This one came up with 95% of scientists proclaiming that climate warming is probably man caused. That's a serious majority. If they are right (and there's a 95% chance that they are) then it's either criminal or just stupid to be a denier. Just my humble opinion.

We have been increasingly terraforming for a very long time, so I agree that man has some cause in climate change.

I'm just not sold that it's a particularly a bad thing.

I respect your opinion and I know that it's a hot button issue.

The newly released (or about to be released) IPCC report.

It doesn't mean a 95 percent consensus, based on some number of scientists.

It means that the IPCC has agreed to a final wording that their is a 95 percent chance that the global warming that they have identified is caused by a combination of human greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation.

Last time the IPCC released a report, they said 90 percent.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: The newly released (or about to be released) IPCC report. It doesn't mean a 95 percent consensus, based on some number of scientists. It means that the IPCC has agreed to a final wording that their is a 95 percent chance that the global warming that they have identified is caused by a combination of human greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Last time the IPCC released a report, they said 90 percent.

What did you folks expect? OF COURSE they keep repeating if not increasing their supposed certainty. Especially since temperatures have been FLAT for 16 years. They have to try to divert attention from that, and the fact that their models and projections have been consistently WRONG.

Have to defend the need for funding, don't they, fierobear? Otherwise they might have to find jobs in the ( shudder ) real world.

I heard about that the other day and didnt even listen. Its just more BS. Everyones entitled to their opinion. While man may be affecting the climate to some extent, its not nearly what they say in my opinion. One big volcanic event like in Ireland, does more damage than 50 years of mans. We do as much damage as a rock thrown in a lake.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: ... We do as much damage as a rock thrown in a lake.

If we throw in enough rocks, we can make that lake overflow its banks.

WE'RE GONNA DIE!!

I did say ' A ' rock.... I wouldnt be sending out any tsunami warnings

I am struggling with if there is a viable solution if man is the cause.

The final decision will undoubtedly be in the hands of our government.
And considering our government's preferred tool for putting in finishing nails is a million dollar jack hammer, the final product should be mighty fine looking.

quote I am struggling with if there is a viable solution if man is the cause.

Don't you mean an economical solution? With a problem like this there are diminishing benefits the more one spends. We could spend all the money in the world trying to fix this and not see any significant results or gains.

So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that humans are causing climate change.

Wow, that's a real shocker!!!

Good thing they didn't conclude otherwise, or they'd put themselves out of work!

quote Originally posted by dratts: This one came up with 95% of scientists proclaiming that climate warming is probably man caused. That's a serious majority. If they are right (and there's a 95% chance that they are) then it's either criminal or just stupid to be a denier. Just my humble opinion.

Are you saying there's a 95% chance of them being right because 95% of them agree? That's flawed logic.
Consensus doesn't equal accuracy. Consensus used to be that the earth was flat, and they were all wrong.

quote Originally posted by dratts: This one came up with 95% of scientists proclaiming that climate warming is probably man caused. That's a serious majority. If they are right (and there's a 95% chance that they are) then it's either criminal or just stupid to be a denier. Just my humble opinion.

I love you Brother, but I am neither a criminal, nor stupid.

quote Originally posted by Tony Kania: I love you Brother, but I am neither a criminal, nor stupid.

Sorry Tony! I usually try to avoid the name calling and at least I didn't do it in a personal way. I have friends with different views than my own who I still respect. I guess that you're one of them.

Last time I checked opinion wasn't part of a scientific process.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I am struggling with if there is a viable solution if man is the cause. The final decision will undoubtedly be in the hands of our government. And considering our government's preferred tool for putting in finishing nails is a million dollar jack hammer, the final product should be mighty fine looking.

If you listen to Al Gore, God forbid, we all need to immediately go back to living in the stone age or the planet will put us there and soon. Of course, Al Gore is also saying that the lack of hurricanes we've had this year is due to climate change. I thought more and more powerful hurricanes were due to climate change?

------------------
Whade' "Darkwing" Duck
Fieroless (11/18/12)

quote Originally posted by dratts: ...

I don't think about what comes out of my chops at times either. Love ya man!

Talkin' here about the latest IPCC report.

Al Gore has no more to do with it than the man in the moon.

