drizzlybears brother;842851256 said:

---

If the argument is economic, and the trends clear, why not get out in front of it and dominate the opportunity ahead of others?

---

Because early adopters usually pay more - look at what China did to the US solar panel manufacturers (really all manufacturers). There is no assurance that the countries developing technology (the US) will necessarily reap the rewards. Moreover, there is a big difference between pursuing an "opportunity" (i.e., business or government-sponsored research) vs. unilaterally imposing taxes/costs on our economy while China/India do not (i.e., Paris).

BearGoggles;842851306 said:

---

I think you misstate what is happening. It is not an economic argument for or against climate change. It is just the economy at work - in the US and Europe business will respond to their customers' preferences and to peer/shareholder pressure. That is why many business have pursued "green" policies - which for the record I think is a good thing for the most part. But those business will never put their overall economic viability or well being ahead of those initiatives - businesses engage in cost-benefits analysis that many on the left are not willing to engage in or discuss.

---

Green policies have advanced so much in Europe largely because of subsidies, not because of customer preferences and peer / shareholder pressure. btw, I do cost-benefit analysis for a living.

BearGoggles;842851306 said:

---

These are not unreasonable or extreme positions. And labeling them as such (or Dajo calling people with these views stupid) doesn't do much to advance your arguments or persuade people.

---

I haven't done any such thing

BearGoggles;842851309 said:

---

Because early adopters usually pay more - look at what China did to the US solar panel manufacturers (really all manufacturers). There is no assurance that the countries developing technology (the US) will necessarily reap the rewards. Moreover, there is a big difference between pursuing an "opportunity" (i.e., business or government-sponsored research) vs. unilaterally imposing taxes/costs on our economy while China/India do not (i.e., Paris).

---

Paris is noteworthy only in that there is an agreement- a rare thing. The guidelines were not binding so I don't really know what the fuss is. The whole thing though is meaningless if it can be wiped out with a stroke of a pen like it was. It seems to me that conservatives complaining about what it would do the economy is not unlike liberals at its end saying the world is ruined. Frankly, a functional President and Congress would have crafted something much better but it couldn't happen

Unit2Sucks;842851301 said:

---

I love that you guys throw our Judith Curry as if she's some shining beacon who has disproven AGW. I looked her up. In 2005, she wrote a big paper saying that AGW would lead to more extreme hurricanes. She now has migrated from agreeing with the scientific consensus on AGW to saying that AGW is likely to be occurring and may or may not be as bad as other scientists fear. She worries about the costs of dealing with the problem. She is basically shrugging at the issue and she's the foremost "expert" on the side of the skeptics.

The case by the skeptics is more conspiracy theory than science.

---

You keep conflating "denial of AGW" with "skeptics." I don't think a single person in this thread has denied that humans affect climate. As Judith Curry points out, there is a disagreement about the [U]extent[/U] to which humans affect climate (or stated differently, the degree of human impact on climate). She also points out that there is no accurate model for determining that. That is not a conspiracy theory - those are facts.

BearGoggles;842851306 said:

---

The single greatest cause for "devaluing expertise" has been one set of experts - and their POLITICAL (not scientific) supporters - claiming that the science is settled and throwing out factually wrong (or in some cases misleading) 95%/97% statements while at the same time promulgating wildly inaccurate and alarmist models. When you do that, people tend to doubt the so called experts or come to believe that the experts' claimed certainty is suspect.

You don't win scientific arguments by claiming that everyone you know agrees with you - you win the argument by proving that your theories and data are accurate. But the climate "experts" can't do that, because human/scientific understanding of climate is very limited. Rather than admitting that - which would not serve their political ends - they dissemble.



I think you misstate what is happening. It is not an economic argument for or against climate change. It is just the economy at work - in the US and Europe business will respond to their customers' preferences and to peer/shareholder pressure. That is why many business have pursued "green" policies - which for the record I think is a good thing for the most part. But those business will never put their overall economic viability or well being ahead of those initiatives - businesses engage in cost-benefits analysis that many on the left are not willing to engage in or discuss.

