What Do We Think About Climate Change

That's somewhat akin to being accused of wanting all the plants in the world to die because they need CO2, I guess...

If anyone is keeping track, there is a pattern to my posts. I don't dump on people simply because I think they're wrong; I save my scorn for those who are posting what I consider blatantly irrational or dishonest arguments. Those people need to be called out, because they're subverting the debate.

 

interesting that you might think so G
once again you have proven my point, in that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is and what the basic tenants of good science are. Namely, that it is independent of economics, why else do you think the vast majority of scientists are dirt poor, they actively may not be paid directly for any presumed findings. Which is what makes the oil and gas pseudo scientists so easy to spot.

why do you think that when presenting a paper for review the author must confirm that both no competing interests exists and reveal all funding in order to establish the unbiased nature of the work

science must be independent of financial or any other concern in order to be considered good unbiased science

most funding is blind or by grant and does not depend on the outcome of the work. Unless once again you are talking about the oil and gas PR funded stuff that specifically pays for work against the overwhelming consensus

I cant tell you how much I appreciate your acknowledging that you do not understand this very important point

its not all about economics

its all about science
which is above economics
or at least it is when conducted by reputable members of the scientific community

 

I think this is interesting:

CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: The growth of emissions in the developing nations is outpacing the emissions from developed nations.



CO2 Top Emitters: China’s emissions have been growing rapidly compared to any other country.



CO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions by Fuel Type: Coal has been providing the most emission growth (mainly from China), while oil emissions are flat (close to zero growth).



Change in CO2 Emissions from Coal Emissions: The US has not been growing coal emissions like China and India.



Things being like this, it clearly means it is not Big Oil who is funding the "Denialism", but the Chinese Big Carbon!

 

As I said: Absolute idiotic naïvism

 

and again your distracting from the science rather than admit your error. The simple reality is that politics and economics are a whole separate issue that Deniers interject into the conversation hoping to muddy the waters. The science is clear and at this point its a simple mater of fine tuning the work and observing the damage. The politics is whats not settled and its the economics that is the rallying point of those who do not understand the science.

obviously you never studied the earth sciences G or you would understand this

the scientific process is specifically designed to avoid the influences of economics and politics no mater how important to your argument it may be. I have always tried to get across to you that this is one of the fundamental errors of the deniers camp.

the continued attempts to degrade the science and interject politics is evident of the week debating position you have found yourself in. If the economics of change rather than the science of climate change is your only refuge then you might cheerfully concede the issue and begin the learning process, rather than cling to the economic distractions.

yay I have a set of cabinets to build and a fire place mantle to build. Finally something other than this silly computer to play with

cheers
B

 

OK, I'll bite. How does the existence of websites discussing the economic impact of climate change somehow prove 'it's all about economics'? Particularly since at least one of them (the one from the State of Washington) focuses on the potential costs to the State of ignoring climate change, and failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

 

Yes, go and do that. Probably you'll do much better there than here...

 

What kind of absurd question is that?

 

its the kind of question that exempl;ifies the issue of sciece vs poplitics

 

Where did you get the idea that we were discussing a "one page article"?

Jimbo

 

And this is the kind of answer which demonstrates, once again, you have no brains.

 

Boston, anything to do with science must have a base on economy and politics or it is useless.

My first lecture ever in university was given by a scientist that dwelled on the subject of the scientific knowledge. Fancy that for the first class in a course in Agronomy, the epytomy of applied science for economic gain.
Hi said to us that if we would ask the question what is this good for, then we were not scientis. The scientist is interested in pure knowledge for the sake of it.
When this would have probably pleased Plato, we are a long way away from such pursuit of sapience for sport. Not even sport is for sport anymore.

A good example of science and economics and politics is the GM crops. Genetically modified crops are perfectly safe and good for use, yet are demonised by the stupid greens and assorted ****** in politics for a reason and one only. We can not allow third world countries to compete with our production. Have a look at the golden rice story, and wonder if pure science is of any use.

Besides haveing chosen the wrong side in this debate, that would be of no consequence if you could see how the whole argument of antropogneic versus heliogenic is wastefull and moot because the purpose of the whole pantomime is to shift power and to get money to exchange hands ie, create a market for nothing, sell hot air.

Shaft the science. This is a coup and the greens are telling it from the roof tops.

 

What are poplitics? Do they have any thing to do with the Boston Sym phonies?

 

That isn't an absurd question. It's a quite reasonable question, and I'll repeat it. How do the four links you gave us support your statement that "it's all about the economics"?

 

Well, I might have imagined it. Or I might have been responding to your post #5526 (the one directly above mine), where you told me this: