"Somethings you can't do with observation, but you can model and show that the model agrees with prediciton."

My apologies Orathaic, I should have formally references you for this remark.

"Global Warming", now "Climate Change" is a fraud.

(1) Is the globe even getting warmer?
(1) No, not over the past 10 years. Oops. It's an "inconvenient truth." So now the term is "climate change". And, most amusingly, the same people today screaming about apocolyptic "global warming" were telling us that it was "global cooling" back in the 70s and were were going to all die in a new ice age. Look it up,it was on the cover of Time. So if you're over a certain age, you can't help but roll your eyes at the latest hysteria. Moreover, do we even know what the temperature was 3000 years ago? They're using things like tree-ring data to "approximate" temperatures., cherry picking their data points (which is what the climategate scandal was about, etc.).

(2) Even if the Earth is getting warmer, does man have anything to do with it?
Climate changes all the time. We had warm periods and ice ages long before man could have industry and be blamed for it. :The scientists get paid to say there's a problem and it's man-made, because if they don't, there's no more grant money from NIH. Think if it as natural selection for anyone who says there's a problem. And then the peer-review committees block anyone who say that there ISN'T a problem. Proof of this is, again, the climate-gate emails, not that anyone who wasn't involved in science (at least in the biology fields, as I was) wasn't aware of this before. Science is no longer the pursuit of truth, it's the pursuit of grant money so that you can continue to put food on the table.

Now this doesn't mean that the science is automatically wrong, but that applies equally to funded scientists by businesses too. The point is, somehow the Left automatically believes academia (ignoring the funding bias) but has no trouble spotting funding bias from businesses.

Climate change (formerly "global warming" formerly "global cooling") is a religion, not a science. It's based upon faith and has no real science behind it. Getting warmer? Global warming. Getting colder? Global warming? Too much rain? Global warming. Dry spell? Global warming. It doesn't matter WHAT the actual data says, somehow global warming is always responsible. When a hypothesis cannot be tested and shown to be false, no matter what experiment is done or what data is provided, it's no longer science, it's religion.

The DATA makes you wonder if man has anything to do with global warming (assuming it exists), as opposed to solar activity. Hell, other planets were getting warmer and colder with us... yet we're not on mars to be blamed for it. Why, exactly, do we think man is involved at all? The earth has been warmer and colder than it was now. Why should man be involved at all?


(3) Even if the Earth is getting warmer, and man is responsible for some of it, is it worth doing anything about it? In short... so what?

Just because (for argument's sake) the earth is getting warmer (it isn't) and man is responsible (he isn't) doesn't necessarily mean it's worth acting to stop it. As a dumb example, we could get rid of homelessness by shooting anyone who's homeless. It solves the problem, but it's not a solution worth pursuing. Similarly, wiping out all industry in the US (so it can all be made in China or India) to combat global warming isn't exactly a worthwhile solution, as it doesn't actually "combat" it (the industry just relocates) and it causes other problems that would be worse (no one has a job, a car, a house, etc... that's what industry is FOR). Ever notice that every study on global warming says that there will be almost nothing but negative results? Cities flood, agricultural areas are wiped out, etc. as opposed to new areas became habitable, farming expands northward, etc. I'm not sure why anyone in say, Russia, would be unhappy if their winters were warmer.

Under all of the models, why are we trying to regulate man-made CO2 (30% of global warming, and man is only 20% of the CO2 anyway... rest is naturally produced, so this is what, 6% of the net global warming effect if you believe the models) rather than water vapor? (70% of global warming under their models). The answer is: (a) if you tried to regulate WATER, everyone would laugh at you and not take you seriously. (b) regulating water can't be used to destroy industry, so various political objectives can't be attained. Environmentalists seem to hate modern society, especially capitalist modern society. Pollution in china = good (because you're shot if you complain). Pollution in USA or Europe = bad, we're exploiting the planet. So we'll spend billions to save the dusty-seaside sparrow (which isn't even a species, it's a local population) but can't grasp that there might be a point behind the "green energy" hydroelectric plant.

