What Could Falsify Man Made Global Warming Theory?

[Cow Poke]

You're far from the first I've heard say that. We all filter what we accept or not through things like that - cultural and political influences and such (it's actually its own field of research). I'm no different. Ultimately, it comes down to a choice: does the evidence matter more to us than who else has accepted it?

Yeah, but there's always the "follow the money".... WHO BENEFITS from all this AGW? The very RESEARCHERS who present the data! I'm skeptical, and I think it's a healthy skepticism.

OK, so the question NOBODY has ever been able to answer... let's assume it is 100% man caused (forgetting, of course, that it was blamed on cow farts, and all kinds of other things) ---- HOW MUCH MONEY will be enough to fix it? What guarantee is there that, if we spent a ZILLION GILLION DOLLARS on this, that there would be 1/100th degree of "correction"? WHAT, exactly, would "solve" this problem?

And for all the whining and crying the lefties to over "carbon footprints", and the fat cats are private jetting all over the place, and hypocrites like Al Gore have palatial palaces that offset.....

I'm just tired of the hype --- and I don't trust politicians any further than I can throw them. Like these stupid electric cars that cost WAY more than regular cars, and you plug them into .... into what.. THE GRID!!!!!! So they "run clean" during the day, then counter that with their own carbon crap at night...

Follow the money.

[Cow Poke]

There's always going to be someone somewhere making a profit off of a bad situation. Seems to be human nature. That doesn't change one iota the scientific realities though.

OK, HOW MUCH is enough? To whom do we write the check? What's the cost/benefit picture? Who's in charge of "the fix"? The same folks who gave us the War on Drugs? The War on Poverty? Obamacare?

[HMS_Beagle]

Yeah, but there's always the "follow the money".... WHO BENEFITS from all this AGW? The very RESEARCHERS who present the data! I'm skeptical, and I think it's a healthy skepticism.

Doctors as a rule make good money. Do you also think doctors who diagnose illnesses and try their best to cure them are all part of a worldwide conspiracy to create phony diseases?

OK, so the question NOBODY has ever been able to answer... let's assume it is 100% man caused (forgetting, of course, that it was blamed on cow farts, and all kinds of other things) ---- HOW MUCH MONEY will be enough to fix it? What guarantee is there that, if we spent a ZILLION GILLION DOLLARS on this, that there would be 1/100th degree of "correction"? WHAT, exactly, would "solve" this problem?

Very good questions and ones with no easy answers. But again they are not germane to identifying the reality of problem in the first place.

[HMS_Beagle]

OK, HOW MUCH is enough? To whom do we write the check? What's the cost/benefit picture? Who's in charge of "the fix"? The same folks who gave us the War on Drugs? The War on Poverty? Obamacare?

If I knew that I'd be President. How to best deal with the mess is a much harder issue that just identifying the problem. Identifying the problem is all the climatologists have done yet AGW deniers would have them tarred and feathered for it.

[Cow Poke]

Doctors as a rule make good money.

Not so much anymore, and that's getting more and more of a challenge with the commitment they have to education, school loans, then top that off with malpractice insurance, and OBAMACARE.... bad example. REALLY bad example. After all, if I don't LIKE my Doctor, Obama is taking him away ANYWAY, so no biggie!

Seriously, I can choose my doctor, and I can choose NOT to use him if he's no good, or I can switch to a doctor I trust. Again, BAD example.

Do you think doctors who diagnose illnesses and try their best to cure them are all part of a worldwide conspiracy to also create phony diseases?

That's just dumb.... "lets' throw ZILLIONS of BILLIONS of dollars at this with not a snowball's chance that it's going to do ANYTHING". That makes no sense at all.

[Cow Poke]

If I knew that I'd be President. How to best deal with the mess is a much harder issue that just identifying the problem. Identifying the problem is all the climatologists have done yet AGW deniers would have them tarred and feathered for it.

I don't want them tarred and feathered --- that's just goofy... but if they're so smart, let them demonstrate that there's actually something DOABLE about it, instead of just hyping it. According to Al Gore, we should ALREADY be boiling over or under sea water.

[seer]

Identifying the problem is all the climatologists have done yet AGW deniers would have them tarred and feathered for it.

It is deeper than that. Those of us who have a libertarian bent can see that men will use this to try and control others.

