That they believe in CAGW.....Bull sh!t.
That they believe in rubber stamping studies that support their livelihood? (referring to climate scientists who support studies that support them)... I doubt they even believe that but it is hard to take someone's opinion about something when their livelihood depends on it or their reason for choosing the field is influenced by their bias.
Scientists don't or at least shouldn't believe in things. When they do, they aren't behaving like scientists but then again some of those self proclaimed climate scientists are nothing but small minded leftists who behave like small minded leftists
Note: Can I answer something without using obscenities. Apparently you don't know what obscene is because you seem to spew them all the time. My BS meter was going off. You seem to trigger it all the time.
You talk about experiments. We aren't experimenting with energy. We just don't want your type experimenting with it. We have tried your dangerous experiments Peggy. Face it, socialism has failed where ever it is tried and whenever it is tried. I realize that some people are proud that they don't know anything about socialism. I call them Lenin's useful idiots.
Another edit. Economic system aren't important to the planet. Having the government seize control of the energy sector won't significantly affect CO2. I didn't say it would. It would only affect our way of life and it would be a drastic reduction in our standard of living and freedom. I realize that is a concept foreign to you because you just don't care about what the solutions do. The costs have to be reasonable with the threat. My rational view is to not let your extremist leftist view succeed and exaggerating AGW is all about pushing a leftist agenda. When I see people like you exaggerating the threats and ignoring any benefits, what else am I supposed to believe? Do you or do you not think our CO2 is going to cause CAGW. If not, then it is isn't that big of a deal. If you think it is, then there has to be a rational analyses. Without a rational analyses of threat and cost of solutions (along with unintended consequences), who really cares?
Note: Believer isn't something I am. I look at evidence and try to make my best guess about what is most likely. It would be better, IMO, if all scientists would behave that way.
Never wrong suggests we have fish which were never here before. Having fished in California for years, that is news to me and laughably wrong but it doesn't matter to alarmists because they say something and automatically believe it is true and their fellow alarmists pick up on it and repeat it like a mantra. I would also point out that never is a long time but I guess he like superlatives.
You ever notice that with leftists, the only innovative ideas come with government mandates and regulations.
Climate Realist, that is an overly simplistic view, that I am sure you do not actually hold.
Do you not think that the course of actions we take would be significantly different for 10 degrees than for 1 degree?
Further, are there not other considerations in taking action. For example, certainly not allwoing African nation to build any coal power plants (right now we are just not allowing them to get loan from the World Bank) may lead to more death than AGW or may lead to less. Should not our actions consider the greatest good???
Not only shoudl the possible consequence of both action and non-action be considered, but so to should the certainty of those consequences.
If you could potentially save a million lives, but it would certainly cost 100 lives, what would you do? Would it not somewhat depend on the certianty that a million lives would indeed be saved?
This is the inherent problem with the AGW crowd. They frequently claim more certianty than is warranted by the data, increasing the potential for bad decisions.
There is no containing this great menace to SUVs and Holy Church of Rush Limbaugh unless you post at least 20 "questions" per day, mention Goebbels in half of them, "Ha Ha Ha" in 2/3 of the rest, and remain very very alarmed. The Rothofeller Marxist Warmist Scientists will otherwise stop at nothing. Today "they know" that America is contributing a disproportionate share to harmful climate change, tomorrow "they know" the world is round and wasn't built in 6 days. Before You know it, They will know the moon isn't hollow.
Edit re Pegminer: Sagebrush WROTE a book!??? Where is the evidence he would even know which way up to hold one to read it the text of it? No font size in the known universe is within an order of magnitude large enough to display the appropriately sized "Ha Ha Ha!"
We are waiting until the extreme drought and fires have slowed down in California.
.Fish are changing their patterns of migration. Warm water fish are now appearing where they have never been before. The cold water fish(which we basically live off of) are finding colder water somewhere else. Which means the bounty of the sea is moving because the water is too warm for that type of fish. This has implications because as the fish are mobile their food source is not as fast to move. Plants only go so fast and root themselves again. Warm water plants MAY NOT be what the cold water fish will eat, so there will be a reduction in the population of fish as they die off. We can not afford a reduction in a food source. And it applies to land plants as well. The California drought is an example. Have that drought go for a number of years and there is much food that dies. Such as orange trees, and other fruit trees,.