I actually agree with your thoughts on energy independence and reducing reliance on Middle Eastern oil. But your ignoring the reality that the clearest and fastest path to achieve that is through US domestic gas and oil production (including fracking). For some reason you're not prepared to consider that type of "change" as opposed to renewable energies.

Finally, while I don't speak for anyone but myself, the notion of conservative "denialist dogma" is silly. It is not denialist to : (i) assert that the [U]extent[/U] of human-caused climate change is not known or "settled"; (ii) assert that climate is not well understood by the so called experts, as evidenced by their inaccurate models; (iii) question the current alarmist predictions given that past alarmist predictions (by many of the same people) have been demonstrably false; (iv) question whether the proposed solutions (Paris Accords and the like) have real benefits; and (v) ask for real cost-benefit analysis with regard to proposed policies.

These are not unreasonable or extreme positions. And labeling them as such (or Dajo calling people with these views stupid) doesn't do much to advance your arguments or persuade people.

---

Here's the thing: the denialists' arguments are refuted over and over and over by the experts (not "so-called," I reject that framing -- they are experts because they have spent entire careers studying this subject matter) and it doesn't matter. Every slight inconsistency is either blown up or misinterpreted by the denialists, and then the Republican Party and others with personal interest in denying global climate change (coal executives, etc.) repeats the nonsense.

I'm not going to argue the minutiae anymore. It's honestly not about "proving" a scientific argument, it's about winning a P.R. war. Time to fight fire with fire.

Most people who deny global climate change are denialists. They have made a conscious choice to not listen to the experts and instead to do their own amateur research and come to amateurish conclusions.

dajo9;842851310 said:

---

I haven't done any such thing

---

dajo9;842851221 said:

---

For me to participate in the details you will likely have to engage in a strictly economic or political discussion. Otherwise, I'm always ready to publicly [U]humiliate stupid right wing propaganda o[/U]n any topic.

---

LMAO. You absolutely did label the ideas you disagree with "stupid' and profess your love of "humiliating" those who espouse them. And to be clear (because I know you will try to parse words), you humiliate people, not ideas.

sycasey;842851315 said:

---

Here's the thing: the denialists' arguments are refuted over and over and over by the experts (not "so-called," I reject that framing -- they are experts because they have spent entire careers studying this subject matter) and it doesn't matter. Every slight inconsistency is either blown up or misinterpreted by the denialists, and then the Republican Party and others with personal interest in denying global climate change (coal executives, etc.) repeats the nonsense.

I'm not going to argue the minutiae anymore. It's honestly not about "proving" a scientific argument, it's about winning a P.R. war. Time to fight fire with fire.

Most people who deny global climate change are denialists. They have made a conscious choice to not listen to the experts and instead to do their own amateur research and come to amateurish conclusions.

---

I like to frame the current discussion as between those who always come up with a reason to do nothing vs. those who in the finest American tradition believe we can successfully address and overcome a major challenge to our future

BearGoggles;842851317 said:

---

LMAO. You absolutely did label the ideas you disagree with "stupid' and profess your love of "humiliating" those who espouse them. And to be clear (because I know you will try to parse words), you humiliate people, not ideas.

---

I humiliate right wing propaganda such as "Al Gore flies on a private jet so derpy derp". Funny to me you can't see the difference between conservative ideas and right wing propaganda

GB54;842851312 said:

---

Paris is noteworthy only in that there is an agreement- a rare thing. The guidelines were not binding so I don't really know what the fuss is. The whole thing though is meaningless if it can be wiped out with a stroke of a pen like it was. It seems to me that conservatives complaining about what it would do the economy is not unlike liberals at its end saying the world is ruined. Frankly, a functional President and Congress would have crafted something much better but it couldn't happen

---

I agree with you there is dysfunction - both for Paris and the Iran deal. Treating these as non-treaties denied the Senate (and really, the US populace) a debate regarding those important issues and policy choices.

