The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Pinoy]

The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/t..._climate_.html

let's start to rumble

[Bill the Cat]

vs...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...6_climate.html
New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible

[Cow Poke]

In other news, I had to wear my jacket this morning in Texas in APRIL!!!!! (OK, ALMOST April!)

[Teallaura]

I vote we rename 'climate change'. I vote for 'seasons'.

[seanD]

vs...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...6_climate.html
New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible

See, this is what I don't get about the proposed solutions to stop global warm... er... climate change. Assuming its legitimacy, how would a carbon tax (which is what was being proposed on an international level) stop climate change? Maybe if the global governments got extremely dictatorial and forced everyone, public and private, individual and corporation to abandon conventional means of energy, perhaps it might have made a difference. But aside from the "forcing" issue, then we're talking extreme disruption and ramifications of the industrial economies of the world. Assuming we would ever agree as to the legitimacy of man-made climate change, the solution seems impossible anyway.

[Juvenal]

The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/t..._climate_.html

let's start to rumble

S. Fred Singer, tobacco denialist? Time to upgrade your sources, P.

[Juvenal]

I vote we rename 'climate change'. I vote for 'seasons'.

In other news, I note my vote that y'all make an effort to learn the science hasn't done much good either.

[Teallaura]

When you haven't got a decent refutation, start pouring Drano in the well...

[Cow Poke]

See, this is what I don't get about the proposed solutions to stop global warm... er... climate change. Assuming its legitimacy, how would a carbon tax (which is what was being proposed on an international level) stop climate change? Maybe if the global governments got extremely dictatorial and forced everyone, public and private, individual and corporation to abandon conventional means of energy, perhaps it might have made a difference. But aside from the "forcing" issue, then we're talking extreme disruption and ramifications of the industrial economies of the world. Assuming we would ever agree as to the legitimacy of man-made climate change, the solution seems impossible anyway.

Yeah, I have always said, ASSUMING things are as bad as you say, HOW MUCH MONEY is "enough", and what, exactly, will you spend it on? Nobody knows. Except, of course, more research.

[seasanctuary]

In other news, I note my vote that y'all make an effort to learn the science hasn't done much good either.

Well, I see no reason to accept the science until I'm sure it will turn a profit.

[Epoetker]

Well, I see no reason to accept the science until I'm sure it will turn a profit.

Or, y'know, make useful and specific predictions.

[Zymologist]

See, this is what I don't get about the proposed solutions to stop global warm... er... climate change. Assuming its legitimacy, how would a carbon tax (which is what was being proposed on an international level) stop climate change? Maybe if the global governments got extremely dictatorial and forced everyone, public and private, individual and corporation to abandon conventional means of energy, perhaps it might have made a difference. But aside from the "forcing" issue, then we're talking extreme disruption and ramifications of the industrial economies of the world. Assuming we would ever agree as to the legitimacy of man-made climate change, the solution seems impossible anyway.

I've been toying with the idea of starting a thread in Natural Science on a facet of the subject that, oddly, never seems to be touched. That is: given, for the sake of argument, man-made climate change, answer these two questions:

1. What makes you think preventing it would even be possible, let alone cheaper than simply adapting to it?
2. What is the reasoning behind the proposed sweeping government action in the preventions?

Interestingly, the answers to the above two points always seem to be assumed; there is never any reason given for why, for example, adapting to the change is totally out of the question. The equation, then, is this:

Anthropogenic global warming is a reality.
Therefore, broad government intervention is absolutely and unquestionably necessary.

It's a pretty big disconnect that I'm not sure how thoroughly I want to explore....

[KingsGambit]

Wait... some people still deny that tobacco is harmful? Seriously? I thought Thank You For Smoking was a satire by now.

[Carrikature]

I've been toying with the idea of starting a thread in Natural Science on a facet of the subject that, oddly, never seems to be touched. That is: given, for the sake of argument, man-made climate change, answer these two questions:

1. What makes you think preventing it would even be possible, let alone cheaper than simply adapting to it?
2. What is the reasoning behind the proposed sweeping government action in the preventions?

Interestingly, the answers to the above two points always seem to be assumed; there is never any reason given for why, for example, adapting to the change is totally out of the question. The equation, then, is this:

Anthropogenic global warming is a reality.
Therefore, broad government intervention is absolutely and unquestionably necessary.

It's a pretty big disconnect that I'm not sure how thoroughly I want to explore....

Possibly misunderstanding the goal? I don't know that it's reversible. We can keep from exacerbating it, though. I think that would answer both questions presented.


ETA:
It's worth noting that 'adapting to it' involves relocating millions of people or, at the very least, rebuilding their homes and infrastructure to accommodate new water levels.

[Zymologist]

Possibly misunderstanding the goal? I don't know that it's reversible. We can keep from exacerbating it, though. I think that would answer both questions presented.


ETA:
It's worth noting that 'adapting to it' involves relocating millions of people or, at the very least, rebuilding their homes and infrastructure to accommodate new water levels.

It still looks like you could just replace "preventing" in my post with "keep from exacerbating"*.

But anyway, I don't know how much I want to pursue this right now. I'm rather ill-equipped to do it, anyway.

*Or some less clumsily verbose alternative....