Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change

[frimmel]

@ghr2:

We have hundreds of other potential threats we would need to worry about.

What besides someone with a gun in your face right now or maybe just getting back from the doctor with a cancer diagnosis is more threatening and needs more immediate attention than not being able to grow enough food because we’ve turned the agricultral regions of California, the southwest and midwest into a frelling desert? We can’t divide our attention between the war on terror and making sure we don’t change the environment so much we can’t grow enough food?

Accepting the science of climate change does not make you a dirty commie liberal tree-hugging vegan hippie. But I assure you not enough water and grain to raise cattle will damn well make you a clean capitalist conservative money-hugging vegan.

[LHoffman]

@frimmel:

a dirty commie liberal tree-hugging vegan hippie

What an apocalyptically awful combination of socio-political characteristics…  :lol:

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Garg, I  like you and for the most part I find myself usually in agreement with you.

My observation for what it’s worth:

I think you have created a straw-man to lay a beating on, if I may, your premise #3 is inaccurate.

Question #3:
Do scientists continue to tell us that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change? Answer = YES

No, actually, I have never once heard anybody with a scientific background ever state this once.  I would ask you to provide citations for this observation.

A ‘logical argument’ in order to be true must rely on the premises all being correct, since your premise #3 is incorrect your argument if there is one….is invalid.

Humans certainly do affect climate change but to what degree is the question.  In fact, there are lines of reason and thought that show that if not for humans burning stuff starting a few maybe 10s of thousands of years ago that we would be in an ice age.  Human climate change saved the world but sooner or later it might be too much.  I certainly can see evidence of climate change, it was only a few 10s of thousands of years ago when there were miles of ice right where I live now.  We can see the scrape marks left in bedrock from the miles of ice pushing down on boulders locked in in ice that were dragged across the bedrock as the glaciers advanced.  Well technically the glacier can be ‘in retreat’ and yet still have the ice move forward.

[LHoffman]

If the science can be separated from politics, I am at least more willing to consider implications and empirical evidence. But unfortunately, climate change has become a predominantly political (and increasingly social) tool. It is one thing to be clean and responsible, both of which I agree with, but when we as humans voluntarily dismantle our productive sources of energy, without having viable substitutes, we have severely misplaced our priorities.

[frimmel]

@LHoffman:

If the science can be separated from politics, I am at least more willing to consider implications and empirical evidence. But unfortunately, climate change has become a predominantly political (and increasingly social) tool. It is one thing to be clean and responsible, both of which I agree with, but when we as humans voluntarily dismantle our productive sources of energy, without having viable substitutes, we have severely misplaced our priorities.

The science is settled. It is as settled as science gets. The only thing in doubt is how bad and how fast. The argument is over what to do about the science. And those who don’t want to do what the science says is necessary either have to deny or obfuscate the science. If the science isn’t ‘true’ then Exxon can keep selling you oil and all of their assets are not suddenly made essentially worthless. This is the politics. Accepting the science leads down only one road – http://www.alternet.org/story/153230/to_conservatives%2C_climate_change_is_trojan_horse_to_abolish_capitalism

The money quote I whole-heartedly agree with:

The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their free market belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation. Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, Climate change is the perfect thing. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.

The science is separate from the politics. What to do about it is the politics. And what to do about is nothing that one side of the politics would prefer to do and the other side seems to think it can still make some kind of go along to get something done concessions. And we’ve dithered about making the changes for 30 plus years and are facing a need to quit fossil fuels cold-turkey and re-making the entire economic system and it’s underlying paradigm essentially overnight in political and social inertia terms.

[Gargantua]

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Garg, I  like you and for the most part I find myself usually in agreement with you.

My observation for what it’s worth:

I think you have created a straw-man to lay a beating on, if I may, your premise #3 is inaccurate.

Question #3:
Do scientists continue to tell us that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change? Answer = YES

No, actually, I have never once heard anybody with a scientific background ever state this once.  I would ask you to provide citations for this observation.

A ‘logical argument’ in order to be true must rely on the premises all being correct, since your premise #3 is incorrect your argument if there is one….is invalid.

