Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[orogenicman]

In fact, the Nobel prize was awarded to the IPCC. The IPCC then presented Mann (as well as the many other authors of the IPCC report) with a personalized certificate "for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC", celebrating the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC (and its authors) and to Al Gore. The number of climate deniers who have received ANY kind of award for their (non-) contributions to climate science = 0.

Peace prizes are nice until one recognizes they are meaningless. It does not help to remind people it has been won by such low lifes as Yassir Ararat, Simon Peres and Henry Kissinger.

Whether or not they are meaningless to you is irrelevant. Whether or not they are meaningless in fact is also irrelevant to the point I was making.

---

Oh yes, your message was very clear. If you can't refute the science, shoot the scientist. Congratulations.

One need not shoot them. Rather one needs to ignore any and all of their statements which are political. I am reminded of the A and H bomb developers who went political. They got nothing right about the politics and we are still here. I am not saying scientists are unqualified to deal in politics, far from it.

Climate scientists are in the business of characterizing the global climate based on scientific data. If that data shows an alarming trend, they have a moral obligation to speak out about that trend. To not do so would be unethical. Is it political for an expert of HIV to speak out about the use of contraceptives as a means of combating the spread of AIDs. I don't think it is, and it is likewise not political to point to rising global temperatures and also point to rising manmade CO2 levels as the demonstrable cause. Shooting the messenger, however, does have a political basis, and yet you don't seem to have a problem with people who do that.

I am saying IQ isn't everything. I am saying the scientific statements made by the greatest politicians in the world are almost always ridiculous and laughable to even the knowledgeable amateur scientist AND VICE VERSA.

Interesting that you would use the term "amateur", since most of the world's real scientists are on board with the politicians who recognize that AGW is a real thread.

---

In fact, no one can point to any point in the last 4 billion years and "point to Co2 rises and falls that are higher or lower than today's readings" because we don't have the resolution in the data going back that far that would give us confidence to come to such a conclusion.

An observation which applies to melters and non-melters alike.

That was my point.

However enough is known to say hugely more or less simply not a detailed knowledge of the changes.

We do not have the resolution to say with certainty what the significant fluxations were further back than 400,000 years. Our best data is for the past 11,500 years, and that data shows that at no time except since 1860 have we seen the rate of increase in global temperatures or the amount of increase.

The point often forgotten the issue is not CO2 per se but the temperature. We do know they temperatures were hugely hotter and colder over billions of years. An obvious one to google is "snowball earth" due to the sun putting out much less heat. One can also find the more recent studies indicating that did not happen despite the lower heat output from the sun.

And how many species (how many humans, for that matter) lived on Earth billions of years ago?

This entire issue hangs on a direct correlation between CO2 and temperature. Much as I have searched for it I have not found the slightest hint that an equation linking the two even exists much less what it is. It is as vain a search as finding a political believer who knows there is a difference between temperature and heat much less knowing what it is.

This is akin to saying that because we don't have an equation linking dirty bombs to radiation sickness, that neither exists. And equally meaningless. We do, in fact, see a direct correlation between rising anthropogenic release of CO2 into the atmosphere and increases in global temperatures.

But even if we could, that's not the point at all. The point is that our GHG emissions are causing tremendous damage to the environment in which WE live today, and will do so for the foreseeable future. The point is that we owe it to our children, their children, all other life forms, and the planet itself to mitigate the damage we've done. After all, it is the only planet we can call our home.

Pardon if my dislike of religion extends to recycled new age Gaia crap. Suddenly some outside force, some supernatural force has imposed an obligation upon us in the here and now without us having a word to say about it. I recognize poetry and metaphor but as with religion I refuse to take it seriously no matter how 'perty' it sounds.

As a fellow atheist, I have to tell you that the above comment is not only insulting, but about as wrong as it can be. Gaia crap? Oh please.

The natural consequence of our existence is to make the Earth 100% anthropocentric exactly as we want it to our best benefit. What we leave to our children is what we got from our parents, being alive. You can't ask for much more than that in fact you can't ask if you aren't alive.

And how many people and other species must suffer for your wrong-headed assumption that the Earth exists for your sole benefit?

However, our home does make the point in the OUR. There is nothing, no one, anything which is superior to or provides either guidance or direction to what we do to OUR home.

You are right, of course. There is no magical spaghetti monster to come down from on high to save us from ourselves. That task falls to us. Only we can do that. It is our responsibility, and if we fail, well, that is on us as well.

Actually, scientists have been saying for at least 30 years what needs to be done.

Perhaps you could recite what they have said needs be done but only those which contain solutions to the problems they see. A solutions is a positive action. If I tell you the solution to your auto insurance rate is to stop owning a car that is not a solution.

Thus burn less fossil fuels is not a solution. A solution is how to maintain and grow our energy based society while reducing the burning of fossil fuels. I have pointed out we have only one proven method of doing that, nuclear energy which is equally involved in politics. That is a whole other discussion.

By itself, burning less fossil fuels is not an adequate solution. I agree. And I believe most climate scientists would also agree. But it is an important part of the solution nonetheless. What I find interesting is that you disagree with AGW but agree that fossil fuels are a problem. If it is not because of AGW, then what, in your opinion, is the problem with fossil fuels?

---

Climat Change is not a commie myth.

You're right. It's a liberal myth. A small but important difference.

I suspect that the conservatives who also agree that climate change is a problem might disagree with you.