[Cow Poke]

Identifying the problem is all the climatologists have done yet AGW deniers would have them tarred and feathered for it.

This is the kind of reason I don't trust the alarmists... they can't just stick to the facts, they have to go into this silly "deniers would have them tarred and feathered for it". That's just plain goofy.

[HMS_Beagle]

I don't want them tarred and feathered --- that's just goofy... but if they're so smart, let them demonstrate that there's actually something DOABLE about it, instead of just hyping it.

People who call 911 to report fires generally aren't expected to put out the fires too.

Scientists can offer technical solutions but civic leaders are the only ones with the power to produce realistic budgets for actually doing the work.

According to Al Gore, we should ALREADY be boiling over or under sea water.

Al Gore also accepts gravity. Would you jump off a 1000' cliff out of spite just to prove him wrong ?

[HMS_Beagle]

It is deeper than that. Those of us who have a libertarian bent can see that men will use this to try and control others.

Which doesn't change the scientifically established reality of the problem one iota.

[Cow Poke]

Which doesn't change the scientifically established reality of the problem one iota.

It is a FACT that the sun is hot and people get sunburns. Let's come up with a program to dial down the sun a little so it's not so hot. In fact, let's compile data and go on speaking tours and write books, and make laws and hyperventilate. Will that accomplish ANYTHING?

OR, we could understand that the sun is hot, and I need to wear sunblock when outside, and make adjustments accordingly.

[Cow Poke]

People who call 911 to report fires generally aren't expected to put out the fires too.

You're not very good at this analogy thing, Beagle.... if my house is on fire, I'm calling 911 AND I'm going to do everything in my power to get my family out safely, and if possible, use fire extinguishers or garden hoses or whatever.

Scientists can offer technical solutions but civic leaders are the only ones with the power to produce realistic budgets for actually doing the work.

OK, I can help FUND a fire department, and that's done on a LOCAL level. I can choose to live NEAR a fire department, or I can live out in the woods (Like I do!) and understand that I'm pretty much on my own. I can even be a volunteer fireman.... but you can't even give me a HINT what "realistic budget" would be necessary OR if it would even make the teensiest tiniest difference!

Another bad analogy.

Al Gore also accepts gravity.

Well, yeah, I can drop a book off my table and prove that 100% of the time... I don't need no steekin scientist to collect money to prove that.

Would you jump off a 1000' cliff out of spite just to prove him wrong ?

Yet ANOTHER horrible analogy. You're really not very good at this.

[Cow Poke]

People who call 911 to report fires generally aren't expected to put out the fires too.

I doubledog DARE you to try the one about calling 911 when a burglar is breaking into my house.

[TheLurch]

Yeah, but there's always the "follow the money".... WHO BENEFITS from all this AGW? The very RESEARCHERS who present the data! I'm skeptical, and I think it's a healthy skepticism.

This is actually worth addressing. Let's say that climatologists actually convince the US public to do something about climate change. Would they get any of the money? They actually wouldn't get much. Most of it would go to engineers and materials scientists to develop and improve renewable energy systems. A lot would go to grid operators to incorporate the new energy sources, build nuclear plants, develop storage, etc. Those are all areas that simply don't employ climatologists. And, even if you look at the present, the researchers aren't benefitting much. The total US expenditures on climate change have been on a downward trend for something like 20 years.

So, if i'm following the money, it's not actually leading to the scientists. You seem to have ended up in a different place - maybe you can explain how?

[Cow Poke]

This is actually worth addressing. Let's say that climatologists actually convince the US public to do something about climate change. Would they get any of the money? They actually wouldn't get much. Most of it would go to engineers and materials scientists to develop and improve renewable energy systems. A lot would go to grid operators to incorporate the new energy sources, build nuclear plants, develop storage, etc. Those are all areas that simply don't employ climatologists. And, even if you look at the present, the researchers aren't benefitting much. The total US expenditures on climate change have been on a downward trend for something like 20 years.

So, if i'm following the money, it's not actually leading to the scientists. You seem to have ended up in a different place - maybe you can explain how?

WAY more simple than that..... a VERY simple question.... How much money would it take to do WHAT? Nobody seems to know WHAT, or HOW MUCH. Since it's ALREADY "settled science", what more DATA do we need? Assuming it's SETTLED SCIENCE, what's the game plan?