I think the significance of the agreement was that the federal bureaucracy (most notably EPA) would likely have tried to implement the "Paris targets" as policy via regulations. Also, there would have been international pressure for the US to honor its "non-binding" commitments at some point - particularity the obligation to deliver $$.

dajo9;842851319 said:

---

I humiliate right wing propaganda such as "Al Gore flies on a private jet so derpy derp". Funny to me you can't see the difference between conservative ideas and right wing propaganda

---

Actually I do. But to you, they are pretty much always the same thing. Your posting history is pretty clear on that.

sycasey;842851315 said:

---

Here's the thing: the denialists' arguments are refuted over and over and over by the experts (not "so-called," I reject that framing -- they are experts because they have spent entire careers studying this subject matter) and it doesn't matter. Every slight inconsistency is either blown up or misinterpreted by the denialists, and then the Republican Party and others with personal interest in denying global climate change (coal executives, etc.) repeats the nonsense.

I'm not going to argue the minutiae anymore. It's honestly not about "proving" a scientific argument, it's about winning a P.R. war. Time to fight fire with fire.

Most people who deny global climate change are denialists. They have made a conscious choice to not listen to the experts and instead to do their own amateur research and come to amateurish conclusions.

---

Like Unit2, you are throwing out "denialist" pretty indiscriminately. Is it denialist to say there are human contributions to climate change but to disagree with some of the proposed courses of action? Because for most people that is the crux of the matter - what can and should be done to address climate change. Labeling those people denialists is intellectually lazy.

And I agree with you that special interests pursue their special interest (coal). But there are people doing the same on the opposite side of the equation (Solyndra and Tesla come to mind). Much of the "alarmist" predictions come from people with financial or other personal interests.

dajo9;842851318 said:

---

I like to frame the current discussion as between those who always come up with a reason to do nothing vs. those who in the finest American tradition believe we can successfully address and overcome a major challenge to our future

---

That's a pretty reasonable way to couch the issue. But we can't have a policy discussion about what to do to address the "challenge" (be it Paris or other measures) when one side dismisses any disagreement as "denialist' or as "stupid right wing propaganda." When the issues is presented as "there is a 97% certainty the world will end in XX years unless we do YY" and don't question that because it is "settled", then there is no room for discussion of policy options.

BearGoggles;842851324 said:

---

Like Unit2, you are throwing out "denialist" pretty indiscriminately. Is it denialist to say there are human contributions to climate change but to disagree with some of the proposed courses of action? Because for most people that is the crux of the matter - what can and should be done to address climate change. Labeling those people denialists is intellectually lazy.

---

If "what can and should be done to address climate change" were all that is up for debate, that would be different. Instead, the Republican argument is "let's do nothing," as is evidenced by their decision to leave the Paris Agreement in the face of opposition from the public (see polling on this question), every other country except Syria, and a majority of U.S. business leaders. As far as I know, Trump and other party leaders have no stated position on what an alternative climate plan would be, yet they supported leaving this modest, non-binding one. I have no qualms about labeling them and their enablers as "denialists."

If you don't like being lumped in with that group, then maybe take some time to examine what political party is most likely to take advantage of your line of argument.

dajo9;842851318 said:

---

I like to frame the current discussion as between those who always come up with a reason to do nothing vs. those who in the finest American tradition believe we can successfully address and overcome a major challenge to our future

---

Bingo.

So sycasey, as I said in a previous post directed to dajo, I accept GW...I am not a denialist...And I think Bear Goggles makes that point among other things...My concern is that individuals who are as you do make it difficult to have a discussion at all. Where do you leave a position for someone who accepts global warming, accepts it is manmade, but in that most mandates are very hard to reverse once in place, is adamantly against the carbon taxing of the USA and allowing coal usage and growth in China and India until roughly 2030?? That is not a Republican argument as you point out. How conservative or right wing it is, I could guess, but am doubtful. But at the same time such gets in the way of your agenda so seems to me to be tossed in with the denialist crowd. I come from a scientific background, would never admit to having all the answers, but do definitely know that science is NEVER settled, and is and should be continually questioned. But I am not even coming down hard on the science but on the fact that it should be open. I am most concerned about slapping the USA with ridiculous penalties when in fact we have cleaned up coal exponentially and are on our way in reducing fossil fuel usage similarly.

