Hear, hear on that blarman!
I love it when I start a thread.
Every word posted appears in my email.

I think we both agree that in this case it is the solution which is driving the science and not the other way around. I think there is still way too much we don't know about the system for us to conclude that there is even a "problem" in the first place. That is what only evidence collection is going to bring to the forefront!

Until there is actually evidence of a problem - or a substantially more supported hypothesis - I don't think any action is warranted - private or public. I can't necessarily rule out a public solution, but it is definitely a last resort in my book for just about any problem.

Not at all, Blar... if that were the case, I wouldn't make any comments here or on any other sites, including Facebook or my own plusaf personal site!

What I'm saying is that I ALSO have grown to recognize that, not having discovered any 'silver bullets,' Believers are not swayed from their beliefs by pretty much ANY dose of logic, reasoning or facts. I was recently watching Christopher Hitchens' videos on YouTube, and he's essentially butting his head against the same 'billion-kilowatt dams' in his own way.

But maybe some of our "High Hopes" will bear fruit. For me, it's my second-favorite indoor sport.

I agree that all the SOLUTIONS are ideologically driven (bad solutions with increasing state control), but the EVIDENCE of the problem is scientific. Those two areas should be separate, when we are forming our opinions.
I agree with the science, but disagree with state controlled solutions. It is not necessary to deny the science just to object to the political motives.

I prefer to work from a point of ignorance (conscious denial of prejudices/possible biases) and confirm or deny correlation statistically. I'd much rather be able to go back to the data and use that to drive a hypothesis or model (if possible) than do what climate "scientists" are doing right now. I think we both agree that right now the whole approach is ideologically driven and not scientifically driven. I think the problem is in assuming that we will never be able to build a successful model (a future event) regardless of the data we have collected. I'd like to think that the possibility exists, but it sure won't be possible _without_ the data.

Thanks for contributing to my laziness.
Saw that quote in some movie, whatever that was.
The setting was in Africa.
Think Bruce Willis was in it but I may be wrong.
I could try to find that.
Naw!

We need a Hank Reardon in a lot of industries...

You're right, its only worth looking at the last million years because of land mass layout.
The most important correlation is the link between CO2 and sea level. Not much else is relevant.
Gathering more data will not create a more accurate model. In any case, any model would just be joining the race to make another (worthless) prediction.

Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Precisely what I was alluding to.

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing."
--a quote from whoever said that.

That would interfere with the policy of "we have to pass the Bill, to find out what is in it".

To a point, yes, but even our world has changed radically from those time periods. Convection currents (how warm water circulates all around the globe) are dependent on the land masses and their positions. Even if we knew what the world looked like in paleo times, because the land masses were different, we would have different current systems, which means a different model. Ice caps also affect the cooling cycle of air masses. Atmospheric makeup (in paleo times, oxygen was MUCH higher than it is now, as was CO2) also differs. And then we have to remember that we are still recovering from that Ice Age of only 10,000 years ago.

The reality is that trying to predict the weather or climate has so many variables that it is nearly impossible. What we really ought to do is spend the next 1000 years gathering data so that we can put together a model. Maybe by that time we'll have enough information that we can actually correlate changes and attempt to explain what is going on.

So you would advocate doing nothing and leaving the teeming masses in their ignorance?

I agree that there are going to be some who will choose to support their biases and agendas over reality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to influence those who really do want to do the right thing. If we do nothing, we will automatically fail.

I might settle for footnotes to all bills that demonstrate how and where the signatories to the bill got their information that helped them decide how to vote on the issue... :)

I agree with what you wrote, but please Get Serious... no amount of data will change the mind of a Believer...

Let's see the results of Sessions' presentation...
Did/Will Anything Change?

this scam has millions fooled, and it's not fading
as fast as it should! -- j

Just ran into an emailed editorial cartoon that pretty well sums up what I've been saying about climate scam all along.

http://patriotupdate.com/cartoons/follow...

Now it's -3 and I still ain't touched that blue 'thumb's down' up there.

Agreed - and when solar is self sustaining and attainable without subsidy it will reduce fossil fuel use. Its just a matter of time. A friend works for Dow Chemical in Michigan and told me that now the costs are too great and the pay back time too long for solar panels - unless you buy the crap from China. I have no doubt we will build a better panel that will become attractive for consumers. Coal and oil will piss and moan as will utilities but in capitalism consumers will make their choices - and that is what I like about Ayn Rand. We need a Hank Reardon in the panel industry with the government getting out of the way.

Global Warming is a scam. We know it, and so do those who promote it. Glad to see Sessions using actual facts, something in short supplly in congress of late.

It's all kind of stupid anyway as long as the Chinese & Indians are pumping out metric tons of crap into the air by the second.

I'm less concerned about global warming, as I am about the pollution aspect of fossil fuels. I don't think there is anything wrong with using technology to build it better/faster/cheaper, but picking up the religious jihad on it on one side or the other seems foolish too. Whenever you look at the donors, you see pretty obviously that someone else has something to gain too... Think to coal & oil industry are 'thrilled' about renewable sources of fuel? Think the power utilities are happy if 20-40% of their customers go away and produce their own power on-site? It's foolish to think that those interest groups are not on the other side of the global warming debate either... Although its not so much about "global warming is a hoax" as "we need the revenue so distract the attention elsewhere".

I agree that cleaning up "smoke stacks" is a good idea. We can do that. "Acid rain" is not so good for car paint and some plants. Pollution is way different than CO2 production even though the EPA says that CO2 is a pollutant. Wonder why? What the idiots NEVER talk about is the effects of solar flares and volcanic activity in the ocean. Why? Can't control it. No money in it. Water vapor has a much greater effect on planet temperature than CO2 - but you can't regulate it. Lots of money being made selling "climate change." Wonder what will happen when the general public realizes they have been duped? I will just smile.

The first big thing is: At least people are talking about it. (It was actually suggested in some countries that against-global-warming statements be made illegal and felonious.) We have come to a point were even scientists who disagree are only marginalized, instead of being expelled outright when they make AGW comments. It seems that people have forgotten that Science consists of disagreement, especially disagreement with 'what is accepted'.

Second, there are a plethora of professional climatologists who are AGW, and many more who are 'Lukewarmers' (think that there is a small amount of man-made GW but that it is doing more good than harm). If you would like to browse, please go to wattsupwiththat.com.

My personal position is that the temperature fluctuations that we are experiencing are part of the normal climate process and that our increased CO2 has virtually no effect. I am definitely not a Warmist; I am not an Icer - but I am keeping an eye on that possibility.

Jan

I would really like to hear from one politician that all of the global warming is B/S. they should say that the advocates are plain and simply lying. i do not expect that to happen even if we have a summer where the temperature stays at 62 on average.