Humans certainly do affect climate change but to what degree is the question.  In fact, there are lines of reason and thought that show that if not for humans burning stuff starting a few maybe 10s of thousands of years ago that we would be in an ice age.  Human climate change saved the world but sooner or later it might be too much.  I certainly can see evidence of climate change, it was only a few 10s of thousands of years ago when there were miles of ice right where I live now.  We can see the scrape marks left in bedrock from the miles of ice pushing down on boulders locked in in ice that were dragged across the bedrock as the glaciers advanced.  Well technically the glacier can be ‘in retreat’ and yet still have the ice move forward.

This stems from all the articles I read on the subject… even the ones Frimmel has posted like this one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Go to www.google.ca and type in “Humans are 100% res” and before you have finished typing “responsible” the top 4 items that come up are  Global Warming, climate change, Pollution, Animal extinction.

The sheer and ridiculous amount of media volume out there saying -exactly that- is what my point is based on.  That’s what the people and scientists are saying, I believe even Al Gore tells us we are 100% responsible in his film.

I mean, how ludicrous? Animal extinction? Really?  a few BILLION years of Animal Extinctions, including the dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, the sasquatch and the sabre tooth tiger, and you want to tell me that man-kind is the most responsible? A bit much…

The first point I want to prove is that there are NO credible sources which can cleary distinguish between whats natural and whats man-made.  And what’s worth, anyone with a different idea, or a contradicting point of view, gets ex-communicated faster than a heretic in a 1400’s catholic church.

The second point worth proving is that our perception of time and events is so pathetically skewed. We think that 10 years is a HUGE span. It’s not, especially when you put things into context of billions, or even just millions of years.  Whether we talk about man made emissions, or C02 levels in the jurassic age being way higher than they are today, green house gas contents change… and as society progresses, even if everything some climate scientists are saying is true at it’s worst it’s totally inconsequential when overlayed in a time context.  Hell Frimmel says a trillion years of climate history is irrelvant and he’s right.

100 years ago, people were still pushing through life with a horse and cart. With the green tech already out there today etc, and new sources of energy people are discovering, how much different do you think our worlds going to be in another 100 years?  and another 100 after that?  300 years is F-all over the historical context, and alot of the -change- blame can be placed solely on the natural course of the planet itself. (Which no one gets published for saying).

Hell in 300 years we’ll probably be off this rock, living on a terraformed Mars and beyond.  That’s what a bulk of -climate- dollars and science energy should be spent on IMO.

The planet is going to survive just fine - with or without us.  Of course it’s reasonable to explore all possibilities and make efforts to insure our own survival, but we’re going to make it one way or the other.

The next most likely -extinction- event is a plauge engineered by climate scientists IMO.  They want us all dead!

[LHoffman]

@frimmel:

The science is settled. It is as settled as science gets. And those who don’t want to do what the science says is necessary either have to deny or obfuscate the science.

Even if individuals have doubts about the science and the motivations of those pushing it, they still have a right to disagree. My point was not about denial, but about what people, organizations and governments want to do about climate change/global warming.

From the article you linked to:

But at a time when a growing number of people agree with the protesters at Occupy Wall Street, many of whom argue that capitalism-as-usual is itself the cause of lost jobs and debt slavery, there is a unique opportunity to seize the economic terrain from the right. This would require making a persuasive case that the real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of building a much more enlightened economic system�one that closes deep inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power. It would also require a shift away from the notion that climate action is just one issue on a laundry list of worthy causes vying for progressive attention. Just as climate denialism has become a core identity issue on the right, utterly entwined with defending current systems of power and wealth, the scientific reality of climate change must, for progressives, occupy a central place in a coherent narrative about the perils of unrestrained greed and the need for real alternatives.

Based on the above, it is difficult to believe that, as you put it:

@frimmel:

The science is separate from the politics. What to do about it is the politics.

It seems that it is all intertwined, which is the problem. The author makes a point to condescend the “trojan horse for socialism” underlying argument as exaggerated and conspiratorial, but his summation of the reasons for social and economic change point back to exactly what he was dismissing. In fact, his later assertion is that the title of his article is essentially true, because the entire movement is more about social, economic and fundamental change in human thought than it is about the environment or climate. The science simply is a means to and end, and a very convenient one at that.

@frimmel:

And we’ve dithered about making the changes for 30 plus years and are facing a need to quit fossil fuels cold-turkey and re-making the entire economic system and it’s underlying paradigm essentially overnight in political and social inertia terms.