OdontoBear66;842851341 said:

---

So sycasey, as I said in a previous post directed to dajo, I accept GW...I am not a denialist...And I think Bear Goggles makes that point among other things...My concern is that individuals who are as you do make it difficult to have a discussion at all. Where do you leave a position for someone who accepts global warming, accepts it is manmade, but in that most mandates are very hard to reverse once in place, is adamantly against the carbon taxing of the USA and allowing coal usage and growth in China and India until roughly 2030?? That is not a Republican argument as you point out. How conservative or right wing it is, I could guess, but am doubtful. But at the same time such gets in the way of your agenda so seems to me to be tossed in with the denialist crowd. I come from a scientific background, would never admit to having all the answers, but do definitely know that science is NEVER settled, and is and should be continually questioned. But I am not even coming down hard on the science but on the fact that it should be open. I am most concerned about slapping the USA with ridiculous penalties when in fact we have cleaned up coal exponentially and are on our way in reducing fossil fuel usage similarly.

---

I mean, if I'm being totally honest, I'm 100% more concerned with the decisions being made by those who have their hands on the reins of power (Trump and Republicans in Congress) than I am with whether or not you (or BearGoggles) feel your personal views are validated by the current discussion. I don't really care if you feel validated.

However, I do think that part of the problem is that the party that ostensibly represents "conservative" values is nowhere near a nuanced argument like "We're adamantly against the carbon taxing of the USA and allowing coal usage and growth in China and India until roughly 2030, so here is what we should do for the environment instead." Their position is "deny, deny, deny" and offering no solutions. If they had their own proposals, there would be something to debate. Instead, the debate becomes: do you believe scientists or not?

Maybe if principled conservatives started voting and advocating against Republicans in larger numbers we'd see some change in that debate.

This is isn't a controversial topic across the globe - only among a very small subset of one political group in one country. So we have a whole world that is in uniform agreement that AGW is one of, if not the biggest, problem(s) facing humanity and on the other hand we have a minority of US conservatives who have their doubts. I'm not sure we can accomplish anything as a country if we allow any small group of doubters to control the agenda.

If that's the new standard than let me start by saying I have my doubts, in no particular order, about: (i) efficacy of the travel ban, (ii) repealing and replacing Obamacare, (iii) increasing military spending, (iv) permitting Trump to have internet access, (v) Tillerson's destruction of the state department, (vi) allowing Rod Gilmore to comment on college football, and (vii) whether taking my shoes off at the airport makes the world safer. I'm sure we could all come up with dozens of more examples.

Unit2Sucks;842851301 said:

---

I love that you guys throw our Judith Curry as if she's some shining beacon who has disproven AGW. I looked her up. In 2005, she wrote a big paper saying that AGW would lead to more extreme hurricanes. She now has migrated from agreeing with the scientific consensus on AGW to saying that AGW is likely to be occurring and may or may not be as bad as other scientists fear. She worries about the costs of dealing with the problem. She is basically shrugging at the issue and she's the foremost "expert" on the side of the skeptics.

The case by the skeptics is more conspiracy theory than science.

---

Curry admits having bent to the CC agenda when her research grant applications were denied, then years later decided enough was enough.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Then, there's these people:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1/#an-carlin-9

Then, there's Dr. Richard Lindzen , MIT Climate scientist: "the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster."

And, "One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger."

Then, for all you data freaks out there (you know who you are), here are some actual facts. You know, like evidence. If everything gets a little foggy for ya, you can just scroll to the end where it shows that there's modest, perhaps insignificant, increase in CO2. Which should reassure those who understand that the planet needs CO2 for life and that with the greater need for agriculture and productivity of plant life, we can use it to meet the global (cough) need. I hope that's not too much science for ya.

PS While our CO2 has been inching up since the 1950's (measured, not anecdotal) to 400 ppm or so, it has not begun to reach the 800 ppm predicted 15 years ago by that renowned climate scientist, Al Gore (genuflect here, if you are so moved.).