All of the "green energy" advocates ignore nuclear power (the greenest of realistic power sources). Remember the advocacy of "wind" power? It's great, until migrating ducks get hacked to bits by the propellers that are set up in their flight paths. Oops. Water power? Great, until it wipes out salmon spawning beds.

Anyway, even if there is global warming (there isn't) and man's at fault (he isn't), is it worth spending trillions to combat something that is a tiny component of global warming rather than, say, setting off a few nuclear bombs and throwing dust in the atmosphere to increase cloud albido for a few years? (anyone remember the "nuclear winter?)

Rhydon, every point you make here is wrong and this has already been pointed out.

Is the globe getting warmer?
Yes it is. Your claim that it is not is unsubstantiated. The 2000s were the hottest decade on record. Try again.
(And you also mention climategate here. Climategate was a bunch of bullshit. Quotes were taken out of context, scientific jargon was misconstrued as dishonesty etc. Basically some people stole private correspondence, hoping to find evidence of dishonesty. Then when they did not, they manipulated and misrepresented the stolen correspondence so as to convince people that it was evidence of dishonesty. BULLSHIT.)

Even if the Earth is getting warmer, does man have anything to do with it?
This part is somehow even more moronic than the first part of your post. To give an analogy, forest fires occur naturally. Therefore if I'm in a forest full of dry, brown foliage, I can just go around dropping lit matches willy nilly, because forest fires occur naturally, so I can't possibly cause one. Obviously that's nonsense. You do have a point about funding bias, but in this case, I think it is misleading, and here's why. It's not as though the only funding available is on the AGW side of the debate. A genuine climate scientist who wanted money and could prove that AGW wasn't true would be able to go to exxon-mobil and say "I want enough money to fill a swimming pool, in order to publish this paper." And they'd say, "We'll give you three Olympic size swimming pools full of gold, if you publish that paper." There is funding on both sides of this debate and MUCH more funding on the denial side than the other.
Now the AGW as a religion thing? Parts of my brain started hurting when I read that. Seriously, that was so stupid I think you just gave me cancer. Simply because we don't go into the mechanism by which CLIMATE change, can cause various forms of unusual WEATHER here, doesn't mean there isn't an explanation for how it can happen. And just because we're not citing scientific articles showing that that is exactly what happened, doesn't mean that scientists cant' prove that extreme weather patterns are a result of AGW. In fact they can, easily. Global warming doesn't require faith to believe it. (Note the difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER, notice that I used the words in one order, and not the other, because climate and weather ARE NOT THE SAME THING.)
And as for denialists not making peer review, perhaps that is because of some vast conspiracy to stop any denial seeing publication. Or, and here's a thought, maybe it's because they're wrong. A scientific journal is not like the op-ed pages of a newspaper. It's not about everyone being able to say what you want and then having a lively discussion. To see publication, in a peer-reviewed journal, you need to, at a very minimum, not be full of shit.

Whether climate change is man made or not (and a huge number of intelligent people who have dedicated much of their working lives into answering this question insist that it is), one thing that everyone can agree on is that climate can change, has changed often even in recent history, and will change again in the future. In such a reality it would be foolish for humanity not to come up with some kind of geo-engineering strategies to counter anything fate has in store for us. Rhydon's nuclear winter comment is at least thinking along the right lines, although that particular plan has a few too many drawbacks :p.

Efforts to cut carbon emissions have all failed, and even the most enthisiastic members of the political classes have no hope of achieving the sorts of cuts scientists say are needed. It is time to stop wasting our energy on carbon cutting pipedreams and come up with serious solutions. (In a quite reference to the title, this is very much a political issue ;) )

I am curious as to what Mafialligator's solution is to the perceived problem. I use the word percieved because again it was "global warming" until temperatures haven't risen as predicted and now it's "climate change".

