Lemme throw an analogy your way. Keeping in mind, of course, that the only perfect analogy for a thing is the thing itself.
We are all on a tour bus, that is stopped along side a winding mountain road. We've all stopped to take pictures.
A few of the more alert tourists noticed what seemed to be an avalanche forming at the top of the mountain. At first, no one takes action, the evidence is unclear. Some people think it's just clouds, or a dust storm, or something.
However, pretty soon, it's clear to everyone on the upslope side of the bus that there's an avalanche coming. But the bus driver, and most of the other people on the downslope side of the bus, don't believe it. They think it's just clouds, or dust, or the avalanche will stop before it reaches the road, or avalanches are a myth, or...
Why are the people who can see the avalanche trying to get the rest to "believe their faith"? Because they want everyone to get back on the bus and drive the hell *out* of there.
Short version of what I'm trying to say with that analogy: it's hard to get people to work on solving a problem that they don't believe exists, especially if the solutions are complex and/or require significant changes or even fairly minor sacrifices.
We should build more nuclear power. We should run vehicles off of natural gas instead of petroleum. We should build solar plants where solar is a good idea (like around here), and wind where wind is a good idea. Where we can make our buildings and devices more energy-efficient, we should do that. Where we can build hydroelectric power without messing up the environment unduly, we should do that. Where we can build geothermal power cost-effectively, we should do that. And on, and on, and on.
Who knows, who cares. I've been reading on this for near 50 years and I'm still not sipping Mai Tai's under palm trees in CT in the winter. It is like flying cars any century now.
There are around seven billion bags of 98 degree water breathing out 98 degree carbon dioxide numerous times a minute. They are multiplying and moving from the tropics to the north removing trees as they go for the purpose of creating and preserving heat. The opposition to doing something to change the additional contributions to the problem come mainly from those that contribute to the problem by smoking...not by selling abstinence.
Deniers are the ones who have faith in their conspiracy. They don't practice Science.
It's completely ridiculous to think the majority of the scientific community is lying, or wrong.
Religious Fundamentalists have been at war with Science ever since the birth of Modern Science.
You must have OCD, being on Y!A global warming every day, not really asking questions, only trying to prove you're right, and only picking answers by your fellow cult members. You abuse Y!A and make it bad for society
One very effective way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is to allow the earth to warm more which will cause the duration and the northward extent of forests and other CO2 consuming vegetation to increase to the point where their co2 intake exceeds the co2 input into the atmosphere due to all sources.
It's not religion. It's not science. This is about politics.
There are 195 nations on Earth who don't cooperate very well with each other.
So a way had to be made to convince all these nations to give up some of their sovereignty for the sake of a global threat.
AGW is a useful means to accomplish that.
The scientific argument, either way, is just scenery for the masses.
The Q you shud be asking is why so many powerful people want this to happen...
I just read you (or someone on your side, can't recall who now, but it was in the last day or two) say in a comment to someone that they are afraid of "people like you who vote." In short, you deniers are afraid of allowing anyone who accepts AGW to vote and use that opinion in shaping the way they vote.
What goes for the goose goes for the gander. Why would you be surprised about that?
And in any case, this so-called "battle field" over climate science pretty much is ONLY occurring in the US, where nearly a third of the population is fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christians of a type NOT FOUND anywhere else in the world and who are, almost to a person, anti-science and willing to ignorantly embrace the absolute authority over their belief systems of just a few preachers. There really is nothing else like it found anywhere else around the world. We also in the US have a substantial, perhaps around 10% or so, subpopulation of Dominionists and related types who believe the US should be a religious gov't and many of whom go around practicing weaponry for the day when they will have to take on the "outside world" in some kind of war they envision.
That's just between you and me, neither of us being climate scientists. Climate scientists tend to prefer to, at least while staying active in their professions, to focus on helping to produce good science results and leave it to all citizens of the world to use (or not use) that science how they will.
But the anti-AGW propaganda is pretty much only happening here in the US. Since the US is important in world politics, the results of debates here matter perhaps a little more than they might otherwise.
I would prefer for people to believe the evidence. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
Perhaps because 99.9% of the deniers here and elsewhere still reject temperature is rising/CO2 is to blame/the rise is anthropogenic/a real problem lies ahead/pick any denial argument?
Out in the real world we've moved beyond trying to convince the scientific illiterates/politically biased naysayers and lots of active measures are proposed and taken to reduce CO2. If you have missed that than perhaps you should spend less time on YA! and more on general news sites.
It seems like believers of so-called "global warming" only focus on getting people to join their faith, believing that so-called "global warming" is real rather than doing anything to reduce co2. Why is this? There are plenty of things that can be done today that won't increase costs on the individual that will reduce co2 without having to accept this bogus faith. If we need to reduce co2, why aren't we building more nuclear power, using natural gas for our cars, and pioneering the use of nuclear batteries like those that are powering the voyager spacecraft and mars rovers?
You obviously have not read hansen's books. He is for nuclear.
Ask the banks about the costs.
I entirely agree. I do not see any real evidence for catastrophic results of AGW. Nor do I see any reason to believe the high climate sensitivity posited by the warmers and placed into their models. The real data is lacking AND THEY KNOW THIS.
It is not like I come onto here and have the warmers presenting valid evidence. I ask for evidence of droughts increasing, and I get nothing. I ask for evidence of extreme weather events increasing and I get nothing. I ask for evidence of crop losses increasing and I get nothing.
Not only do I get nothing, but I actually have them saying that I need to provide evidence that it is not going to happen. WHAT??? SQUEEZE ME? BAKING POWDER? They have been using billions upon billions of dollars gone to research this, yet I am to provide the evidence? Fine, give me a few billion dollars. And while they pretend that the burden of proof is upon me, they are asking for trillions. In what world does the person being asked for money bear the burden of proof?
Sure all of this come out of their models, but they are models of models of models of models. They know very well that the level of uncertainty is high. They know very well the uncertainty in just the paleoclimate data using surrogates like tree rings and ice core data AND THIS IS THE BASE. They are basing everything off of this EXTREMELY uncertain data and models that are frankly overparameterized and therefore unreliable.
This is something that I get insulted for saying, but even climate scientists like pegminer and Gary F know very well that I am right.
Even so, I have laid out a plan to get us to nearly 0 CO2 emission within the next 30 years, WITHOUT TAXES. And the people who are against using nuclear power to do so? The very same people trying to get us to believe in their catastrophic warming.
Not only do they wanmt us to buy into their catastrophic prediction as fact with nothing but uncertain models to back their views, but they want us to totally buy into their regressive tax schemes.
They are not asking us to think, research, or learn about climate science. They are asking us to buy into their political views.
Gringo,
Did you get your 99.9% statistic the same way you got the 97% statistic?
Why is it the goal of atheists to get you to not believe yours? You are claiming that the science behind climate change, or the current knowledge of it, does not exist in the form it does. Why are you trying to get me to believe yours? Why are you even in here debating climate change?
and if people want to know about models, at least one type of them, then they should take courses concerning them not just come to their own conclusions based on what they think they know.
It's their religion.
,,,,