OdontoBear66;842851341 said:

---

So sycasey, as I said in a previous post directed to dajo, I accept GW...I am not a denialist...And I think Bear Goggles makes that point among other things...My concern is that individuals who are as you do make it difficult to have a discussion at all. Where do you leave a position for someone who accepts global warming, accepts it is manmade, but in that most mandates are very hard to reverse once in place, is adamantly against the carbon taxing of the USA and allowing coal usage and growth in China and India until roughly 2030?? That is not a Republican argument as you point out. How conservative or right wing it is, I could guess, but am doubtful. But at the same time such gets in the way of your agenda so seems to me to be tossed in with the denialist crowd. I come from a scientific background, would never admit to having all the answers, but do definitely know that science is NEVER settled, and is and should be continually questioned. But I am not even coming down hard on the science but on the fact that it should be open. I am most concerned about slapping the USA with ridiculous penalties when in fact we have cleaned up coal exponentially and are on our way in reducing fossil fuel usage similarly.

---

Why don't they admit it's existence for a start rather than forbidding mention of it or not engaging. Any agreement like Paris was DOA in Congress- there was no room for a position like yours. Their position is that it doesn't exist.

With regard to your concerns I agree with you. China certainly can no longer be considered a developing country- it's a global powerhouse. Ironically it is now reducing the number of coal plants in China while facilitating the building of them abroad.

A proper solution- not technically impossible- would be to tax products based on their carbon footprint. In
this regard it is the height of hypocrisy for Apple to build their "environmentally sustainable" headquarters at the same time as producing iPhones with tons more pollution than it would here using the dirtiest grid in the world. Why should their greed drive global warming any more than China's?

And, then, there's this: Hockey Stick fabricator faces contempt of court for refusing to produce data.

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/07/04/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

Rushinbear;842851356 said:

---

And, then, there's this: Hockey Stick fabricator faces contempt of court for refusing to produce data.

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/07/04/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

---

Used 1000 years of data. All of it probably pristine. My only criticism, who not go back to biblical times.

sycasey;842851346 said:

---

I mean, if I'm being totally honest, I'm 100% more concerned with the decisions being made by those who have their hands on the reins of power (Trump and Republicans in Congress) than I am with whether or not you (or BearGoggles) feel your personal views are validated by the current discussion. I don't really care if you feel validated.

However, I do think that part of the problem is that the party that ostensibly represents "conservative" values is nowhere near a nuanced argument like "We're adamantly against the carbon taxing of the USA and allowing coal usage and growth in China and India until roughly 2030, so here is what we should do for the environment instead." Their position is "deny, deny, deny" and offering no solutions. If they had their own proposals, there would be something to debate. Instead, the debate becomes: do you believe scientists or not?

Maybe if principled conservatives started voting and advocating against Republicans in larger numbers we'd see some change in that debate.

---

I thought I was having a discussion with you. You, in turn, lump me with a Republican policy, that I do not think co-incides with what I think at all. So do you wish to just stand on a pedestal and preach anti-conservatism and then call names (denialist), or do you wish to discuss more moderate stances that may get in the way of your "bulldoze it through" strategy. Al Gore was wrong, horribly wrong in his timing. Carbon taxing could be wrong at this time in the USA, horribly wrong, in its timing.

Or do I have you and the likes of dajo confused with this thought pattern that is neither left or right, but down the middle pragmatic?

I think the problem I have with those now critiquing the solution as too expensive is that this position is just one of a series of cascading excuses to do nothing. To wit:

1. Climate change is not occurring. It's all a fake issue created by the Chinese or George Soros or the scientific illuminati whatever boogeyman those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry want to trot out. Let's put out press releases and mock the science every time a snowflake falls in DC in January. When disproven move to...

2. It's happening but it's totally natural and not man made. Create many ridiculous charts going back to the Jurassic era and publish them as proof that the earth has been hot before and this will all be fine. Ignore the fact that those changes occurred over 10s of millions of years and that humans could not have suvvived in that climate. When disproven move to...

3. It's happening and it's man made, but it's not that severe. When every polar bear on the planet dies and Mavericks relocates to Finland move to...

4. It's happening, it's man made and it's severe, but it's probably too expensive to fix and the Chinese and the Indians will just cheat anyway. When it occurs to folks that there in no fallback planet for the fragile ecosystem of the earth (and the 7 billion plus humans using its resources) move to...