The solution, according to the left, is electric cars, wind farms, solar panels and carbon credits. Rhydon makes a good point, why not go after China and India? What happens when the wind doesn't blow? What happens when the suun doesn't shine? How will you generate the electricity to charge the electric car? And carbon credits is just another way for government to regulate businesses right out of the US and into the arms of China, India and Korea. If the left was truely trying to solve the precived problem they would be promoting nuclear energy with its 0 carbon emissions. Until the left and the environmentalist crazies sign on to nuclear then I it difficult to believe their motivation is truely to save the planet.

@ Man-O-War: I didn't say I had a solution. And I certainly didn't object to Rhydon's statement that going after India and China would be effective. (It would, but there are political impediments to that course. Which isn't to say we shouldn't do it. It's very complicated.)
I'm not arguing in favour of electric cars or carbon credits or carbon tax. I have opinions on those things, but I'm not prepared to rigorously defend them, so I'm not presenting them. All I'm arguing against is climate change denial, because while I don't know what the solution is, I know that sticking our heads in the sand and pretending climate change doesn't exist won't solve ANYTHING.
And in an odd sort of way you're correct about something Man-O-War. Temperatures haven't risen as predicted. They've risen FASTER than predicted. But that's not what you meant. You are once again claiming that temperatures haven't risen, and that is an outright lie. People have provided support for that statement several times in this thread, and yet the deniers go right back to saying "There's no warming" again and again and again. How can we debate you if you just ignore rock solid facts when we present them?

"Until the left and the environmentalist crazies sign on to nuclear then I it difficult to believe their motivation is truely to save the planet." - Yes, either that or we're concerned about the environmental impact of tons and tons of radioactive waste, and interested in moving to a power source that is truly renewable. Because if we start relying on radioactive metal, we'll eventually run out of that too. The big thing is sustainability. We want a power source that we can use indefinitely and not run out of.

And yeah, I can't speak for the rest of the left, but for my own part, I can assure you, all I want is to avoid a catastrophe of the sort that global warming could cause.
I'm curious Man-O-War, what ulterior motive do you suspect the left of having?

"(1) No, not over the past 10 years"

Epic fail. You people keep reciting the same dumb arguments over and over and don't bother to read. The 2000s was the hottest decade on record. So much for the rest of your silly, regurgitated post.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42392

"I'm curious Man-O-War, what ulterior motive do you suspect the left of having?"

Reducing the amount of money he has to spend on videogames and porn.

That's silly. The left is pro-porn and pro-video games!

Until the government taxed the hell out of carbon production and put ALL of that money into tax credits for renewables, forestation and a great big mirror in space to direct the sun's rays to the middle of Liverpool (:-]) then the conspiracy theorists have every right to their suspicions (and I for one would tend to agree with them). BTW gissa a job installing solar panels!

Also you do not destroy an argument by branding it one of conspiracy, if anything you just strengthen it.

"Also you do not destroy an argument by branding it one of conspiracy, if anything you just strengthen it."

People will believe anything, doesn't matter if there is a preponderance of evidence that contradicts their lazy worldview. The argument is not "strengthened" by anything but stupidity.

"Until the government taxed the hell out of carbon production and put ALL of that money"

They can't do that because of idiot voters who think the scientists are making everything up and can't part with a dime to help something 'abstract' like the long-term sustainability of the planet. You make these outrageous demands but then add to the problem.

Really? But conspiracies tend to be outlandish and highly improbable. Branding something as outlandish and highly improbable strengthens it?

''Really? But conspiracies tend to be outlandish and highly improbable. Branding something as outlandish and highly improbable strengthens it?''

Guy Fakes, The Final Solution, The Nazi-Soviet pact.............All of them a complete fantasy just because they were conspiracies?

This is a perfect definition of a non-sequitur, thank you for providing such a really good example.

Putin says -

''They can't do that because of idiot voters who think the scientists are making everything up and can't part with a dime to help something 'abstract' like the long-term sustainability of the planet. You make these outrageous demands but then add to the problem.''