If you think that is the best (or necessary) course of action, then that is fine; you are entitled to believe that. I on the other hand do not believe that  “quitting cold-turkey and re-making the entire economic system and its underlying paradigm” is (a) necessary, (b) socially or economically healthy and © beneficial for humanity. The reason such drastic actions on climate change have not occurred is that it is still a fringe movement. It cannot be done “essentially overnight” because the majority of people do not buy into it and would not sit still for it.

[Gargantua]

Things take time.

Changing our diet from COWS which produce more greenhouse gases than cars would be a better start than pulling vehicles off of the road IMO.

But what do I know?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

Cows must be man made!

Accepting the science of climate change does not make you a dirty commie liberal tree-hugging vegan hippie.

I can’t speak for the other words yet… but it sounds like VEGAN stays in. What else do I need to be -told-? :P

[Guest]

@Gargantua:

Question #1:
Did the earth’s Climate Change BEFORE mankind?� Answer = YES

Question #2:
If every single human being on earth died tomorrow, would the Climate still change?� Answer = YES

Question #3:
Do scientists continue to tell us that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change? Answer = YES

As Malachicrunch wrote, 1 and 2 are correct, but 3 is only sort of correct.  The climate is and always has been in constant change, but the ADDITIONAL change incremented by fossil fuel burning is 100% our fault.  The real problem is the change is occurring quickly (i.e. over decades rather than millenia) and will negatively impact agriculture at precisely the same time as we start to run seriously short of those same fossil fuels.  We need oil to support modern agriculture (equipment, transportation, fertilizer etc), and we will need it even more as we try to adapt to these changes.  As the two occur at the same time (i.e. peak oil and peak food), we are unlikely to have enough capacity to adapt.  When food and jobs are taken away the people will get angry and governments lose capacity to control them or to organize anything beyond clinging desperately to their own corrupt authority.  We are already seeing nationalist movements gaining steam in places like Greece (e.g. Golden Dawn) and warmongering for distraction sake (e.g. China-Japan senkaku islands dispute).  The final result will be a huge reduction in the human populations in the poor and overpopulated areas of the world through war, starvation and disease.

[frimmel]

Look guys this is simple:

You accept the science and think humanity should make the structural changes necessary to combat it as quickly and rapidly as possible or faster.

You deny the science or cherry pick the science to justify your preferred speed and types of change.

The science doesn’t have an ideology. It is. Your ideology and self-identity colors whether or not you accept the science and which science you want to accept or call more important and urgent and what you think should be done about it.

[LHoffman]

@frimmel:

Look guys this is simple:

You accept the science and think humanity should make the structural changes necessary to combat it as quickly and rapidly as possible or faster.

You deny the science or cherry pick the science to justify your preferred speed and types of change.

The science doesn’t have an ideology. It is. Your ideology and self-identity colors whether or not you accept the science and which science you want to accept or call more important and urgent and what you think should be done about it.

Oh, I agree it is simple. And we are not going to convince each other to switch their opinions, so we might as well stop now and save our computers from using the electricity generated from a coal plant which is contributing to our imminent demise.  :lol:

Joking aside, do you believe that accepting the science must lead to a single conclusion (how to address it)? Meaning if you claim to accept the science you must therefore see the need for all the change you have laid out? Just curious.

Science does not have an ideology, but have you examined the possibility of an ideology shaping science? I personally don’t dispute climate change or global warming, simple temperature readings can prove that. I do not believe that humans are driving the change. Even if I did believe that, I would not advocate mandates and statism as a means for redress. And I would really appreciate not being demeaned for my beliefs (not saying you are) and sent to a re-education center to change my mind. Because that is where things would end up if the world followed your path. - Before you dispute that and call it conspiratorial: how can it not follow such a path? If the centralized governments (or government, singular) of the world are restructured based on ostensibly saving the planet from destruction at human hands, will not those in the minority opinion or those in opposition be vilified, looked down on and “educated”? It already happens and is a hallmark of marxist governments throughout history. Why should it change now, especially when we are not talking about further enlightenment of thought but the just reparation of wrongs?

We fundamentally disagree on a lot more than climate change it seems, which is cool with me. If a solution to this problem needs to be found, it will be found, or created, I have no doubt about that. I am for such a thing happening naturally. Your model is an artificial construct on humanity; a forcible re-tooling of thought and life which no one is prepared for. Humanity will evolve and innovate as we have in the past, I have faith in that.

[frimmel]

@LHoffman:

Joking aside, do you believe that accepting the science must lead to a single conclusion (how to address it)? Meaning if you claim to accept the science you must therefore see the need for all the change you have laid out? Just curious.

