Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

[Cow Poke]

It is hard to have much respect for a position that basically says:

"Al Gore is a poopy head, so AGW is dumb"

Absolutely true. You can't ignore that there are people like Gore who have stepped out in front to become the poster child, and, at the same time, stand to get filthy rich off the "solution", but I agree you need (I need) to get beyond that. It's just that when I ask questions - honest questions to which I do not know the answers - you get blasted with a "how stupid can you be" kind of rhetoric from arm chair warming warriors.

Kb's approach is quite refreshing.

[Kbertsche]

So, this touches on something I've noticed. Without looking anything up, can you tell me any "particular political position" regarding the climate that Al Gore has actually advocated for recently?

No, I can't. My impression of Al Gore comes from his "Inconvenient Truth" movie. I think this is true for most people.

Also, just for my edification, given this forum: how many of you have heard of Katharine Hayhoe? She's a climate scientist who's husband is a minister, and she's focused pretty heavily on outreach to evangelicals. (That's not to imply that everyone here is evangelical, obviously).

Her name sounds slightly familiar. It looks like she is doing something useful. This is exactly the kind of thing that I was suggesting.

There's also Sir John Houghton who was involved in the IPCC and is a British evangelical.

[Cow Poke]

What needs to be done is based on the science, what needs to be done is science. What doesn't need to be done is for bought and payed for politicians and ignorant religious zealots to deny that there is a problem. Politicians aren't the ones in the know of what needs to be done, the scientists are, but the right wing conservative, whether ignorant or outright frauds, deny both the fact that there is a problem or that the government should do anything at all about it.

Is this from the Science Editor's Deak at JimL Communications?

[Juvenal]

Absolutely true. You can't ignore that there are people like Gore who have stepped out in front to become the poster child, and, at the same time, stand to get filthy rich off the "solution" [...]

That particular slander is based on a conspiracy theory that you never bothered to check out.

Christian in the postbit.

[Sea of red]

Your concerns seem to be mainly political, not scientific. Science doesn't tell us what "needs" to be done, or even whether anything "needs" to be done. This is political language, based on much more than just the science. People with different political philosophies may agree on the science but disagree on what "needs" to be done.

Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.

The science is in: humans have caused the recent warming, and if it continues at this rate, there will be a severe change to the biosphere. We know this from the stratospheric cooling, the warming rate in the troposphere, recorded measurements of temperatures around the globe, and the study of feed-backs in the climate during the earths history.

I didn't make this political, nor did any of the researchers doing their jobs. The people that made this political are the same people that denied the link between tobacco use and lung cancer, ozone depletion and CFC's, acid rain, the common ancestry of the animal kingdom, etc. Do you not find troubling at all that conservatives are so often the wrong side of science?

At some point you've got to stop pointing the figure at the other side, and stop make excuses for people that put their ideology before everything else.

[Cow Poke]

That particular slander is based on a conspiracy theory that you never bothered to check out.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.

Christian in the postbit.

You misspelled jackass in yours.

[Sea of red]

No. Science tells us how these things work. It tells us what has been happening and what will probably happen in the future. It tells us what will probably happen given different scenarios of what we might do. But science DOES NOT and CAN NOT tell us what we "should" do.

This is the difference between "is" and "ought". Science tells us what "is". The question of what we "ought" to do is a moral/ethical question which involves numerous non-scientific factors.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read from a scientist awhile.

Science informs - that's the whole point of the research. Sometimes the information is more philosophical like questions about the universe's origins, etc. But other questions are more important, and directly effect human beings living on the earth: "What causes different cancers?", "What kind of waste can we put down our drains?", "Can mothers drink alcohol while pregnant?"These are all questions that have implications for everyday people, and pretending that they don't is just being irresponsible.

But if you're for laws against dumping dangerous waste in streams, releasing harmful toxins into the atmosphere, or punishing mothers that drink while carrying, then you ARE doing exactly the same kind of advocacy as those concerned about the climate.

[Juvenal]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.

Christian in the postbit.

You misspelled jackass in yours.

You keep using that word.

[Cow Poke]

Christian in the postbit.

Does spittle dribble from your mouth when you keep muttering this?

[Wally]

Absolutely true. You can't ignore that there are people like Gore who have stepped out in front to become the poster child, and, at the same time, stand to get filthy rich off the "solution", but I agree you need (I need) to get beyond that. It's just that when I ask questions - honest questions to which I do not know the answers - you get blasted with a "how stupid can you be" kind of rhetoric from arm chair warming warriors.

Kb's approach is quite refreshing.

But your confusion is from taking one side of the argument from political sites and the other side from real scientific sources.

The frustration coming from some folks, is that there is almost no dissent from the real scientific sources, and only when you go to disreputable political sources do you find denial.

[Cow Poke]

But your confusion is from taking one side of the argument from political sites and the other side from real scientific sources.

I should have been more clear - I wasn't talking specifically about me, because I honestly don't know. I'm not worried about it. It's not a major issue with me. As a farmer/rancher, I have always believed in being a good steward with resources, and as a Scotsman () I have always believed in getting the best value for the money - not wasting energy, etc.

I am FAR more inclined to entertain ideas from an approach like Kb uses, as opposed to some of the more militant proponents of climate change.

The frustration coming from some folks, is that there is almost no dissent from the real scientific sources, and only when you go to disreputable political sources do you find denial.

I'm not a denier - I'm a skeptic. But, I guess that's just as bad, and I need to be burned at the stake.

[Wally]

I'm not a denier - I'm a skeptic. But, I guess that's just as bad, and I need to be burned at the stake.

But your skepticism is rooted in politics, because there is no scientific support for it.

The reality of AGW is a scientific issue. The solution, if any is a political one.

Personally, I think it's probably too late to reverse the problem, simply because too much money has been spent by the oil and coal industries supporting the dennialist movements.

I find the opposition to the remedies to AGW ironic, because they are the same ones that would give us energy independence from a part of the world that we'd be best leaving alone until the "fires" die down.

And, we don't want to burn you at the stake, that would just increase the co2 levels. You might make a cool mummy.

[Kbertsche]

The science is in: humans have caused the recent warming, and if it continues at this rate, there will be a severe change to the biosphere. We know this from the stratospheric cooling, the warming rate in the troposphere, recorded measurements of temperatures around the globe, and the study of feed-backs in the climate during the earths history.

Agreed. This is the science. It says nothing about proposed policies, if any.

I didn't make this political, nor did any of the researchers doing their jobs.

Mostly agreed. However, a number of good climate scientists also have very left-wing political views which they are happy to make known.

The people that made this political are the same people that denied the link between tobacco use and lung cancer, ozone depletion and CFC's, acid rain, the common ancestry of the animal kingdom, etc.

You are only looking at one side. On the other side, the people that made this political are Al Gore, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc. They try to force pet political policies on the basis of the science. They tie the two (politics and science) so closely together that it is difficult for non-scientists to separate them.

Do you not find troubling at all that conservatives are so often the wrong side of science?

Yes.

[Bill the Cat]

Christian in the postbit.

And everywhere else AFAICT.

[Sea of red]

Kerb, I apologize for my earlier tone. It looks like we agree on more than I originally thought.

Anyways, I think the issue is that politics is something people are more passionate about in general - sometime fanatically committed to doctrines. There are forms of conservative thought that might be compatible with climate policy, but I think it's more of that Austrian/Chicago Economics school of thought that might be problematic. which is so common in conservative fiscal policy.

I fail to see any issues religiously speaking.