In his Daily Cartoon of 4th Jan, Dave Brown clearly thinks that the GOP is not impressed with the quality of the Republican hopefuls...
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-daily-cartoon-76094...

Not bad commentary, although I would change it a bit. Instead of the elephant, it could be something symbolizing the American people holding a gun to our heads, looking over our government, both Republican and Democrat, and thinking we have no alternative.

RR

Why, without exception, are Republican candidates nowadays all anti-science religious nutters who look as if they should be in toothpaste commercials?

Where are the equivalent of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight D. Eisenhower? Even Nixon compares favourably.

Why, without exception, are Republican candidates nowadays all anti-science religious nutters.....

You forgot racist, bigoted, sexist, and homophobic.

RR

Snodgrasse,

You asked: Why, without exception, are Republican candidates nowadays all anti-science religious nutters who look as if they should be in toothpaste commercials?

That question may say more about your attitude and your prejudices than about any of the candidates, as I have no idea how you are reading that into the actual situation. Tracking the reporting on the campaigns here in the States, I have not heard of even one instance in which any Republican candidate has expressed a position that rejects or goes against science or scientific knowledge. There are a few candidates in the field who adhere to various religions, but none of them have expressed rejection of theories such as evolution that some religious zealots have rejected in the past.

Norm.

That question may say more about your attitude and your prejudices than about any of the candidates, as I have no idea how you are reading that into the actual situation. Tracking the reporting on the campaigns here in the States, I have not heard of even one instance in which any Republican candidate has expressed a position that rejects or goes against science or scientific knowledge. There are a few candidates in the field who adhere to various religions, but none of them have expressed rejection of theories such as evolution that some religious zealots have rejected in the past.

Opposed to Evolution or favours teaching intelligent design (which means the same):

Michele Bachmann has publicly declared her desire to push the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

Newt Gingrich wants creationism to be taught because "the United States was founded on Christian principles and prayer".

Jon Huntsman accepts both evoultion and global warming !

Ron Paul wants to "eliminate the department of education" and does not accept evolution.

Rick Perry has declared several times he does not believe in the theory of evolution and has even said that they teach intelligent design and creationism in Texas public schools (which is an untrue statement).

Mitt Romney accepts evolution is true.

Rick Santorum is an anti-evolution candidate who believes intelligent design should be taught in classrooms. He also does not believe in global warming or using embryonic stem cells for research.

http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/tp/2012-Gop-President...

Denies the reality of human induced global warming:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said he just doesn't buy it - and thinks the scientists pushing the idea were motivated by greed, not facts.
"There are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects," Perry told a New Hampshire business breakfast in August.
Pizza baron Herman Cain said much the same thing.
"I don't believe global warming is real," he told CBS in June. "Do we have climate change? Yes. Is it a crisis? No."
Cain said there's no reason for panic. "The real science doesn't say that we have any major crisis or threat when it comes to climate change."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, who in April voted for a House bill that prevents further regulation of greenhouse gases, told a crowd in August: "I think all these issues have to be settled on the base of real science, not manufactured science."
Sen. Rick Santorum said the earth's warming and cooling is caused by a laundry list of things: El Nino, La Nina, sunspots and moisture in the air.
"The idea that man through the production of CO2 which is a trace gas in the atmosphere and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd," he told radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in June.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich earned some of his political stripes helping a 2008 commercial against climate change.
Rep. Ron Paul was quoted in a 2007 interview that "I think some of it [global warming] is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet."
But by a 2009 Fox interview, Paul said "the greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been, this hoax on the environment and global warming."
Romney, while serving as Massachusetts governor, introduced in 2004 a statewide Climate Protection Plan, billed as "an initial step in a coordinated effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."
But as recently as Sept. 28, Romney told a New Hampshire town hall meeting "The planet is probably getting warmer. I think we're experiencing warming. That's No. 1. No. 2, I believe that we contribute some portion of that. No. 3, I don't know how much. It could be a lot, it could be a little."

Only one GOP contender - former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman - has come out full force saying he believes in science.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-03/news/30357110_1_g...

Finally, from the same piece:

Belief in science should be a no-brainer, especially for anyone running for President, Mayor Bloomberg groused Thursday

So it looks like Huntsman is the only one who isn’t anti-science.

Have you been a bit selective in your “Tracking the reporting on the campaigns here in the States”?

So it looks like Huntsman is the only one who isn’t anti-science.

