Global Warming is over.

[herbivor]

Just a reminder. This PBS documentary is airing tonight. I would be curious what everyone's opinion is of it afterward, especially the deniers.

[gwb72tii]

meh
on PBS? an unbiased news source? what do you think we're going to see?

and when you and others change to a more friendly term than "denier" you might have a dialogue someday that doesn't have two polarized sides.
just a suggestion....

[gwb72tii]

and here is an example of how one sided you side is. room for dissention within the pro AGW camp? don't think so.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/more-turmoil-at-the-american-physical-society-over-global-warming-issue/#more-72855

[BraveUlysses]

Well, you refuse to educate yourself well enough about this subject to meet the qualifications to be a 'critic' so yes, denier is a perfect term for people like you.

[gwb72tii]

ah, the troll is still posting

LOL

[nando]

and here is an example of how one sided you side is. room for dissention within the pro AGW camp? don't think so.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/2...ue/#more-72855

but you think a website with "climategate" as a main topic is unbiased?

keep your head in the sand. none of the hard data means anything to you, anyway.

[herbivor]

meh
on PBS? an unbiased news source? what do you think we're going to see?

and when you and others change to a more friendly term than "denier" you might have a dialogue someday that doesn't have two polarized sides.
just a suggestion....

So I take it that means you refuse to watch it, and you've already made up your mind that no matter what it's about it must be biased and therefore incorrect information right? If that is the case, at least admit you are not open minded. And how do you know they won't completely agree with your conspiracy theory and provide undeniable proof that AGW is a scam?

[gwb72tii]

but you think a website with "climategate" as a main topic is unbiased?

keep your head in the sand. none of the hard data means anything to you, anyway.

not at all nando
sure the website is on the other side from you, but the referenced article is from two scientists that are not.
and your response is why there is a growing number of people are skeptical. not so much you, but others here always bring up the science has to be peer reviewed to be credible. no problem, unless you happen to have a paper or data that doesn't agree witht he pro AGW argument.
catch 22

[gwb72tii]

So I take it that means you refuse to watch it, and you've already made up your mind that no matter what it's about it must be biased and therefore incorrect information right? If that is the case, at least admit you are not open minded. And how do you know they won't completely agree with your conspiracy theory and provide undeniable proof that AGW is a scam?

no, i'll watch, but its going to be a hit piece.
even though you won't admit it, the science is not settled and there are too many scientists that have unanswered questions.
but i will watch it.

GO GIANTS!

[LBJefferies]

meh
on PBS? an unbiased news source? what do you think we're going to see?

and when you and others change to a more friendly term than "denier" you might have a dialogue someday that doesn't have two polarized sides.
just a suggestion....

Frontline has got to be the most unbiased news source out there. Did you watch the election episode? They ripped both candidates to shreds. If you can't trust Frontline, then who can you trust?

[BraveUlysses]

Fox News!

[Fusion]

You just avoided a bunch of questions. Before you get mad at people for deciding to take action before all the theories are proven, you should be able to state when you expect people to act.

I worry about badly implemented climate policy. I always point out you can't just impose a cost on energy overnight you have to have principle in my opinion, because for me it affects the quality of my local beer, for a poor person it might affect the quality of their protein. We should not subsidise poverty by artificially low prices of commodities like food and energy. Get the price to include all the cost, but we do have to have side payments to help those people through a transition and I don't know any coal miner or auto worker making a big car who does it to screw up the climate.
That may not be allowed to be continued very long but you can't just hang them out to dry. You apparently suggest we have to do something. So I would be afraid of either having those groups disadvantaged by policy just as some say that the small island states will have to move and lose their homelands because they're disadvantaged by sea level rise and we therefore may have to deal not just with the magnitude of (anthro or not) climate change and it's not just the consequences of that but also the consequences of the policies and they involve not just "preventing climate change" but dealing with people who are effected by those policies. That's part of the complexity which is so difficult to manage in a world of a bunch of nation states where people can't agree.

[rwh11385]

I worry about badly implemented climate policy. I always point out you can't just impose a cost on energy overnight you have to have principle in my opinion, because for me it affects the quality of my local beer, for a poor person it might affect the quality of their protein. We should not subsidise poverty by artificially low prices of commodities like food and energy. Get the price to include all the cost, but we do have to have side payments to help those people through a transition and I don't know any coal miner or auto worker making a big car who does it to screw up the climate.
That may not be allowed to be continued very long but you can't just hang them out to dry. You apparently suggest we have to do something. So I would be afraid of either having those groups disadvantaged by policy just as some say that the small island states will have to move and lose their homelands because they're disadvantaged by sea level rise and we therefore may have to deal not just with the magnitude of (anthro or not) climate change and it's not just the consequences of that but also the consequences of the policies and they involve not just "preventing climate change" but dealing with people who are effected by those policies. That's part of the complexity which is so difficult to manage in a world of a bunch of nation states where people can't agree.

WHAT?!? Geez, what a load of babbling.

Before you get mad at people for deciding to take action before all the theories are proven, you should be able to state when you expect people to act.

The question was how sure must we be of something before we are sure enough to act? Or how much of a consensus is necessary?

Should we drop giving vaccine shots to children because there are some people who have "research" that the practice cause autism?

[Fusion]

Are the scientists who you base your opinions on decided when we are sure enough to act, or are they more concerned about doing their job (fine tuning the scientific data), than giving politicians a "free pass" to abruptly decide what should be done and how?

Would I be babbling even if I was a scientist? Because I'm not, even if I was, it would probably be tough to say ACT NOW like in alarmist Gore fashion, who is obviously a stronger factor in your views than science.

And should we dope up with every vaccine available, just because we know we might show signs of a variety of diseases?

[rwh11385]

Are the scientists who you base your opinions on decided when we are sure enough to act, or are they more concerned about doing their job (fine tuning the scientific data), than giving politicians a "free pass" to abruptly decide what should be done and how?

Would I be babbling even if I was a scientist? Because I'm not, even if I was, it would probably be tough to say ACT NOW like in alarmist Gore fashion, who is obviously a stronger factor in your views than science.

And should we dope up with every vaccine available, just because we know we might show signs of a variety of diseases?

The question was to YOU on that: if you want to complain that people are making decisions on something that there are still deniers in existence, when is it acceptable to finally act? Does there need to be a 100% acceptance of a theory before the theory is good enough in YOUR opinion to be acted upon?

I think you might not be babbling if you actually had a basis to complain, and not therefore just randomly inserting statements that don't make any sense when strung together. You object to taking action too soon but cannot define when you think it is no longer "too soon". How much of a consensus is necessary?

Should we act on the theory that second-hand smoking causes cancer, or is it unfair to conclude as such because there are studies that deny such?

Gore's a tool and don't tell me who or what is a factor in my views, it just shows that you don't have any good reasoning to back your position so you are trying to build a strawman. I don't respect or listen to Al Gore. Plus, using ad hominem against one individual to try to invalidate all global warming science is incredibly ridiculous.

Answer the question. Don't attempt to twist it into an absurd argument.