[horatio]

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury

Also, since we speak of CO2 and Warming, lets not forget that 2 planets in our system has a CO2 atmosphere, and the difference between the two are 180 degree opposites of each other in terms of weather patterns.

Nice try but the greenhouse effect is simply a fact.

Climate change denial works analogous to Freud's story about the borrowed kettle (I gave you the kettle back undamaged, it was already broken when I got it from you, I never borrowed it in the first place.), i.e. mutually exclusive arguments are used:
There is no climate change, there is but it is all due to some funky solar flares, greenhouse gases do heat up the climate like on Venus ... but then again not really because of Mars.

[tannerwaterbury]

Originally Posted by horatio

Nice try but the greenhouse effect is simply a fact.

Climate change denial works analogous to Freud's story about the borrowed kettle (I gave you the kettle back undamaged, it was already broken when I got it from you, I never borrowed it in the first place.), i.e. mutually exclusive arguments are used:
There is no climate change, there is but it is all due to some funky solar flares, greenhouse gases do heat up the climate like on Venus ... but then again not really because of Mars.

I never said there was NO climate change, I just cannot believe that MAN has any major effect whatsoever, but the excuse that CO2, especially manmade, as the leading cause of temp increase is flawed. Unless we LITERALLY had everything on this planet that emitted manmade CO2 nonstop for a certain period, we'd hardly put out more than the planet itself would. Also, ever since the transition from the wording Global Warming to Climate change, it seems like the perfect way to blame someone a "denier" when in truth, those that ARE skeptical are the ones who truly are scientific. Those that say that AGW is a stated fact, and that is the status quo amongst the community of scientists are flawed as well. In science, you cannot simply state that its fact. when 30,000 scientists have stated that that "fact" is flawed and is unscientific. The issue with the whole AGW/Climate Change theories is that it's veered from being scientific, to being a political tool in over regulation. Here within the states, with the use of that unscientific, biased information, the EPA and Government are using Michael Mann's hockey stick chart as an excuse to put horrendous regulations against small things as LIGHTBULBS for goodness sake! I have stated manytimes on my political views, and I can remember having similar discussions on the matter of Climate Change here, but the main issue I ALWAYS have is that people are taking the Issue of Climate Change (which before the neutral name change, was always mentioned as global warming) and turning it into their own cultist and biased belief that its happening, its going to happen and we're doomed. Wasn't it stated as well that in 13 days or so, the Arctic would be ice free? I DID do a quick research into the melting ice, and from unbiassed sources HAVE confirmed that the ice record is just below the 2007 all time low, but in case it WASN"t seen, after the 2007 drop, in only a matter of 2 years, the ice returned above its previous high cover record before the 2007 low. As you can also see in these sea ice charts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference.../sea-ice-page/) , the pattern has been steady as an EKG pattern since records have been taken, so in truth, if the melt show IS happening, it would be shown to happen during the spring and summer months. I theorize that within a year or 2, you will see the ice back in its normal, or even ABOVE normal size. Call me a Denialist or skeptic, but I prefer to keep scientific studies over political ones in this case.

[horatio]

I cannot believe that I will die one day either. But the disawoval of my coming death will not undo it.

I am all for scientific diversity because in my own discipline you often find more truth on the fringes than in the mainstream.
Yet in natural sciences it is easier to find hard facts than in social sciences. The greenhouse effect is a fact, the rising greenhouse gas emissions of humankind are a fact and the rising average worldwide temperatures are a fact. That the majority of people who search for funky solar flares are paid by the oil companies and other corporate forces who have an interest in maintaining the status quo is also a fact.
Another fact is that the risks are asymmetrical. If you were right slowing down climate change would lead to some mild misallocations whereas if the entire scientific community is right not doing anything against climate change will lead to significant reductions or even a continuing decline of worldwide GDP.

Of course this is not the real issue. The real issue is, as you have said, that you do not like the political implications of global warming. You have an issue with "over regulation" whereas, to use your favourite word, truly unbiased people fail to see why a shift in taxation away from labour and capital towards CO2 emissions or the banning of light bulbs should be problematic. My purse is quite happy that the new CFLs require less power and it would be even more happy if I had to pay less labour taxes and more CO2 VATs.