Fulhamish relies on Occcam's Razor and says the most likely explanation is to plug a funding gap, much of it caused by proping up the gamblers on Wall St. and the C of L.

"Fulhamish relies on Occcam's Razor and says the most likely explanation is to plug a funding gap, much of it caused by proping up the gamblers on Wall St. and the C of L."

This doesn't even make sense. Occam's Razor contradicts your idea that conspiracy theories usually have validity and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You for whatever reason don't like speaking plainly and make convoluted points. Explanation for what? How does plugging a funding gap explain anything? What on earth are you talking about?

Environmentally justified taxation to combat global warming through discouraging CO2 production should as a bare minimum equal expenditure to combat global warming through measures such as encouraging renewables. That way the accusation cannot be levelled that they are a government fund raising measure in disguise. Unfortunately this is not the current position.

Well sure, but Guy Fawkes blowing up parliament didn't require the cooperation of thousands of scientists all maintaining a lie for the government. THAT'S the outlandish part.

Some ten years ago now I was involved in group which tried to get the British government to place solar water heaters (note not pv) on every suitable school, hospital, town hall, barrack roof etc...in Britain. We made the arguments that - a) the governmemnt should set an example, b) this would prime a new industry in Britain, c) it would actually save the tax payer money in the long term.

I am guessing that the cost might represent a drop in the ocean compared to petrol duty. The verdict........it was too expensive. Can one say wankers on this site?

'''Well sure, but Guy Fawkes blowing up parliament didn't require the cooperation of thousands of scientists all maintaining a lie for the government. THAT'S the outlandish part. ''

We agree then to merely call something a conspiracy theory is not sufficient grounds to rubbish it? That's my point.

@do many governments agree to limit tax takes to be spent on a single item?

like the alcohol tax could be exclusively spent on treating people suffered from alcohol related diseases... or the road tax could be exclusively used to pay for public road improvements...

That would be an extremely inflexible way to run a government, though it would also allow the government a much easier time in justifying tax hikes - where you only pay more if the (social) cost of a given item has gone up...

But politics is actually about taking in the tax and argueing over how it should be spent.... we'd have very little discretionary spending if all money was ringfenced...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothecation_(taxation)

in fact, this sounds like the kinda of way a business would run, separating out the powers and responcibilities of a government into different independently profitable enterprises...

So because the government didn't surrender to your wishes, AGW is rightfully seen as a scam? Nevermind the fact that politics is complicated and involves pressure and compromise from a multitude of opposing groups, because you didn't win that one effort, they're all "wankers".

And you're the anti-authoritarian of this crowd? Sheesh.

Ora +1 on ringfencing.

If we are just contributing to onre big pot, then please ditch the tax it for the sake of the environment line. Just say we want the money, a very large part of which we will spend on propping up Wall st. and the CoL. In fact lets go for that and say we are too skint to build the seven barrage or support a company called Sheffield Forgemasters (google it). Doesn't it strike you that at the very least the political class' priorities are crazy and at the worst they are conspiritorial criminals who well get employment from an array of banks, stockbrookers etc, when they leave parliament. Unfortunately the recent historical record rather supports the latter conclusion.

Is that a conspiracy theory or would you like me to furnish you with an array of examples?

No, they are not trying to gather money at all.

They turst businesses to look after one thing, their profit margins. So if renewables make sense (because emitting carbon is being taxed) then they will find the best damn renewable and invest in research to develop better renewables...

It means they don't have to spend any money doing this research themselves, they just have to make it more expensive use oil... Which separately makes sense if you want to break dependancy on foreign oil imported from a monopolistic bunch of countries (OPEC)

But this is somehow all about politics. I wanted to talk about science, it really is an ad hominem attack upon science. That politicians are liers and therefore the science is wrong? Yes politicians on both sides may lie/mislead, but that doesn't mean our models of future climate or our research into the history of this planet are wrong, completely flawed nor fabricated