5. It's happening, it's man made, it's a freaking disaster and would be worth any economic sacrifice to fix, but it's too late. Oh well. See you all on the other side.

Some folks never make it beyond step 1 and some start at one of the positions on this list and stay there because of deeply held beliefs. But there are a lot of incredibly cynical individuals who will happily migrate from one position to the next as their prior position becomes untenable. For them it's all about ensuring that we keep the status quo because that status quo is putting money in their pockets and them in power.

I consider myself to be a conservative on many issues. In my humble opinion, there is nothing conservative about risking the fate of the planet and the human race on the hope that we can dramatically modify the planet's climate and hope everything just works out somehow. That's not even radical. That's just crazy.

OdontoBear66;842851382 said:

---

I thought I was having a discussion with you. You, in turn, lump me with a Republican policy, that I do not think co-incides with what I think at all. So do you wish to just stand on a pedestal and preach anti-conservatism and then call names (denialist), or do you wish to discuss more moderate stances that may get in the way of your "bulldoze it through" strategy. Al Gore was wrong, horribly wrong in his timing. Carbon taxing could be wrong at this time in the USA, horribly wrong, in its timing.

---

I'll just copy/paste my previous response to BearGoggles, because it's easier than trying to find new ways to restate the same things:

If "what can and should be done to address climate change" were all that is up for debate, that would be different. Instead, the Republican argument is "let's do nothing," as is evidenced by their decision to leave the Paris Agreement in the face of opposition from the public (see polling on this question), every other country except Syria, and a majority of U.S. business leaders. As far as I know, Trump and other party leaders have no stated position on what an alternative climate plan would be, yet they supported leaving this modest, non-binding one. I have no qualms about labeling them and their enablers as "denialists."

If you don't like being lumped in with that group, then maybe take some time to examine what political party is most likely to take advantage of your line of argument.

OdontoBear66;842851382 said:

---

Or do I have you and the likes of dajo confused with this thought pattern that is neither left or right, but down the middle pragmatic?

---

Right, I forgot, whatever position you take is "down the middle."

Sebasta - I've made a very similar post to the one you just made a number of times here over the years. The one difference is that I believe many people are perfectly willing to make all of those statements more or less simultaneously.

NVbear78, I tried to answer your private message. It may not have gone through. When it comes to exchanging private messages, Rivals is far more user friendly. I think BI was designed by a madman. Maybe it is just me. When I send a private message I include my private email. At least 100 mailing lists already have it

Sebastabear;842851385 said:

---

I think the problem I have with those now critiquing the solution as too expensive is that this position is just one of a series of cascading excuses to do nothing. To wit:

1. Climate change is not occurring. It's all a fake issue created by the Chinese or George Soros or the scientific illuminati whatever boogeyman those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry want to trot out. Let's put out press releases and mock the science every time a snowflake falls in DC in January. When disproven move to...

2. It's happening but it's totally natural and not man made. Create many ridiculous charts going back to the Jurassic era and publish them as proof that the earth has been hot before and this will all be fine. Ignore the fact that those changes occurred over 10s of millions of years and that humans could not have suvvived in that climate. When disproven move to...

3. It's happening and it's man made, but it's not that severe. When every polar bear on the planet dies and Mavericks relocates to Finland move to...

4. It's happening, it's man made and it's severe, but it's probably too expensive to fix and the Chinese and the Indians will just cheat anyway. When it occurs to folks that there in no fallback planet for the fragile ecosystem of the earth (and the 7 billion plus humans using its resources) move to...

5. It's happening, it's man made, it's a freaking disaster and would be worth any economic sacrifice to fix, but it's too late. Oh well. See you all on the other side.

Some folks never make it beyond step 1 and some start at one of the positions on this list and stay there because of deeply held beliefs. But there are a lot of incredibly cynical individuals who will happily migrate from one position to the next as their prior position becomes untenable. For them it's all about ensuring that we keep the status quo because that status quo is putting money in their pockets and them in power.