Humans are putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. This must change. Human civilization is based on the endless extraction and combustion of fossil fuels which is the leading source of the too much carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere and oceans. The whole underlying paradigm of our society must change or it will have catastrophic consequences for billions of people. Should we just carry on as we have been and hope for the best?

@LHoffman:

Science does not have an ideology, but have you examined the possibility of an ideology shaping science? I personally don’t dispute climate change or global warming, simple temperature readings can prove that. I do not believe that humans are driving the change. Even if I did believe that, I would not advocate mandates and statism as a means for redress. And I would really appreciate not being demeaned for my beliefs (not saying you are) and sent to a re-education center to change my mind. Because that is where things would end up if the world followed your path. - Before you dispute that and call it conspiratorial: how can it not? If the centralized governments (or government, singular) of the world are restructured based on ostensibly saving the planet from destruction at human hands, will not those in the minority opinion or those in opposition be vilified, looked down on and “educated”? It already happens and is a hallmark of marxist governments throughout history. Why should it change now, especially when we are not talking about further enlightenment of thought but the just reparation of wrongs?

We fundamentally disagree on a lot more than climate change it seems, which is cool with me. If a solution to this problem needs to be found, it will be found, or created, I have no doubt about that. I am for such a thing happening naturally. Your model is an artificial construct on humanity; a forcible re-tooling of thought and life which no one is prepared for. Humanity will evolve and innovate as we have in the past, I have faith in that.

I hear you saying, there isn’t a problem and the solution is worse so let’s just ignore it and hope for the best. I hear you saying, you’re just saying there is a problem to push your ideology, your politics, your version of society. I hear you saying, you’re making dren up to make me think ways I don’t want to think.

We’ll innovate? Because there isn’t a problem that needs dealt with by new innovations? We’ll just naturally quit depending on fossil fuels? We’ll just naturally figure out a way to feed the bulk of humanity without enough arable land and water? We’ll just be able to feed all the people who depend on fish something else when the oceans are too acidic for plankton to survive?

You don’t seem to understand that science is not about what you believe or don’t believe. You are denying fact because it contradicts your beliefs. You are accusing me/climate scientists of making up facts in order to support my beliefs.

[Axisplaya]

Been reading this whole thread.
I’m not a scientific, and i haven’t particularly studied that question, but just common sense makes me say that thinking seven billion rapacious, industrialized bipeds have no impact at all on the climate of this planet seems a bit ridiculous…

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/morford/article/Thank-God-global-warming-is-a-hoax-2535497.php#page-1

[Jermofoot]

@Gargantua:

To all the guilt mongers out there, I have 3 questions regarding climate change, with 3 answers I would like you to refute.

Question #1:
Did the earth’s Climate Change BEFORE mankind?  Answer = YES

Question #2:
If every single human being on earth died tomorrow, would the Climate still change?  Answer = YES

Question #3:
Do scientists continue to tell us that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change? Answer = YES

Why is the answer to question #3 YES when we consider questions #1 and #2?

Why does popular opinion want me to believe humans are entirely responsible for climate change? (With religious conviction as if  the earth is flat?)

I’m interested in anyone who can show me that one of the answers to those above 3 questions is NO.

Do speak your mind - this is an OPEN discussion, all opinons are welcome. :)

Nice strawman.  #3 is completely in your mind.

The concern is how drastic an effect humans have had on climate in such a short period (pretty much since the industrial revolution).

Didn’t read any of the thread so I don’t know if it has been addressed already.

[LHoffman]

@frimmel:

Humans are putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. This must change. Human civilization is based on the endless extraction and combustion of fossil fuels which is the leading source of the too much carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere and oceans. The whole underlying paradigm of our society must change or it will have catastrophic consequences for billions of people. Should we just carry on as we have been and hope for the best?

Sooo… your answer was… what? It seems like you mean: yes, the only solution is a complete and drastic change in the way we live.

@frimmel:

Should we just carry on as we have been and hope for the best?

Yes.

@frimmel:

I hear you saying, there isn’t a problem and the solution is worse so let’s just ignore it and hope for the best. I hear you saying, you’re just saying there is a problem to push your ideology, your politics, your version of society. I hear you saying, you’re making dren up to make me think ways I don’t want to think.

