Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

[JimL]

So, you don't have a clue.

Apparently you have no idea what a clue even means. The cognative dissonance of deniers never ceases to amaze.

[Cow Poke]

Apparently you have no idea what a clue even means. The cognative dissonance of deniers never ceases to amaze.

But I do know how to spell cognitive.

[shunyadragon]

There have been obvious predictive problems of the relationship between Hurricane frequency and strength. One possible relationship, remains somewhat anecdotal, is that because of the stronger El Nino and Bermuda High the frequency and strength of Hurricanes in the Pacific and frequency less in the Atlantic. The pattern of the increasing nor decreasing strength is definitely not clear for Atlantic.

I believe there is a closer correlation with North American tornadoes and climate change with the strengthening of the Bermuda High and the El Nino. Normally the Central Region of North America has the highest tornado frequency in the world. The tornadoes in the USA are mostly caused along the boundary between the drier northern colder High and the warmer Bermuda High. The strength of the Jet stream between these two Highs has a significant effect on the strength of the tornadoes. Virtually all the most powerful tornadoes occur immediately under the fastest and most intense center of the Jet Stream.

There is increasing evidence for the increased frequency and intensity of the El Nino, as previously cited, and the intensity and persistence in the winter of the Bermuda High.

I also believe the increasing drying of the Southwest is related to this pattern.

[Jichard]

What difference does it make really. Whether we caused it or not, its obvious that we did, and continue to do so, but whether you believe we caused it or not, doesn't mean we should ignore it. Just maybe you are wrong. Did you ever think of that? Its possible we can at least try to stop or slow the process and prepare ourselves for the resulting effects.

Many conservatives fundamentally don't want to admit there is a problem, since they are afraid that the proposed solutions will be inconvenient for their conservative ideology. This is the same pattern that's been seen in another of other issues. For example, for years, various conservative think tanks dodged the scientific evidence on the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in general, acid rain, CFCs, and so on. Those conservatives did that, because they were afraid that if people acknowledged the evidence, then people would favor regulation of the industries that caused those problems. And those conservatives tend to loathe regulation, as matter of principle.

Same pattern here: you again have numerous conservatives misrepresenting the science on a topic (climate change) since they are afraid that acknowledging the evidence will result in regulation of industry. These conservatives are just intellectually dishonest.

[Jichard]

Your penchant for accusing people of dishonesty for not agreeing with you is such boorish jackassery.

Your penchant for hurling obscenities is pathetic. Please grow up.

And Bill is lying, since he's saying something he's been shown is false, and is something he just made up. He's been repeatedly shown that the science does not show what he clamis he shows. He doesn't care, and just makes up something else. It's as dishonest as someone saying science shows that the Earth is flat.

Now you can go somewhere else, so serious people can discuss science without your trolling.

[Jichard]

Thats for the experts, the engineers, to figure out. With the rising ocean levels and the impending mega storms such as Hurricane Sandy and katrina the coastline cities need preventative measures to protect themselves from the inevitable. We may be able, though experts in the field disagree, to at least stop the greenhouse effects from getting worse by converting to alternative energy sources. had we begun the process in earnest a long time ago instead of sticking our heads in the sand and denying the problem existed we would most likely be in a better position today. Sure it will cost us all, but it will cost us all a lot more in both wealth and human costs if we do nothing.


See above. We are all going to pay for it one way or the other.

Well, doing nothing certainly won't fix it. But that is why we have scientists and engineers who study the problems and and come up with the best solutions. You could probably google it and find out what many cities are already doing to prepare for the consequences of our inaction. But the problem itself, I don't think we can fix, we can only prevent it from getting worse from what i've read on the subject.

So, you don't have a clue.

Apparently you have no idea what a clue even means. The cognative dissonance of deniers never ceases to amaze.

It truly does. Especially in the case of intellectually dishonest folks like Cow Poke. Here he is pretending that what you said shows that you have no clue, when on two separate occasions, I've shown him folks proposing the sorts of solutions you're talking about:

What amount of money, for example, has any affect whatsoever on climate change.

