On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:31:39 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

First of all, it appears to me that nearly EVERYONE is forming their
opinions on emotion. Second, I don't really care WHAT you think about
me as you have demonstrated a biased view (like equating not being a
gung-ho supporter of AGW with being a flat-earther).

While the position is overstated - even being a Creationist is not flying as
directly in the facts as believing the Earth is flat - thie basic principle,
that questioning AGW is a denial of the current consensus of the scientific
community is true, not biased.

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased, even to the point of denigrating skeptics with claiming
that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since they're concocting
a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad hominem rather than to
the discussion.

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red herring;
it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than carbon
dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect.
Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes
an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than
what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect
is less than what the climate models predict.

And I've mentioned other problems with the models. So there is NOT
universal agreement about AGW, as advocates are VERY prone to claim
Saying that MOST scientists agree with AGW is just saying that voting
counts in science, which is total bull plop.

It is true that scientific questions aren't decided by counting heads.

The fact that most of the "climate skeptics" among scientists have turned
out to be in the pay of oil companies, though, is indicative.

And "climate scientists" work for governments, which they rely on for their
paychecks.

If dissenting views have trouble getting published in orthodox peer-
reviewed venues, that usually says something about the quality of the
work involved;

Or it says something about the bias of the "peers."

I could has easily accuse a "conspiracy" of preventing chemical journals
from publishing papers on the chemical (as opposed to nuclear)
transmutation of lead into gold.

The true sciences are much more "settled" than climate change is. We know
A LOT about the energies of the nucleus versus electron energy levels.
There are no "big problems" hanging out there in chemistry, and there are
few in physics.

"Most" is one thing. "Nearly all" is another.

Funny, I know a few PhDs in science ranging from physicists to soil scientist
who claim AGW is bunk and politically motivated. I know none who are AGW
advocates. So my own "survey" is in stark contrast to the claims bandied
about by the advocates.

There are working electrical engineers who are Creationists.

John Savard

Even a few climate scientists :-)

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society
towards less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would downgrade
heavy industry, and thus impact the military defense capabilities of the
United States of America.

Indeed, but there are other consequences. Anthropologist Carleton Coon
pointed out that civilization itself is determined by converting
available energy into social structure, so less dependence on energy
means a debasing of society.

Furthermore, the developing countries are where the increasing CO2
emissions will be coming from, so it is pointless to harm the USA
in a fanatic process of self-immolation.

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually
is the alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating consequences,
while it's the risk of doing nothing that's small.

Exactly. I'm not saying to do nothing, but I am saying to take it slow,
improve the climate models, gather more data and move incrementally
toward reducing greenhouse gases (but not water vapor :-)