You have heard incorrectly. I never said there was not a problem, I just disagree with what is causing it. My point is that if it is not humanity’s doing, then how can anything we do stop it. While if it is humanity’s doing then we will likely find a way to stop it, I just hope it is not the way you described. For the record, I do believe that your version of a solution is worse than the problem. My implication was that this problem, which exists, is a convenient method to push a certain “ideology, politic or version of society”. I get the impression you are a modern man of science; believe what is measurable and repeatable; and that you are genuinely sincere in that respect. If so, and this is your crusade, I commend your fervor and conviction. I just fundamentally disagree with your conclusions and appreciate my right to do so.

@frimmel:

We’ll innovate? Because there isn’t a problem that needs dealt with by new innovations? We’ll just naturally quit depending on fossil fuels? We’ll just naturally figure out a way to feed the bulk of humanity without enough arable land and water? We’ll just be able to feed all the people who depend on fish something else when the oceans are too acidic for plankton to survive?

Yes. We naturally stopped using whale oil and wood as a primary lighting/heating source. We use much less coal now than in the 19th and 20th centuries. We are naturally progressing to cleaner, more efficient, more affordable sources of energy. Simply ending that natural progression with a command economic structure would be devastating and opposed to the nature of progress, which is evolution, not jumping 2 and 3 steps ahead of where we are.

I must say that I am struck by how naively you think that everyone in the world would be on board with the solutions you posit. Not all countries will be able to do what you propose or want to do it. What body will enforce this worldwide change, because certainly only the United States participating cannot be enough? If we cannot even convince those in our own country to agree on the issue and move on a solution, how much more impossible would it be to convince over 200 nations, with differing resources and economies, to help save the planet. Not only is it wrong to do so, it is utterly implausible.

@frimmel:

You don’t seem to understand that science is not about what you believe or don’t believe. You are denying fact because it contradicts your beliefs. You are accusing me/climate scientists of making up facts in order to support my beliefs.

I know that there have been incidents of some scientists fudging data to support their beliefs, on both sides even. I do understand what science is and I have already given you the benefit of the doubt of being an honest individual. What I do not believe is that this problem has only one solution or that it even has only one outcome.

I am sorry that you feel so bad about this whole situation, I really do. You probably look upon me as an old-world country bumpkin with no conception of the complexities of our global, technological age. I suppose you will never know if that is true or not, but I will say that I am sure that I live a more stress free life not being burdened with worries about how the world will someday become so toxic we can no longer survive. Ultimately, the problem is much , much bigger than you and me as individuals and even us as a collective nation. The only thing that most of us can do is to do our part however we think we can. Those in power need to balance the need for common-sense regulation of possible excesses against the re-ordering of society and the loss of our liberty.

[frimmel]

@LHoffman:

@frimmel:

Humans are putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. This must change. Human civilization is based on the endless extraction and combustion of fossil fuels which is the leading source of the too much carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere and oceans. The whole underlying paradigm of our society must change or it will have catastrophic consequences for billions of people. Should we just carry on as we have been and hope for the best?

Sooo… your answer was… what? It seems like you mean: yes, the only solution is a complete and drastic change in the way we live.

Yes. The only solution is a drastic change to the fundamental paradigms human civilization is organized upon.

[Gargantua]

@frimmel:

@LHoffman:

@frimmel:

Humans are putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and oceans. This must change. Human civilization is based on the endless extraction and combustion of fossil fuels which is the leading source of the too much carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere and oceans. The whole underlying paradigm of our society must change or it will have catastrophic consequences for billions of people. Should we just carry on as we have been and hope for the best?

Sooo… your answer was… what? It seems like you mean: yes, the only solution is a complete and drastic change in the way we live.

Yes. The only solution is a drastic change to the fundamental paradigms human civilization is organized upon.

You know what, I’ve given Frimmels comments alot of thought…

Agreeing or disagreeing with the science is irrelevant.

Lets ASSUME the Science is 100%, I mean, in all reality YES at the moment we’re probably burning off -too much fossil fuels- but guess what?  a hundred years ago we werent, and a hundred years from now we won’t be either.

Frimmels comments prove that this enviromental issue is simply being used as a catalyst to control peoples lives. That’s it.

-This statement is entirely fiction-

Human civilization is based on the endless extraction and combustion of fossil fuels which is the leading source of the too much carbon humans are putting into the atmosphere and oceans. The whole underlying paradigm of our society must change or it will have catastrophic consequences for billions of people.