Not particularly relevant. For example, I don't have to tell you what amont of money is needed to cure cancer or rabies, in order to explain to you why research on cancer or rabies is important.

What you're engaged in a common tactic I see from conservatives, especially conservative Christian Republicans. You act as if scientific research on topics you don't like (ex: embryonic stem cells, anthropogenic global warming) only matters if people can do things like tell you the precise cost of a proposed solution to a problem. That, of course, is ridiculous.

In any event, if you want an introduction to some proposals to deal with AGW, feel free to start here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r..._FINAL_SPM.pdf
pages 17-31

Wrestling "climate change" isn't as exact a science - I really don't see anybody coming up with an actual "if we do X, we can expect Y or Z or ABC..." Heck, DEFINING "climate change" isn't an exact science.

Sure...

"Global health and climate change: moving from denial and catastrophic fatalism to positive action"
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1866.full.pdf


"Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies"
http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/...ER-AND-SOM.pdf

You can keep ignoring these.

Folks need to realize that denialists like Cow Poke and Bill aren't actually genuinely looking for answers; they're simply pretending.

[Jichard]

So what, exactly, needs to be done about it? How much money are you, personally, contributing to the cause? What will "fix" it?

Stop the intellectual dishonesty, Cow Poke. You were answered by multiple people the last time you brought up this talking point of your's. Yet you didn't bother to address those responses, so you could pretend your queries weren't answered. This is just one of the ways you show that you're not intellectually honest when you discuss this subject. Please, do better.

What amount of money, for example, has any affect whatsoever on climate change.

Not particularly relevant. For example, I don't have to tell you what amont of money is needed to cure cancer or rabies, in order to explain to you why research on cancer or rabies is important.

What you're engaged in a common tactic I see from conservatives, especially conservative Christian Republicans. You act as if scientific research on topics you don't like (ex: embryonic stem cells, anthropogenic global warming) only matters if people can do things like tell you the precise cost of a proposed solution to a problem. That, of course, is ridiculous.

In any event, if you want an introduction to some proposals to deal with AGW, feel free to start here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r..._FINAL_SPM.pdf
pages 17-31

Wrestling "climate change" isn't as exact a science - I really don't see anybody coming up with an actual "if we do X, we can expect Y or Z or ABC..." Heck, DEFINING "climate change" isn't an exact science.

Sure...

"Global health and climate change: moving from denial and catastrophic fatalism to positive action"
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1866.full.pdf


"Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies"
http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/...ER-AND-SOM.pdf

You can keep ignoring these.

[Kbertsche]

Many conservatives fundamentally don't want to admit there is a problem, since they are afraid that the proposed solutions will be inconvenient for their conservative ideology.

I agree with you that the conservative perspective is driven more by the proposed solutions of the other side than by the science. In my view, liberal activists (e.g. Al Gore) have poisoned the scientific issues by conflating them with governmental policies. Conservatives strongly oppose the proposed socialistic policies, so they oppose the science as well.

It would be much better if advocates would clearly separate the scientific issues from the policy proposals. I think it should be possible to convince most people (including conservatives) of the science if it were presented as objective science rather than as partisan policy proposals.

[Cow Poke]

Many conservatives fundamentally don't want to admit there is a problem, since they are afraid that the proposed solutions will be inconvenient for their conservative ideology.

How many conservatives have you actually engaged in respectful conversation without blasting them for their opinions?

This is the same pattern that's been seen in another of other issues. For example, for years, various conservative think tanks dodged the scientific evidence on the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke, smoking in general, acid rain, CFCs, and so on. Those conservatives did that, because they were afraid that if people acknowledged the evidence, then people would favor regulation of the industries that caused those problems. And those conservatives tend to loathe regulation, as matter of principle.

Same pattern here: you again have numerous conservatives misrepresenting the science on a topic (climate change) since they are afraid that acknowledging the evidence will result in regulation of industry.

