I don't know about the real alarmists, they're as whacked as the deniers, the equally emotionally overcharged counterpoint to alarmists. Both labels are used way too easily by both sides of the argument. I doubt that either skeptics or realists (proponents, warmists, whatever) are 'happy' one way or the other as short term variables were/are expected. From a public relations point of view, minor weather blips as small as local weather in a single year are emotionally trumpeted by some-often the ideologically driven-as 'proof' that AGW either is or isn't occurring, and you can even see that indirectly here...a severe winter, therefore, may work to the disadvantage of proponents as they struggle to explain the causes in layman's terms, or a weather trend of several years is researched without a simple answer as to what variables are influencing it.
For the record, I don't have a dog in the fight about climate change. I'm more wait and see, making business decisions and investments based on the most accurate forecasts I can find combined with government policies...which are pretty much paralyzed at the moment. So far it is working pretty well; I would have personally preferred a milder, warmer winter but I invested short term based on the seasonal forecasts, longer term based on existing economic and environmental policy as well as historical trends and longer term predictions and am very glad I did. While my philosophy is immediately self-focused, in the future it will become more beneficial to the environment, because I would have to be pretty dense to not invest in greater energy efficiency in my (small) fleet of vehicles and heated buildings. However, there are a lot of people who will continue to pay high fuel and energy bills because they disagree with the political philosophy of the people who are the primary promoters of alternatives. Duh.
JC,
I disagree with your assessment of people spending more money because of their political leanings.
Most people tend to go with whatever is more convenient, regardless of their political affiliation. Wherein lies my frequent point. The goal should eb to make the "cleaner" solutions more affordable. Solar power has been consistently coming down in costs. Soon it will be economically feasible for most homes to place the solar panels on their roofs. Once that occurs the business will boom.
The warmer's solution of carbon tax is a non-starter. Its goal is to bring the cost of "non-clean" energy sources up. But as you know costs only lower to the point of the competitors. So with a constant carbon tax, the clean energy will not be pressed to lower to the cost of the "non-clean" energy minus the carbon tax.
Now this is not problematic if the US were the world. But given the CO2 output of the emerging countries like China and India, they are the concern. They will not inhibit their economies to fund more expensive "clean" energy. We need to show that "clean" energy can be just as inexpensive if we expect them to change.
They should be happy. They could also try and take credit for it.
But they don't want the premise changed. The premise is "It's getting warmer, we're causing it, and we have to pay a price". It will never end. Just like affirmative action will never end. The price will never be paid.?
If they were as smart as they claim, they would have taken credit for the pause.
"All of this overpriced stuff, that's slightly more efficient, is working. The temperature rise to oblivion is slowing. The system works!"
As for me, I'm more concerned about another cool wet summer. This spring is just not warming up, like last year...
The people you call "alarmists" want global warming to not be true just as much as you do. Yes, I am sure that a lot of them see an up side to the extra-cold winter because it might mean that warming isn't occuring as fast as they feared. The difference between "alarmists" and "deniers" is that the "alarmists" don't think that they can make the problem of global warming go away just by pretending it isn't real.
Yes I am sure they are, me I am worried about cooling that would be really bad for us, but I can't help hoping for a little cooling just to p!ss them off
nice link
Of course not, they are the self appointed solution they need there to be a problem
No. The pause is an impediment to their true agenda.
They are simply not happy--period.
or do you think they secretly wish the world would start warming? Wouldn't that be a bit weird though, hoping for warming and yet being worried about it too?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/turning-tide
What pause?
what 'pause' and how could that even matter?