Why? Because the others don't buy into the notion that man-made global warming is a fact. Haven't recent events cast doubt on the intent of the religion of AGW, and the doctrine of the high priests of that church, like Al Gore?

Basically, Kyoto was a treaty that said there is AGW, and the US is the big cause, so in order to stop this inevitable tragedy, the US must be punished in favor of India and China? Apparently Mother Earth gives allowances for per capita stats.

I would also like to add that Mitt Romney and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid share the same religion.

Just a side note.

RR

We could also get into the left wing nutter religion that Obama belongs, but that wouldn't do, would it?

We could also get into the left wing nutter religion that Obama belongs, but that wouldn't do, would it?

Que?

Why? Because the others don't buy into the notion that man-made global warming is a fact.

I think you need to study some of the science behind AGW and not just opinions.

Haven't recent events cast doubt on the intent of the religion of AGW, and the doctrine of the high priests of that church, like Al Gore?

Sigh. You obviously belong to the anti-science camp. You appear to confuse empiricism with belief. It's easy to refute AGW - all you need to do is develop some better science that counters it. So far, no-one has.

Basically, Kyoto was a treaty that said there is AGW, and the US is the big cause, so in order to stop this inevitable tragedy, the US must be punished in favor of India and China? Apparently Mother Earth gives allowances for per capita stats.

At the time the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the US was the largest emitter of CO2. There is no sense in which The US has to "be punished". However, with a developed nation like the US, it's easy to identify low-hanging fruit on the energy conservation tree. So far Congress doesn't even want to try.

I would also like to add that Mitt Romney and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid share the same religion.

So what?

Thank God that religious controversy does not seem prominent in New Hampshire. At least it doesn't feature in the BBC's take on matters...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16495899

Tom
(Just making an opportunistic post to snatch the Pal)

Que?/>

Not surprising you do not know. Jeremiah Wright was his pastor for 20 years. An absolute nut ball.

RR

I think you need to study some of the science behind AGW and not just opinions.

I do and I have. Seems a lot of it has been forged.


Sigh. You obviously belong to the anti-science camp. You appear to confuse empiricism with belief. It's easy to refute AGW - all you need to do is develop some better science that counters it. So far, no-one has.

Actually, you seem like a person that believes in a trumped up version of science that fits a political aim. You dislike people of faith, but you put your faith behind things that are not proven either. You are no better than the religionists, frankly.

So what?

To you, probably nothing, but many leftists in the US have and will go after Romney over his Mormonism, while not questioning Reid.

RR

At the time the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the US was the largest emitter of CO2. There is no sense in which The US has to "be punished". However, with a developed nation like the US, it's easy to identify low-hanging fruit on the energy conservation tree. So far Congress doesn't even want to try

Don't be Naive. The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to shaft the US. And don't give me this "developed" nation stuff. China is trumpeted to be the new super power. May we once and for all dispense with this notion as China as undeveloped?

You mention congress does not want to try. Well specifically, it is one half of congress, the Senate, which ratifies treaties, and even "science believing", non faith based Democrats wanted nothing to do with it. Even they saw it as something to simply hit the US economically, in favor of Indian and China and Brazil, and others, while spending billions with no affect on climate at all. A global wealth redistribution scheme is all it was.

RR

I think you need to study some of the science behind AGW and not just opinions.

I do and I have. Seems a lot of it has been forged.

Really? Since most of it is "forged" can you tell me who is guilty of the forgery and the papers concerned?

I get the impression that, like most people, you read blogs and op-eds and confuse it with real science. The danger of this approach is that you read to re-inforce your pre-set opinions. How many of the source papers have you read (if any)? How many truly independent science magazines that interpret those papers have you read (for example, Scientific American, New Scientist, Science, Nature, etc.?) Can you point me to an article in any of those that dismisses anthropogenic global warming.

Sigh. You obviously belong to the anti-science camp. You appear to confuse empiricism with belief. It's easy to refute AGW - all you need to do is develop some better science that counters it. So far, no-one has.

Actually, you seem like a person that believes in a trumped up version of science that fits a political aim. You dislike people of faith, but you put your faith behind things that are not proven either. You are no better than the religionists, frankly.