I need to add that although I'm on the 95% side that doesn't mean that I trust the government to come up with the right solution. Yeah, Al Gore with his mega mansion etc. isn't the best poster child for this issue even if he buys carbon credits.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 09-28-2013).]

If you do not understand a problem, look for the money:

"IPCC report: The financial markets are the only hope in the race to stop global warming

The chairman of the IPCC warns that the only way to reduce large-scale fossil-fuel use is to 'price' carbon emissions"

http://www.independent.co.u...warming-8843573.html

Of course, a new tax will fix it. Always does, doesn't it?

Even if I assume that everything the Global Warming crowd says is true, their solutions that they propose will not work.

A tax will not fix the environment. India and China will not agree to tax themselves. They are developing their economies and are going to do what is in their best interests. There are plenty of other countries around the world that will use the cheapest energy available which is currently coal.

Let's get this straight, energy = development = better standard of living. Most of the things that make modern living possible requires energy. Water treatment requires energy. Refrigeration requires energy. Manufacturing requires energy. Telecommunications requires energy. Transportation requires energy. And on and on.

The foolish Global Warming crowd actually think that these dirt poor countries are going to use their limited funds to buy the most expensive and unreliable sources of energy. Dream on.

Someone was listening to Coast to Coast last night about the terraforming.

quote Originally posted by Hudini: If you do not understand a problem, look for the money:

Look for the money? And who do you think has more than the oil companies?

Doug, china is being forced to look for other energy than coal because of their horrible pollution. They won't be ab.e to turn it off immediately any more than we can get off fossil fuels right away without crashing our economy. I am fighting the coal terminals in Washington in an effort to keep it away from China or anywhere else. As far as I'm concerned we need to just keep the coal in the ground until we can find a clean way to use it. Although natural gas is probably the cleanest back up we can use for renewable energy, I'm concerned with the problems with fracking and anyway they just want to export it. It isn't for us. It's just for profits. Same thing with the keystone pipeline. It isn't for us. It's for export. Sorry if I sound like a tree hugger. I had a career in solar energy back in the 80's.

quote Originally posted by newf: Look for the money? And who do you think has more than the oil companies?

Your point?

The point is that the fossil fossil fuel industries are the ones funding the denial of man caused climate change. They then claim that scientists are slanting their research to protect their salaries. In my opinion the scientists are much less apt to lie to us than the fossil fuel people who are obviously trying to protect their profits. Just my opinion and I've come to the conclusion that any discussion here is like beating a dead horse. It seems obvious to me that opinions are already set and no one on either side is willing to change their opinion. Except for me of course. I've changed my mind on many things when confronted with new facts and I'm willing to change my mind on climate change too, but the facts so far seem to be confirming what science has been claiming. what I'm most likely to change my mind on is what we should do about it. I don't trust the government to take the most intelligent approach, and I don't trust the fossil fuel industries at all.

quote Originally posted by dratts: The point is that the fossil fossil fuel industries are the ones funding the denial of man caused climate change. They then claim that scientists are slanting their research to protect their salaries. In my opinion the scientists are much less apt to lie to us than the fossil fuel people who are obviously trying to protect their profits. Just my opinion and I've come to the conclusion that any discussion here is like beating a dead horse. It seems obvious to me that opinions are already set and no one on either side is willing to change their opinion. Except for me of course. I've changed my mind on many things when confronted with new facts and I'm willing to change my mind on climate change too, but the facts so far seem to be confirming what science has been claiming. what I'm most likely to change my mind on is what we should do about it. I don't trust the government to take the most intelligent approach, and I don't trust the fossil fuel industries at all.

PROVE IT.

Speaking about solutions not working.
http://www.breitbart.com/Br...educe-Global-Warming

quote Originally posted by dratts: The point is that the fossil fossil fuel industries are the ones funding the denial of man caused climate change. They then claim that scientists are slanting their research to protect their salaries. In my opinion the scientists are much less apt to lie to us than the fossil fuel people who are obviously trying to protect their profits. Just my opinion and I've come to the conclusion that any discussion here is like beating a dead horse. It seems obvious to me that opinions are already set and no one on either side is willing to change their opinion. Except for me of course. I've changed my mind on many things when confronted with new facts and I'm willing to change my mind on climate change too, but the facts so far seem to be confirming what science has been claiming. what I'm most likely to change my mind on is what we should do about it. I don't trust the government to take the most intelligent approach, and I don't trust the fossil fuel industries at all.