I consider myself to be a conservative on many issues. In my humble opinion, there is nothing conservative about risking the fate of the planet and the human race on the hope that we can dramatically modify the planet's climate and hope everything just works out somehow. That's not even radical. That's just crazy.

---

So I find myself in #4, but not with the unflattering verbiage you use. The Paris Accord is/was just a very bad financial deal for the USA that was being made to assuage our guilt feelings about contributing to that GW that is going on. Yes something needs to be done, but not any deal, not a bad deal in relative terms to the countries I have mentioned.

And I agree most entirely with you final paragraph.

OdontoBear66;842851341 said:

---

So sycasey, as I said in a previous post directed to dajo, I accept GW...I am not a denialist...And I think Bear Goggles makes that point among other things...My concern is that individuals who are as you do make it difficult to have a discussion at all. Where do you leave a position for someone who accepts global warming, accepts it is manmade, but in that most mandates are very hard to reverse once in place, is adamantly against the carbon taxing of the USA and allowing coal usage and growth in China and India until roughly 2030?? That is not a Republican argument as you point out. How conservative or right wing it is, I could guess, but am doubtful. But at the same time such gets in the way of your agenda so seems to me to be tossed in with the denialist crowd. I come from a scientific background, would never admit to having all the answers, but do definitely know that science is NEVER settled, and is and should be continually questioned. But I am not even coming down hard on the science but on the fact that it should be open. I am most concerned about slapping the USA with ridiculous penalties when in fact we have cleaned up coal exponentially and are on our way in reducing fossil fuel usage similarly.

---

Interesting comments.
Ross Douthat in the NYT Sunday Review of June 4, 2017 proclaims himself a conservative who is among those who been called "lukewarmers".
Someone who believes in GW and that it is caused primarily by human activity but someone who (based upon the data he has seen) does not believe the situation is as dire a threat to humanity as the proponents (whom he calls "alarmists") believe that it is.

However he makes a number of very good points.
1. He acknowledges that lukewarmers are just as vulnerable to cherry picking their data as is anyone else. He says that every person who is not an alarmists should identify the data that he/she rely upon in coming to their conclusions and what changes in that data would push them more toward the "alarmist" camp.

He notes that for him the critical data is what appears to be a "pause" or slowdown in observed warming over a period of a decade or more which if it continues would make the ultimate effects of GW much less harmful than projected. However he notes that the past few years there has been a spike in warming and that if that spike continues he would be required to move more toward the alarmist camp.

2. He notes that the bulk of right-wing politicians are not likely to follow his recommendations since they are of the position that if the Liberals are for something, they must be against it.

3. After further discussion, he concludes that lukewarmers while expressing some concern have no affirmative agenda about what should be done; and even if they did have no party that is prepared to take any action whatsoever.

Rushinbear;842851349 said:

---

Curry admits having bent to the CC agenda when her research grant applications were denied, then years later decided enough was enough.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Then, there's these people:
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1/#an-carlin-9

Then, there's Dr. Richard Lindzen , MIT Climate scientist: "the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster."

And, "One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger."

Then, for all you data freaks out there (you know who you are), here are some actual facts. You know, like evidence. If everything gets a little foggy for ya, you can just scroll to the end where it shows that there's modest, perhaps insignificant, increase in CO2. Which should reassure those who understand that the planet needs CO2 for life and that with the greater need for agriculture and productivity of plant life, we can use it to meet the global (cough) need. I hope that's not too much science for ya.

PS While our CO2 has been inching up since the 1950's (measured, not anecdotal) to 400 ppm or so, it has not begun to reach the 800 ppm predicted 15 years ago by that renowned climate scientist, Al Gore (genuflect here, if you are so moved.).

---

There were scientists who knew smoking to be safe for us. They too had data. They too were in the minority. Smoking science is not settled because no science is settled?

Given that I'm not a climate scientist, why should I be hell bent on believing the small minority who disagree?

Rushinbear;842851349 said:

---

Then, there's Dr. Richard Lindzen , MIT Climate scientist: "the claim is meant to satisfy the non-expert that he or she has no need to understand the science. Mere agreement with the 97% will indicate that one is a supporter of science and superior to anyone denying disaster."

