard. You have to read and think. And sometimes we don't like what it tells us.
Politics is more fun. You don't need to back anything up, you can just rant and rave. Just look at "Sagebrush" and "Jello's" endless Q&As to each other.
Mostly people opposed to the concept of climate change being real (and being influenced by humans - two different concepts) are opposed to it not because they legitimately understand and intelligently disagree with the science behind it, but rather because they are either politically opposed to the policy decisions it might lead to, or simply as a knee-jerk reaction to what they refer to as "greenies". They refer to it as a "hoax" and throw all kinds of conspiracy theories out there.
Many people claim that even researching climate change is wrong and a waste, and many more are opposed to doing anything about it. Often it is claimed that this is for economic reasons. However, there stands to be significant economic, societal, and geopolitical implications if we experience significant climate impacts in the future. Anyone who truly cares about our society and economy, would see this as a potential game-changer, and would want to know as much about it as possible, so we could make informed decisions as to whether any adaptive actions are advisable or not.
Moreover, our economy is not linear and zero-sum. For example, there are already more American jobs in the solar industry than in the coal industry. Of course there are local and regional impacts. This sucks for coal miners. But it's a boon for those in the solar industry, and our economy marches on. Economics shift over time, and addressing climate change need not necessarily be a negative economically. On the contrary, preparing for it could mitigate negative effects, and could also create jobs. The environmental contracting industry employs millions of people. It's not "coal or nothing" to use one example.
It is some what political rather than a scientific. So called environmentalist have created the noise of 'Climate change' very badly, however it is a natural and spontaneous process.
Sure - those who say they believe in so-called "global warming" because it's science also reject GMO's, Nuclear Power, and Fracking even though the science supports these technologies as being safe and beneficial to man kind. They can't say they support science, then pick and choose the science they want to believe.
Let us let the greenies answer that question themselves.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
'Climate Change' --- the very term is a deception. OF COURSE THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE, NOBODY DENIES THAT !! But just because the climate changes does NOT mean that humans are causing it.
Alarmists use the political ploy of saying skeptics deny 'climate change' and of course that is a LIE. Again, NOBODY DENIES CLIMATE CHANGE. Skeptics only deny that it's caused by humans.
Whenever you see these kinds of political ploys --- YOU KNOW IT'S POLITICAL --- it's NOT science.
Alarmists don't want to talk about the science because none of the real science is on their side.
-----------------------
More often climate change is a question of debit among developed country and they point out on developing countries for the climate change problems.
I think they have to think from root.
In politics, opinions are like butt-holes, everybody's got one.
Science requires some knowledge -- except there are those who treat science like an opinion.
There is science associated with global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of ALL OF THE MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
IE, NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION NOW CLAIMS THAT AGW IS NOT REAL.
Probably because political questions ask for opinions and scientific questions require facts.
People like to argue about things, especially when they have no idea what they're talking about. In politics, you simply give your opinion, while in science, you MUST back it up. It's easier to hide your ignorance in the political world.
I notice pure science questions get few answers, while questions with a political bias get lots of answers.
opinions are easy. knowledge is hard.