I try hard to rid my life of beliefs of any description: as a (former) working scientist, I know how dangerous they are. As one of your greatest scientists, Richard Feynman, said, "science is a way of preventing you making a fool of yourself." What is "the political aim" of the science behind AGW? Given that both left-wing politicians and right wingers (John McCain, Margaret Thatcher) have agreed that it is an increasing problem, isn't it more likely that there is a consensus? Isn't it more likely that the op-ed writers and bloggers have a political aim? They are, after all, paid to give us political opinions. Oil companies certainly don't want to recognise AGW, much as tobacco companies didn't want to recognise the link between smoking and cancer. In dismissing the science, you run the risk of becoming their stooge.

I don't dislike people of faith - some of my closest friends are religious. I am, however, suspicious of faith when it claims supremacy over empiricism (ref the quote from Richard Feynman). Don't forget that, in science nothing is ever proven. There is only a probablity. (Try proving that the sun will rise tomorrow.) The great benefit of science is that you can assign a statistical probability to an event. Can you do that with religion?

Don't be Naive. The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to shaft the US. And don't give me this "developed" nation stuff. China is trumpeted to be the new super power. May we once and for all dispense with this notion as China as undeveloped?

Accusations of naivety are misplaced. In 1990 The USA emitted 36% of the world's greenhouse gases. By 1997 when the protocol was agreed, the percentage had come down, but the USA was still the largest emitter (though not per capita). Why should using the facts for the basis of an international protocol be considered "naive"? Given the amount of industrialisation in Europe, and the shared responsibility of reducing the output of CO2 to ~7% below 1990 levels, why do you consider that the protocol was "specifically designed to shaft the US?" You could, with equal justification claim that it was specifically designed to shaft the EU. Paranoia creeping in, perhaps?

I never said that China was undeveloped, though you cannot deny that the US certainly is. What I did say is that there is low-hanging fruit that Congress doesn't even wish to consider. China is more developed now than it was and is the largest emitter. Per capita, however, it is still way behind the USA and for that reason alone, there is more scope for a reduction by the USA than for China.

You mention congress does not want to try. Well specifically, it is one half of congress, the Senate, which ratifies treaties, and even "science believing", non faith based Democrats wanted nothing to do with it.

Presumably because they couldn't sell it to the science disbelieving, faith-based electorate, like you.

Even they saw it as something to simply hit the US economically, in favor of Indian and China and Brazil, and others, while spending billions with no affect on climate at all. A global wealth redistribution scheme is all it was.

It doesn't have to cause an economic disadvantage. In fact the introduction of any new technology creates more jobs than it destroys and ultimately results in higher standards of living for all. A switch to renewable energy sources coupled with energy conservation is no exception.

I think the fact that you put "science believing" into quotes says it all: in your view, scientific results are something to be accepted or disregarded according to taste. Not so. Scientific results sometimes point to unpleasant outcomes, as any long-term smoker will now tell you. The fact that you may (or may not) need to spend billions to mitigate those outcomes is irrelevant.

Not surprising you do not know. Jeremiah Wright was his pastor for 20 years. An absolute nut ball.

I'll take your word for it. Though I think it strange and sad that the (alleged) follower of a religious nutball can be elected President, whereas an athiest rationalist would stand no chance.

Really? Since most of it is "forged" can you tell me who is guilty of the forgery and the papers concerned?

http://www.climategate.com/

What is "the political aim" of the science behind AGW?

Global wealth redistribution in the guise of saving the planet. The Kyoto protocol was set up for this express purpose, and europeans were at it's head in order to hit back at US economic growth.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4297

And yes, even some of those on the right have been seduced by it. But the calamity that was called for 10 years ago has not happened. Scientists cannot predict next year's hurricanes accurately, much less climate change. While I do believe in science, I do not believe they have this one right. As you say, nothing is ever proven, and I see no reason to send our economy into an even bigger tail spin when no other country will do so. The Chinese, Indians, Brazilians etc., don't seem to concerned about global warming, and they are busy drilling and exploring for oil, building coal plants etc.

I guess they don't believe the science either. But you EU types single out your boogey man, the US, as the biggest sinner in your religion of AGW. Use that scientific minded brain to get the Chinese onboard with this hoax, and maybe I will listen more.

RR

Presumably because they couldn't sell it to the science disbelieving, faith-based electorate, like you

Since you seem to have some mind reading skills, and you assume I am faith based, tell me what faith I have?

What religion? What faith is it that guides my politics?

You are on of the more supercilious of the Brits here no doubt, but I can't wait to see your omniscience with this one.