And, "One of the dodges is to poll scientists as to whether they agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part. This is, indeed, something almost all of us can agree on, but which has no obvious implication of danger."

Then, for all you data freaks out there (you know who you are), here are some actual facts. You know, like evidence. If everything gets a little foggy for ya, you can just scroll to the end where it shows that there's modest, perhaps insignificant, increase in CO2. Which should reassure those who understand that the planet needs CO2 for life and that with the greater need for agriculture and productivity of plant life, we can use it to meet the global (cough) need. I hope that's not too much science for ya.

PS While our CO2 has been inching up since the 1950's (measured, not anecdotal) to 400 ppm or so, it has not begun to reach the 800 ppm predicted 15 years ago by that renowned climate scientist, Al Gore (genuflect here, if you are so moved.).

---

Let's see, you begin your paragraph with a quote from Richard Linden in support of your position. This is someone who testified for the tobacco companies with the idea that statistical connections between smoking and health problems did not exist. Then you finish your paragraph with with what appears to be an inaccuracy from Al Gore, a politician. Do you see the problem there???? Can we just forget about Hillary, Obama and Gore and just cite the freaking scientists??? You went to CAL brother!

metabear;842851441 said:

---

Let's see, you begin your paragraph with a quote from Richard Linden in support of your position. This is someone who testified for the tobacco companies with the idea that statistical connections between smoking and health problems did not exist. Then you finish your paragraph with with what appears to be an inaccuracy from Al Gore, a politician. Do you see the problem there???? Can we just forget about Hillary, Obama and Gore and just cite the freaking scientists??? You went to CAL brother!

---

But you pay no attention to the points made while shooting the messengers

The US could do better but is definitely trending well compared to historical averages.
https://wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world's-top-10-emitters

NVBear78;842851446 said:

---

But you pay no attention to the points made while shooting the messengers

---

No more so than RushinBear did by name-dropping Al Gore. Good for the goose, good for the gander, etc.

GivemTheAxe;842851430 said:

---

Interesting comments.
Ross Douthat in the NYT Sunday Review of June 4, 2017 proclaims himself a conservative who is among those who been called "lukewarmers".
Someone who believes in GW and that it is caused primarily by human activity but someone who (based upon the data he has seen) does not believe the situation is as dire a threat to humanity as the proponents (whom he calls "alarmists") believe that it is.

However he makes a number of very good points.
1. He acknowledges that lukewarmers are just as vulnerable to cherry picking their data as is anyone else. He says that every person who is not an alarmists should identify the data that he/she rely upon in coming to their conclusions and what changes in that data would push them more toward the "alarmist" camp.

He notes that for him the critical data is what appears to be a "pause" or slowdown in observed warming over a period of a decade or more which if it continues would make the ultimate effects of GW much less harmful than projected. However he notes that the past few years there has been a spike in warming and that if that spike continues he would be required to move more toward the alarmist camp.

2. He notes that the bulk of right-wing politicians are not likely to follow his recommendations since they are of the position that if the Liberals are for something, they must be against it.

3. After further discussion, he concludes that lukewarmers while expressing some concern have no affirmative agenda about what should be done; and even if they did have no party that is prepared to take any action whatsoever.

---

What don't you, and some others, not understand that GW exists, but even so, one does not sign on to "any" deal to make it go away? Make reasonable and fair restrictions on the USA and I am all in. I have said as much. Paris, no. You, sycasey, and dajo in post so often love to attack the messenger rather than discuss the message when in disagreement.

BearGoggles;842851323 said:

---

Actually I do. But to you, they are pretty much always the same thing. Your posting history is pretty clear on that.

---

No, you'll have to depend on what I actually say if you want to pin something on me. I know I've got you in my back pocket if you go the calbear93 route and decide you can just make up stuff I say and do.

sycasey;842851455 said:

---

No more so than RushinBear did by name-dropping Al Gore. Good for the goose, good for the gander, etc.

---

I cited Gore only after citing several actual scientists to juxtapose real evidence from the political dreamworld. And, I suppose, to stick my finger in your ear.