. What happen to innovative ideas? Something we can do to counter-act this effect? This is a multi-billion dollar potential...for some backyarder to come up with a solution. I would have thought all of you can see yourself as being rich with your patented idea...and would be in there like a dirty shirt.
. Instead of the "cop-out" ..."I am part of the problem" mantra
Hey as you know I am a confirmed skeptic, but if you ask me is CO2 a greenhouse gas I would say yes, if you ask me if CO2 can cause warming I would say yes, if you ask me does man add to the CO2 in the atmosophere I would say yes, so that would put me in line with the 97%
However if you ask me, would it cause significant warming I would say NO, if you ask me is it more likely to be dangerous than beneficial I would say NO, if you ask me is it right to spend trillions on stupid solar and wind in a vain attempt to try and reduce CO2, I would say NO.
So statements about what climate scientists believe are basically misinformation rather than being meaningfull
At best that's a partial statement.
Come up with a real statement and maybe we can answer it.
EDIT: Ok, so the statement you're talking about is "96% of all the world's scientists [believe in man-made global warming]", or something like that?
If that's the statement, I won't defend it--I don't even believe it! And I would challenge you to come up with an ACTUAL statement, rather than one you made up.
I would say that well over 90% of climate scientists believe in AGW is true, but if you start counting geologists that work for coal companies or geologic engineers that make their living rubber stamping construction projects in California, I don't think that's true.
EDIT for Jim Z: Can't you give an answer without using obscenities? How would you even KNOW what climate scientists think? Tell us the last time that you talked to one. I used to be in a building that probably had at least 50, maybe more. What conferences have you been to recently? Have you been to an American Geophysical Union meeting? Have you been to a meeting of the American Meteorological Society? My livelihood does not depend at all on AGW. I didn't apply my thesis research to it (although I could have). At the present time, I teach, do commercial meteorology and do defense work--not one of which has anything to do with AGW. And yet I understand that we are grossly changing the greenhouse gas composition of our atmosphere, and that will have serious consequences. I'd say that what most climate scientists agree on is that we are running an extremely dangerous experiment on the only planet on which we live.
Another EDIT for Sagebrush: If you can't ask a question that makes sense without referring to an answer that hasn't been given yet, then I suggest you refrain from answering in the first place.
Originally you ask an incomplete question, then want us to answer it. Then you tell me that someone else understood it, and you quote the relevant part, and I try to answer that. Clearly you don't have the foggiest notion what question you are actually asking.
Aren't you supposed to have written books? You can't even write a coherent question, I feel sorry for whatever fool tries to read one of your books.
Have you thought about taking a community college course on writing...or anything else, really?
Another EDIT for Jim Z: Oh, so you think that what economic system that people use is the same as modifying an entire planet's ecosystem? Sorry if I don't get that.
And I am entirely sure that I have never advocated socialism as a remedy for changing the atmospheric composition! I would think that someone with actual scientific training would realize that the atmospheric composition doesn't change depending on whether you're a socialist, capitalist, communist, fascist or Bigfoot believer. You really can't think of these things without conflating your own extremist politics with science, can you?
I just want deniers to stop lying about the science so that we can have an informed discussion about how to take care of this problem that we've created. If we can find a free market solution, then everybody should be happy, right?
Well the President says it is settled science. On the other hand he could be lying. Not like he hasn't done that a couple of times!
This "We Know" and "96%" bs is just a method of trying to win an argument with intimidation. This is why they have to use the terms "denier" and "skeptic". If there was a link between co2 and temps, they would just publish a mathematical equation. This is the reason no one denies gravity or Ohm's law.
>>Yes I AM part of the problem.<<
That is certainly true. You are profoundly scientifically illiterate, but lie that is not the case - you still do not know what "statistical significance" is or means.
Even your favorite Goebbel "quote" is a lie - a fact that has been pointed out to you many times -
http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotatio...
- and which you ignore the same as you ignore all factual evidence that debunks your science-hating Medieval belief system.
Well, if a hundred years of climate science, millions of pieces of evidence, and a general consensus of 96% of all the worlds scientists has not convinced you... You're part of the problem.
Why ask a question when your mind is made up? No amount of evidence will convince deniers just like no amount of evidence convinces creationists.