RR

Though I think it strange and sad that the (alleged) follower of a religious nutball can be elected President, whereas an athiest rationalist would stand no chance.

Out of curiosity, how many Prime Ministers in the UK have been athiest rationalists? Or, how many have campaigned on that, saying religion is a load of tosh?

Do tell!

RR

I have a challenge for you, Mr. Scientist....

go here...read what he says and then tell him he doesn't believe in science.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/table-of-conte...

and here...

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Before you do embarrass yourself, know that he has degrees from Princeton and Harvard.

You seem to have some sort of ego the size of jupiter that thinks that anyone who dares disagree with you is somehow less intelligent. I find your sanctimony and egomania most distasteful.

RR

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

In either case, there are more important issues, like the EU imploding completely. As stupid as we Americans may appear, you in Europe look even dumber for your nanny states that are completely unsustainable. Nice work there, cousin.

RR

Snodgrasse,

Michele Bachmann has publicly declared her desire to push the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

Newt Gingrich wants creationism to be taught because "the United States was founded on Christian principles and prayer".

I think that students should be made aware of all viewpoints, including Creation theory and Intelligent Design.

>> Whether you like the fact or not, Plato actually deduced the existence of a Creator with characteristics of the Judeo-Christian deity by rigorous logic alone. Note that he lived in a Pagan culture, and probably was not familiar with the Book of Genesis.

>> There is also a fair amount of evidence to support Intelligent Design.

To suppress this is what is contrary to true science.

Note, BTW, that the most common objection to the account of creation in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis depends upon the fundamentalist interpretation of the word "day" to mean the period of twenty-four hours from sunrise to sunrise. Alas, the text itself shows this interpretation to be impossible: the sun does not come into existence until the third "day" of creation. There is, however, another sense of the word "day" that is fully consistent with the account: in prhases such as "in Caesar's day" and "in the present day," the word "day" means an era. When one reads the account of creation in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis with this understanding, one discovers that it is fully consistent with both the "Big Bang" theory and Darwin's Evolution of the Species.

Jon Huntsman accepts both evoultion and global warming !

There are actually major problems of corruption in the supposed "science" of "global warming" (now called "global climate change" -- the Earthc's average temperature actually dropped in the first decade of the present millennium). Unfortuantely, people with an agenda to use fear of major environmental change to advance a political agenda that would impose major restrictions on our freedom gained control of government agencies that fund research in this area several decades ago and have systematically terminated funding of researchers who reported evidence that did not support the conclusions that they desired, essentially forcing researchers to distort or suppress such results if they wanted to continue work in this area. These individuals also started new technical conferences and journals in this area and used the "peer review" process to suppress papers that presented conclusiosn that they disfavored, so those who had contrary results even without government funding could not get published. The scandal involving e-mail correspondence addressing what to do about research that yielded the "wrong" results at a British research institution three or four years ago may have been the first major public glimpse into the consequent distortion, but it is only the proverbial tip of the iceburg. Independent analysis of global temperature history has shown even the "Hockey Stick Curve" presented to the public three or four decades ago to be wrong.

There's also another reality about the "global warming" fraud. The climatological models which show extreme excursions do so precisely because they omit negative feedback mechanisms that stabilize the actual environment. Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's, some "scientists" (?) published results of computer simulations predicting that the Earth's mean temperature would increase enough to completely melt the polar ice caps by the year 2000, yet it did not happen. The problem was the omission of the feedback mechanisms present in the real environment from their models.

Ron Paul wants to "eliminate the department of education" and does not accept evolution.

Perhaps you don't fully undertand the concept of our government, which is that of a federal republic composed of fifty states, forty-six of which are sovereign republics and four of which are sovereign commonwealths. The best comparison in Europe would be the European Union, composed of a number of member nations. Ron Paul's proposal to eliminate the federal Department of Education is predicated on his belief that our federal constitution reserves responsibility for education to the states and thus that it is not the proper province of the federal government.

As to Darwin's theory of Evolution of the Species, there are some serious questions. To date, nobody has observed a biological process in which one speices has evolved into another -- which is precisely what Darwin's theorty would require. There are also the famous missing links, which admittedly could be extinct species -- but we don't even have fossils for them. Thus, doubts as to the veracity of Darwin's theory are well-founded -- and this fact also should be presented in the classroom, rather than presenting Darwin's theory as though it were established fact.

I think that these comments have adequately addressed the rest of the issues that you raised.

Norm.