I mean really? the entire history of civilization was to burn oil?  It’s a -recent- trend, not a societal crux.  It changed TO this in the last hundred or so years, an it will change AWAY from this in the next hundred years or so.

Throw up an -under construction- sign, and be done with it.  A few eggs get broken to make an omlete.

[Gargantua]

Yes. The only solution is a drastic change to the fundamental paradigms human civilization is organized upon.

THIS ladies and gentleman is the quote that will leads to the death of millions - which if I understand correctly, we’re all in agreement that we’d like to avoid (even Frimmel)?

The -enviromental catastrophe- is to be used as the new -religious catastrophe- that led to Jihad and Crusades. Make no mistake.

Also for the record - the planet is not at risk.  It’s humanity that is… don’t mix that up.

Excuse me for not wanting to get everybody killed.

[Jermofoot]

@LHoffman:

If the science can be separated from politics, I am at least more willing to consider implications and empirical evidence. But unfortunately, climate change has become a predominantly political (and increasingly social) tool. It is one thing to be clean and responsible, both of which I agree with, but when we as humans voluntarily dismantle our productive sources of energy, without having viable substitutes, we have severely misplaced our priorities.

This is so backwards, my mind is about to split.

YOU are putting a political and belief spin on it.

The science doesn’t lie.  It is based in facts.  And scientists universally agree that there is a profound effect humans have made on our climate.  The data is there.  If you choose not to read it or understand it, that’s your problem and not some conspiracy to control you.  And those that disagree are pretty much all in the pocket of private interest.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because parties opposed to any change to the status quo have a risk of losing a vested interest.  And you’re buying it.  It’s completely clouding the discussion of “what can and should we do?” to “who’s right in a war of facts vs. misleadings?”

If there wasn’t so much money to throw at this, we’d be way past this.  Scientists as a whole don’t have the capacity, much less the interest, to control you.  Yet you’ll eat up whatever propaganda and PR bullshit coming from the wrong side puts out.

If you want to drive a huge SUV that costs a king’s ransom to fill up, then so be it.  Gasoline isn’t going to disappear overnight.  But it WILL get more expensive and continue to be concern geopolitically.  I can’t imagine why the US WOULDN’T want to get away from oil as the Middle East has been an issue for some time.

Seriously man…reading your other comments…I don’t see any argument except flimsy support to suck on Big Oil’s teat for long as possible.

[LHoffman]

@Jermofoot:

This is so backwards, my mind is about to split.

YOU are putting a political and belief spin on it.

The science doesn’t lie.  It is based in facts.  And scientists universally agree that there is a profound effect humans have made on our climate.  The data is there.  If you choose not to read it or understand it, that’s your problem and not some conspiracy to control you.  And those that disagree are pretty much all in the pocket of private interest.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because parties opposed to any change to the status quo have a risk of losing a vested interest.  And you’re buying it.  It’s completely clouding the discussion of “what can and should we do?” to “who’s right in a war of facts vs. misleadings?”

If there wasn’t so much money to throw at this, we’d be way past this.  Scientists as a whole don’t have the capacity, much less the interest, to control you.  Yet you’ll eat up whatever propaganda and PR bullshit coming from the wrong side puts out.

If you want to drive a huge SUV that costs a king’s ransom to fill up, then so be it.  Gasoline isn’t going to disappear overnight.  But it WILL get more expensive and continue to be concern geopolitically.  I can’t imagine why the US WOULDN’T want to get away from oil as the Middle East has been an issue for some time.

Seriously man…reading your other comments…I don’t see any argument except flimsy support to suck on Big Oil’s teat for long as possible.

Jermo, man, you sound very angry about all of this. Sorry, I didn’t mean to get so personal or be so stupid.  :cry:

I have said before, I consider the science and draw my own conclusions. Can you live with that? Wouldn’t want your head to split now.

You seem to be missing my point too. I am not shill for Big Oil or corporations or whatever else you want to accuse me of and your vitriolic comments here illustrate just how anyone who even pretends to disagree with “universal” science is ridiculed and dismissed. I am very much in disagreement with others here on how we as a country, or as a species, should go about dealing with this problem, not that it is or is not a problem.

I am not sure why it is backwards to have an opinion contrary to we should redefine the economy, government and human society to deal with climate change. As if this is not the backwards, or radical, perspective.