Comments on: Waffling on climate change? Consult friends, not science Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: ottisdurka Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:35:22 +0000 If the Science is flawed the Entire Argument is Pointless.
There either is or is not Verifiable Scientific Evidence that CO2 is a Poisoning Climate gas or is a Life Sustaining Gas that Most if not all life forms need for survival.
Any other Conclusions are Driven more by Monetary Concerns or a Flawed Ideology based on Flawed Science and Poor Scientific Theory.
It may be high time to call out the Supposed Climate Change Gods for what they STAND TO MAKE FINANCIALLY and be less concerned with there Fantasy of what a Future World may look like.
I’m old enough to remember the first time the Environmental Gurus tried this . If I remember correctly according to them we should not even be having this Conversation because we have long since FROZEN TO DEATH! So same tired lines, the only thing that has changed is the Direction of the Mercury in the Grand Global Green Movement.

By: haruspoex Sun, 10 Jun 2012 04:41:14 +0000 “As respondents’ science-literacy scores increased, concern with climate change decreased,” wrote the study’s authors.
Looking at the graphs, it would be more accurate to say that the level of concern became more extreme: higher if already high, lower if already low. Maybe the scientifically literate are more confident of their own judgment.

By: hanlong Sun, 10 Jun 2012 04:29:49 +0000 Actually no body should talk about doing something to alter climate change, can’t do anything abt it, it’s being like this for millions of years.
What we all must talk and DO something, is abt toxic waste, plastics, carbon firing, oil firing.

Nature can heal itself, but we shouldn’t leave rocks and potholes on her way.

By: Phil54 Sun, 10 Jun 2012 03:32:25 +0000 The article reads as if the author assumes that the people deciding what constitutes “the science” and when it is justified to cross fields from the science to the political advocacy, are somehow immune, at least on this subject, from the effect she describes.

Better minds than ours have explained convincingly that the scientists are not immune. For example: 02/CargoCult.pdf

Perhaps those with more knowledge knowledge of science are more familiar with the consequences of these failings of human nature, hence, a little less inclined to accept the incontrovertibility of anthropogenic global warming.

By: Ian_Kemmish Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:08:27 +0000 “The researchers tested another hypothesis, too: that “cultural cognition” – which is to say, the tendency to form ideas based on group identity – determines belief in climate change. That idea checked out.”

How was it tested, and what does the highly unscientific phrase “checked out” actually mean? In some English dialects, it would mean that it died, but that doesn’t appear to be what you mean here.

The three claims of this paper taken together strongly imply that scientific literacy is positively correlated with being a small business owner (and what’s a small business owner doing working in an oil refinery anyway?), whereas intuitively you’d expect there to be no correlation overall (even in the high-tech industry, the owners tend to be marketing people) – and indeed a small negative correlation in an economy with a strong publicly-funded university sector, such as the US. Treating this as what scientists call a “sanity check”, it casts doubt on the claims themselves.

THERE IS A FAR SIMPLER EXPLANATION WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE APPEALS EITHER TO POORLY ARTICULATED HYPOTHESES OR TO POLITICAL PREJUDICE. It’s simply “worry fatigue”, to give it a trendy name that will appeal to an op-ed journalist. As noted in the article, the scientifically literate have been worrying about this since the 1970’s and 1980’s. They are now living as frugally as they can reasonably manage, and know that the rest depends on their neighbours doing the same; the problem is out of their hands. One might as profitably worry about the overdue next eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. But its much more profitable to worry about stuff you can actually affect.

By: paintcan Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:11:01 +0000 Than @running – what’s “perfect” nature up to?

The glaciers still melt and the seas slowly rise? A warmer average temp means they also expand in volume a bit. But “a bit” in a few hundred feet of depth, is quite a bit.

Perfect nature seems to have a fondness for freaks of nature too. She also has an enormous appetite for blood. Think Durga or Kali, not Gaia.

It isn’t healthy to get to know that kind of “perfection”. It makes nonsense of the word. She may also dislike so many people being alive at one time? You could very well be one of the tidbits she feeds her favored children. Even hear of the Thugees? They loved nature’s destructive power and total lack of scruples or moral principals too!

By: running Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:21:40 +0000 Mr. Gores’ story of whats going on with nature is neither the truth nor is it a lie, but the “fact” is life has been changing with nature forever, nature is perfect, its a fact

By: paintcan Fri, 08 Jun 2012 17:54:39 +0000 The dust bowl was the result of the early 20th century settlers to the West Texas-Oklahoma region overestimating the suitability of the prairie to support agriculture.

The settlers turned the sod over and discovered it was much thinner than they were led to believe and it blew away.

If human beings left Africa and stated a very slow creep across Europe and into Asia about 45,000 years ago, the last ice age must have meant an enormous die off of early human inhabitants wherever the glaciers penetrated. But they didn’t wipe out all human life south of the glacier zone.

It must have been a very slow expansion of human life across the northern continent because it apparently took over 10,000 years for humans to settle the area between North Africa, the Levant and The Bering Straits. A man on foot might actually walk that distance in a year or so. Early man may not have liked wandering too far from home.

The danger of global warming is that it will wreck havoc on infrastructure, buildings and coastlines. Some of the most valuable real estate in the world is located on coastlines and repeated damage to it won’t do the highly leveraged economies of the developed and developing world any favors.

How well is New Orleans doing now? All Google Earth shows are roofs and the building gaps look filled in. I can’t see what the roofs conceal and yet the roofs look new. I think the city draws its primary income from the Gulf wells and they can’t afford repeated disruption and expensive repairs. If damages were too frequent, it might become impossible to get insurance for Gulf rigs or coastal property. Who knows?

By: snowsurfer Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:19:41 +0000 I like the argument that without Global warming 10,000+ years ago there would be no human race. Or the argument that without global warming millions of green jobs and whole industries would not have been created. I guess the dust bowls of the 1920’s were a precursor to global warming. I wonder what is more toxic to humans…sugar or global warming. Who knows, maybe evolution will produce a new species that thrives on global warming emissions and put the human race out of its misery.

By: TheUSofA Fri, 08 Jun 2012 07:52:43 +0000 We are an arrogant lot humans. Thinking the Earth will adopt to us rather than the other way around. Of course when the damage comes, the fools will say it was God’s will.

Some of these comments (shills for big business aside) are quite amusing:

“Why do you hold that climate change is bad? Climate change has been ongoing since the earth first had weather. We have had ice ages, Hot and humid ages, plate movement and everything else that mother earth can conjure up. We can curb scarring the land and poluting our air and water. That would be good for our survival.
But stop climate change? That is almost laughable.”

Did you get that everyone, what’s wrong with climate change? After all WE, yes WE, have had ice ages, etc… How long ago were the ice ages again? Never mind the fact that someone from a mere 100 years ago would look at us today and think we were Gods. How much coal and gasoline were they burning in the ice ages? What was the human population again? Did they have iPads and cars and nuclear weapons in the ice ages?

It’s comments like these that are truly laughable.