It's a purely technical matter and only ignorant people who are not interested one iota in conserving a human-friendly climate on this planet oppose it. In my Jacobin mood I would say that they are the enemies of our future and have to be ruthlessly crushed.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury

I never said there was NO climate change, I just cannot believe that MAN has any major effect whatsoever, but the excuse that CO2, especially manmade, as the leading cause of temp increase is flawed. Call me a Denialist or skeptic, but I prefer to keep scientific studies over political ones in this case.

Incredulity is not a logical function of reason.
You presented conclusions that sustained your beliefs but not as result of deduction. This form of "reasoning" is a function of politics not of realities and empirical evidence and the reasonable interpretation of them.

The primary concern at the source of the denial is (anti regulation) and it's always extremely transparent as a means to continue business as usual.

[tannerwaterbury]

Originally Posted by Saquist

Incredulity is not a logical function of reason.
You presented conclusions that sustained your beliefs but not as result of deduction. This form of "reasoning" is a function of politics not over realities and empirical evidence and the reasonable interpretation of them.

The primary concern at the source of the denial is (anti regulation) and it's always extremely transparent as a means to continue business as usual.

Not at all, I've been doing studies on this over the past 4 years, and before that, I WAS a believer in the whole AGW issue, however I've noticed that things completely flipped when, even under raw data evidence BEFORE the computer adjustments were made, that the trend of our climate has been steady since 1998. When Al Gore and his flawed data was presented in "An Inconvenient Truth" I began to look into multiple sources, both Raw and Altered data, and was actually surprised to find out about the Hockey Stick sheet that was shown was altered in such a severe way, ti would make sense to believe that it would lead to panic and regulating messes in our Governments. Also, on a Ice Cap related note, it seems as though the Antarctic has shown MASS gains in Ice cover, which seems to make sense, seeing as how our planet always seems to compensate for Ice loss on the opposite sides of the poles each time. Anyways, I have no reason to be involved in this issue POLITICALLY, since I have nothing to lose or gain in this ongoing debate. I'm just a natural, purely scientific skeptic when it comes to this issue. I've seen no REAL evidence of a Global Warming, other than summers being hot, and Winter having colder than usual patterns, which unto itself is no sign of a warming. Also, something else worth thinking about: our planet is in the process of shifting our magnetic poles, and during such processes, its been proven that weather patterns start to go bat guano crazy during these times. Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/1...exceed-losses/

[horatio]

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury

Anyways, I have no reason to be involved in this issue POLITICALLY, since I have nothing to lose or gain in this ongoing debate.

Sure, that's why you ranted in your last post about "horrendous regulations".
The tricky thing about lying is that you need a good memory in order to be consistent.

You might convince some stupid rednecks but here people are not so dumb as to fall for corporate-financed right-wing climate change denial propaganda.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by horatio

You might convince some stupid rednecks but here people are not so dumb as to fall for corporate-financed right-wing climate change denial propaganda.

Awright, dag-nabbit! I'll stop eatin' so many pork'n'beans! Jeez! Ah'm doin' mah part now! Whuddabout yew?!

[martok2112]

There's no denying the climate change. I don't care where the reports come from. One can see it with their own eyes, and feel it with their own skin. The planet's getting hotter. Honestly, I don't see Earth being habitable in about 100-200 years.

The oceans are becoming much more rife with tropical storm/hurricane activity. Hurricanes are essentially heat-engines, and the warmer the water gets, the more food for hurricanes is plentiful. This season's been pretty active, and thankfully we've only had one hurricane come through...and hopefully, our region's seen the worst of this season. Hurricane seasons are also becoming a bit more active before the official start and end of the season...not that the official dates set things in stone for Mother Nature; she'll do as she damn well pleases.

[horatio]

I doubt that it goes that far, we humans are a bunch of tough motherfrakkers. What worries me is that overpopulation and climate change lead to a good old-fashioned conflict about land. Add resource depletion to it and some nasty wars seem like the most natural consequence.
So I think that not we as creatures are in danger but our civilization. And being a bit of a conservative Hobbit I would rather have things stay the way they are, with some minor changes, than face an unknown new form of living together.

Being German I am perhaps more sensitive to this. You guys had FDR who basically saved capitalism via the New Deal (the above mentioned minor change) whereas we guys had no such thing, skyrocketing unemployment and then the nazis came.
So yeah, I'd rather have us try to do some moderate things to slow down the heating of our place than risk our societies.

[omegaman]

Natural climate changes aside, I think its too late to overcome the effects humans have contributed as well.