The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

I wonder how the logic works that allow someone to claim they accept science - and then call people who look at all the evidence, and are then deeply concerned for the survival of most of life on earth - "cultists"?

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I believe you're mistaken about what science says about warming.You'll find very little evidence to support your thesis.

“Science” will find the results it is paid to find. Who funds, and who publishes, are the pertinent questions. Adjustments are only a matter of re-phrasing questions to fit an agenda.

What’s “true” hasn’t ever been the province of investigation. Or, observation. Predictability is highly dependent on definitions.

Language constricts choice.

Thus, law.

That’s what’s on the table.

Who owns the legislatures and the courts?

.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

While I do appreciate well executed trolling, I'd like to get back to things like "We choose to go to the moon and do the other things in this decade..." instead of trolling.

The federal government could probably stand to get cut fiscally by 50%, which sounds extreme until you realize that just means local government would have more authority and autonomy to solve their problems, and could elect to increase tax revenues by the amount not received in federal money (or any amount they see fit).

I totally agree! We'll close the Pentagon.Homeland Security.CIA.FBI.NRO.NSA.US Coast Guard.US ARMY Corps of Engineers.Shutter the VA.National Institutes of Health.National Cancer Institute.National Laboratories.End Social Security.Medicaire.Medicaid.Shutdown the Interstate Highway system.Department of Transportation.Blow all the federal hydro dams.Close all the major airports and Air Traffic Control.Harbors.Ports.Center for Disease Control and Prevention,who needs it! Open the borders.Shoot down the GPS satellites.Close the Internet.NASA bye-bye!.Ditto: NOAA and the Storm Prediction Center.National Park System.That's a beginning.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I'm not a big fan of Adam Smithian free market economics either but I guess the article should have said EVEN Adam Smith had thought about the limits to growth on a finite planet.

An Inquiry into the Causes of the Wealth of Nations was written during the American Revolution.No one would have an inkling of the coming Industrial Revolution,and proliferation of energy and technology.
The US Constitution predates this as well.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That's technically four questions. But many on the man made global warming side are alarmists. Not just let us give you a few ideas of what we think might happen, but go to the point of traumatizing kids if all ages robbing them of their childhood in hope they will grow up to be good little soldiers in what no doubt will ne a century long progressive revolution like all progressive revolution before.

They would like nature to act like their worst predictions predict.

Do you need science for nature to act as nature does? Nature just is and humans are part of it.

Science in relation to the topic of my original post, that agricultural production improves with warming, was pretty conclusive. What you might call settled or overwhelming if I wanted to be an alarmist. That didn't fit, you can allow even the slightest crack in the dam to stand so it has been virtually erased.

Whether intentional or not,you're spreading a falsehood about warming and food production.It's irresponsible.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I had "Blue Planet 2" on in the background last night, and Attenborough mentioned that a 2C increase in ocean temperature, even just momentarily, can cause coral to die. My immediate thought was that means somewhere else temperatures have just warmed to the right temperature for coral to begin growing. Then there's the other factor, that ocean depth has to be just right for coral to grow, so that rising depth makes certain areas unsuitable for coral growth... again, that just means some other area is now made suitable for coral growth.

Pointing out changes in environment isn't a compelling argument. A compelling argument shows that something is lost and not gained back anywhere else.

As I always point out, our direct actions always cause way more disruption than indirect consequences. For instance, oceans fish populations might be affected by temperature changes, but overfishing is an even more severe problem.

With no fish,there's no concern for overfishing.

[redpoint5]

I suggest anyone wanting less liberty and authority (bigger government) to run their own lives to simply go to prison. It's essentially the model of an extreme government running every aspect of the "incompetent".

[freebeard]

aerohead, that's 20 twenty-three posts in two hours. As a courtesy could you provide the Permalink to your quotes? TIA

Originally Posted by aerohead

Close the Internet....That's a beginning.

The federal government birthed Internet, but it's just a proud parent.

slowmover: Politics is downstream from culture. And vice versa.

The US Constitution predates this as well.

Amazing how it still works, isn't it? Almost like it's about human nature instead of technology.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Good point, and that's what I'm often saying, that it isn't the change that is the problem, it's the rate of change.

The rate of change dictates the rate of stress on all organisms.

While plants and animals cannot accelerate their adaptation consciously, humans can. This is what freebeard suggests when talking about hardening our infrastructure. Hardening infrastructure may be an easier/cheaper solution to the problem. We're pretty good at adapting farming to where it's most suitable too.

If you'll read the literature on agriculture,you'll find scant evidence to support your argument.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Is it just me or do the believers not want to debate the finer points of the ipcc reports?
I get called a stupid denyer because I don't read the reports, so I read the reports. Which only confirms my suspicions that dooms day man made global warming is an over played political fraud.
I get itched at for not having good enough facts, then when I reference specific sections of the report suddenly no one wants to talk.
Obviously everyone needs to read these reports because nothing I have found shuts down the dooms day cult faster than being able to say that's not what the report said, where's it say that? I read it and obviously you haven't, control F doesn't count as reading it.

Select a topic,make a case,and see what ensues.I've been reading the actual peer-reviewed research papers into my third year now.I have a sense of what's in the reports.I don't feel a need to read a phone book.Fire away!