I respect your opinion, but let me ask why you don't think scientists are not trying to protect their profits as well? Not just profits, but their jobs.
As for deniers being funded by the fossil fuel industry, I haven't seen dime one.

We do know one thing about the IPCC. They're using Climate Change to effect wealth redistribution by their own admission.
http://newsbusters.org/blog...ealth-climate-policy

quote (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies. (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all. (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know. (EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil. (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy. (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Then there's this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/s...environment-24308509

quote Climate pause takes a wallop as IPCC comes out swinging With the release of their eagerly anticipated report on Friday, the UN climate panel didn't just want to warn the world that warming was unequivocal, and that humans were responsible. No, they wanted to have a go at the people who have made their lives a bit miserable in recent times, the climate sceptics and deniers. And while not renowned for their skills in matters pugilistic, at the launch of the summary for policymakers in Stockholm, the grey men definitely came out swinging. The panel has been on the back foot for some time, as interest in global warming waned, and focus had been fixed by sceptical voices on the so-called pause or hiatus. This refers to the observation that, since 1998, there has been no significant global warming despite ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide being emitted. Even in the final draft of this report, the IPCC was putting forward a number of theoretical ideas behind the fall-off in temperature rises over the last 15 years, and was sheepishly acknowledging that its models failed to predict the slow-down.

They admit their models aren't accurate.
They admit warming has slowed while CO2 emissions have increased.
Their response? Attack the "deniers."

Like you said, nobody is likely to change their mind here, but I would suggest there's far less incentive for government to be honest and truthful than industry. Industry has to convince you to buy their products. Government can mandate it. Industry has lobbyists. Government IS lobbyists.

Skepticism about science is good. When they proclaim "the science is settled" yet are now scrambling to find "theoretical ideas" on why their models are inaccurate that should raise a red flag.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: PROVE IT.

I'm as apt to change your mind as you are mine. You will discount any facts that I present and anyway I don't have numbers. I'm just going by what the science says. I do read what you post, but I'm convinced that you are cherry picking the facts that you want and discounting those that you don't want. JMHO!

quote Originally posted by dratts: I'm as apt to change your mind as you are mine. You will discount any facts that I present and anyway I don't have numbers. I'm just going by what the science says. I do read what you post, but I'm convinced that you are cherry picking the facts that you want and discounting those that you don't want. JMHO!

In other words, you make a statement but have no proof to back it up. So what is "your humble option" based on, if you have no proof?

As far as fossil fuel industries financial motives compared to scientists salaries, I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'm willing to bet that there is a hell of a lot more money involved in the profits of those industries than there is in the salaries of the scientists.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: They admit their models aren't accurate. They admit warming has slowed while CO2 emissions have increased. Their response? Attack the "deniers." Like you said, nobody is likely to change their mind here, but I would suggest there's far less incentive for government to be honest and truthful than industry. Industry has to convince you to buy their products. Government can mandate it. Industry has lobbyists. Government IS lobbyists. Skepticism about science is good. When they proclaim "the science is settled" yet are now scrambling to find "theoretical ideas" on why their models are inaccurate that should raise a red flag.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 09-29-2013).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: As far as fossil fuel industries financial motives compared to scientists salaries, I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'm willing to bet that there is a hell of a lot more money involved in the profits of those industries than there is in the salaries of the scientists.

You're probably right. But losing your job is 100% of your income instead of less quarterly profit.
I'm not saying industry doesn't have a monetary motivation. They absolutely do. Just food for thought.

The fossil fuel industry wants to make money, not just on fossil fuel. They're also investing in green and alternative energies. If they're as untrustworthy as many think, they could easily be lobbying for more green energy requirements so they can get government subsidies like Solyndra, etc. If they can get green energy subsidies to develop alternative fuels, they win either way. There's a powerful money motive.

quote Originally posted by newf: Look for the money? And who do you think has more than the oil companies?