Not my position at all.

These conservatives are just intellectually dishonest.

You, sir, are just engaging in ignorant jacakssery.

[Cow Poke]

Your penchant for hurling obscenities is pathetic.

"Jackassery" is an obscenity?

Please grow up.

I did - over 60 years on farms and ranches, with plenty of experiences with jackasses. And Jennies.

And Bill is lying, since he's saying something he's been shown is false, and is something he just made up. He's been repeatedly shown that the science does not show what he clamis he shows. He doesn't care, and just makes up something else. It's as dishonest as someone saying science shows that the Earth is flat.

Now you can go somewhere else, so serious people can discuss science without your trolling.

You mean, so you can continue your silly reign of terror in the name of 'science'.

[Cow Poke]

I agree with you that the conservative perspective is driven more by the proposed solutions of the other side than by the science. In my view, liberal activists (e.g. Al Gore) have poisoned the scientific issues by conflating them with governmental policies. Conservatives strongly oppose the proposed socialistic policies, so they oppose the science as w

That, exactly, has been my position in the past.

It would be much better if advocates would clearly separate the scientific issues from the policy proposals. I think it should be possible to convince most people (including conservatives) of the science if it were presented as objective science rather than as partisan policy proposals.

Absolutely spot on!

[Cow Poke]

Stop the intellectual dishonesty, Cow Poke.

Stop the blatant false accusations, Jichard. Grow up!

[Billj139]

I agree with you that the conservative perspective is driven more by the proposed solutions of the other side than by the science. In my view, liberal activists (e.g. Al Gore) have poisoned the scientific issues by conflating them with governmental policies. Conservatives strongly oppose the proposed socialistic policies, so they oppose the science as well.

It would be much better if advocates would clearly separate the scientific issues from the policy proposals. I think it should be possible to convince most people (including conservatives) of the science if it were presented as objective science rather than as partisan policy proposals.

Maybe someone could show a graph of Al Gore's wealth vs. increase in global temperature.

I don't think his riches could be causing global temperature rise.

Lots of money will be made by billionaires and the middle class will give them the money through higher prices.

Just another "rich getting richer" scheme.

[TheLurch]

I agree with you that the conservative perspective is driven more by the proposed solutions of the other side than by the science. In my view, liberal activists (e.g. Al Gore) have poisoned the scientific issues by conflating them with governmental policies. Conservatives strongly oppose the proposed socialistic policies, so they oppose the science as well.

It would be much better if advocates would clearly separate the scientific issues from the policy proposals. I think it should be possible to convince most people (including conservatives) of the science if it were presented as objective science rather than as partisan policy proposals.

So, the problem is that scientists can't police who does what with the conclusions they reach. (Put another way, as an advocate for accurate scientific knowledge, I can't order Al Gore to shut up, anymore than anyone on this board can order, say, Ken Ham to do so.)

That leads to a couple of questions:
Given that there will always be someone politically distasteful advocating based on accurate science, how do we get people to separate the science out from that?
Given that Al Gore (or pick a different political figure of your choice) has already spoken, how do we move people past that?

These are real challenges, and I don't have any good answers, but I'd be happy to discuss them.

[Cow Poke]

So, the problem is that scientists can't police who does what with the conclusions they reach. (Put another way, as an advocate for accurate scientific knowledge, I can't order Al Gore to shut up, anymore than anyone on this board can order, say, Ken Ham to do so.)

That leads to a couple of questions:
Given that there will always be someone politically distasteful advocating based on accurate science, how do we get people to separate the science out from that?
Given that Al Gore (or pick a different political figure of your choice) has already spoken, how do we move people past that?

These are real challenges, and I don't have any good answers, but I'd be happy to discuss them.

We need more people like Kbertsche who can discuss this calmly, rationally, and without insulting skeptics by automatically labeling them "deniers" and falsely accusing them of dishonesty, and less climate nazis like Jichard.