You have been misled to believe oil companies are just oil companies. They are energy companies. With regulations what they are, the powerhouses like Exxon and Chevron are some of the biggest producers of alternative energy sources nationwide. They want to be ahead of the game. And are.

I know Chevron denies nothing. Externally or internally. They understand pollution and actively work to better their own contribution. But someone needs to provide energy to the world. Hydrocarbons are the best bet we have right now while continuing to stabilize our economy.

quote Originally posted by dratts: As far as fossil fuel industries financial motives compared to scientists salaries, I don't have the numbers at hand, but I'm willing to bet that there is a hell of a lot more money involved in the profits of those industries than there is in the salaries of the scientists.

Let's not confuse salaries and profits with the validity of research.
If 2 companies are both competing for legitimacy neither can rest
their credibility on "they have more money than us" as their own validation.

Since this is not a matter of who can afford to buy the best research, lets
discuss why the $ topic keeps popping up.

If you can not invalidate their evidence, cast doubt to discredited.
Claim : The Climate deniers are funded by big oil.
Let's say for argument that that statement is 100% correct.
How does it invalidate the data produced by their research?.

Counter Claim : The Global Warming and Climate Change industry
is disproportionately funded by

Governments -
In which agencies, politicians and employees all have a vested interest
in the continued funding of their particular means of power, authority and
financial dependance.

Non-Profits -
who have established funding through grants, donations and research
sometimes paid for by industries to support their products or services which
Also includes other non-profit groups who make a living by fundraising for
a "cause".

Private Citizens -
who all have (to some degree) decided in their own minds that
the science is settle.


Okay so
Big Oil Energy has the obscene wealth to pay for
pseudo science to support their industry? Then you must know they
have the money to profit from energy that would replace it. They are
not going away. They will likely take the research that proves global
warming and fossil fuel are linked and turn it into government funded
project to pay big oil to drill it all out, put it into containers and store
it securely to protect the environment. After all, who is best equipped
to recover and store oil than the companies already doing it. If you think
the price of oil has an effect on our economy, wait until we are paying by
the barrel to contain it like hazardous waste with a life expectancy of
forever.....

But if the Global Warming link to fossil fuels were to collapse.

Government -
who through politicians were funding it to hoist themselves
a bit higher on the scale of significance would become unelectable at a
time when their marketability as a politician or an employee are diminished.

Non-Profits -
Who's sole purpose for existence with scientist responsible for accurately
recording and forecasting the claims they have made would collapse and their
scientist would be seen as either incompetent or corruptible for producing
reports that supported it.

Private citizens -
who have shot their mouths off (some without a clue of what their talking about)
would have to either swallow their pride and quickly admitted they we mislead
and except that it will be mentioned over and over again or Just shut up and
claim ignorance. Or worse, explain it away as a conspiracy of wealthy oil barons
who successfully buried the truth by out funding and out marketing real science.
.
End the end,
No matter which side is proven right,

Big Energy will profit (100% / 100%) with
control on both sides of the issue.

Climate scientist will have a (50%) chance at
being right. But if they are, they can only look
forward to a public victory party and potentially
a job with the very companies they hated and
fought against.

In my case (imagewise) it doesn't matter which side
is right. I believe what I believe and I base my belief
on the thought I have put into it. when they finally
conclude the debate on human related climate change
to be a reality, I will be able to say

"Scat happens,
been wrong before,
I can move on with more knowledge than before
And thanks for the discussion".

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-29-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Hudini: Your point?

My point is that the oil (energy) companies have more money and control than any group of scientists and researchers. What was your point?

Would any if you global warming believers like to offer me 20:1 odds on a bet that global warming will be denounced within the next 30 yrs?

Not this one. I won't be alive in 30 years. It's not me that I'm worried about. It's the rest of you and my kids, grandkids, and great grandkids. My future is secure. It's not the climate change that I'm having a problem with. It's doing the right thing about climate change that concerns me and I'm not an expert so I'm not here trying to tell anyone what to do about it. I don't have faith that our government will choose effective measures and I sure don't trust the fossil fuel industry. They will do everything they can to get us to buy the last drop of oil or the last clump of coal regardless of the consequences.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 09-29-2013).]