Snodgrasse,

It's easy to refute AGW - all you need to do is develop some better science that counters it. So far, no-one has.

It's not so easy to do the research necessary to refute anyting when one is systematically refused (1) funding for such research, (2) access to raw data, and (3) access to conferences and journals in the field in which to publish one's results. Unfortunately, that's what those who control the funding and the journals have done.

At the time the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the US was the largest emitter of CO2.

Factually not true. India and China produced considerably more carbon dioxide then, and continue to do so.

But that said, there's also a glaring omission in the papers that allege carbon dioxide to be a problem. Nobody to date has done a study on the impact of the concentration of carbon dioxide on the rate of photosynthesis in a plant's leaves or the consequent growth of plants. Le Chartelier's Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle for Wikipedia article) predicts that an increase in concentration of carbon dioxide would accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, causing plants to grow more quickly and thus increasing the leaf area on which the photosynthesis occurs. It should be quite easy to study this in a laboratory: simply grow several flats of identical plants under identical artificial lighting in chambers with controlled atmospheres having various (natural and artificially high) concentrations of carbon dioxide.

I'm actually working on an invention for those who believe carbon dioxide emissions to be a problem, and thus who most assuredly will want to contain their own personal carbon dioxide emissions to protect the planet. The device consists of a containment made of non-pourous plastic sized to fit over the head, with a seal strip with a peel-off backing at the opening. To use the device, one removes the backing from the back part of the seal and affixes it to the back of one's neck, then continues to seal the opening around one's neck to the front as one peels away the backing. When the two sides of the opening come together in the front of one's neck, one affixes them to each other and peels away the rest of the backing, joining the two sides together to complete the seal. The containment then traps all of the carbon dioxide that one exhails, so that one causes no further contamination of the atmosphere.

Norm.

Tom,

Thank God that religious controversy does not seem prominent in New Hampshire. At least it doesn't feature in the BBC's take on matters...

It's not prominent anywhere. Nearly all Americans who are paying attention to the political issues of the current day are much more focused on the economic devastation and very high unemployment caused by the current President's agenda of higher taxation, excessive borrowing, and onerous regulation and mandates, the latter including his health care programme.

Of course, one can argue that the religion known as Environmetnalism is at the heart of many of the onerous regulations, and thus that religion is center stage....

BTW, note that the official unemployment statistics do not count those who have stopped looking for work and those who are underemployed (flipping burgers at McDonald's because they can't find employment in the professions for which they are trained, or only working part time due to lack of work in their fields). It's widely estimated that the real unemplyment is about two to three times that claimed by the government's statistics.

Norm.

RowdyReptile,

To you, probably nothing, but many leftists in the US have and will go after Romney over his Mormonism, while not questioning Reid.

No, those with influence on the left don't care. To them, he all that matters is that he is not an Evangelical Christian. It's actually the fundamentalist Christians on the right to whom Governor Romney's religion is an issue. Of course, all but the most hard-core fundamentalist Christians will vote for Governor Romney over the incumbent if it comes down to that choice in November.

Norm.

Snodgrasse,

I'll take your word for it. Though I think it strange and sad that the (alleged) follower of a religious nutball can be elected President, whereas an athiest rationalist would stand no chance.

Most Americans don't consider a candidate's religion when they go to the polls on election day. Rather, they consider the political and economic issues of the times, the relative weighting of which clearly changes with each election, sometimes tilting the balance from one major political party to the other. There's nothing to stop an Atheist Rationalist from winning a presidential election.

Norm.

RowdyReptile,

Out of curiosity, how many Prime Ministers in the UK have been athiest rationalists? Or, how many have campaigned on that, saying religion is a load of tosh?

I must correct one thing here. A religion being a complete and mutually self-consistent set of beliefs about the existence and nature of deities, Atheism (literally, the affirmative belief in the absence of any deity) is itself a religion. Agnosticism (literally, the belief that humans cannot know whether a deity exists or not) is also a religion.

An absence of religion -- that is, a complete absence of beliefs about the existence and nature of deities -- is better called "unbelief" because it represents a true absence of belief.

Norm.

Norm,

No, those with influence on the left don't care. To them, he all that matters is that he is not an Evangelical Christian. It's actually the fundamentalist Christians on the right to whom Governor Romney's religion is an issue. Of course, all but the most hard-core fundamentalist Christians will vote for Governor Romney over the incumbent if it comes down to that choice in November.

Ok, I'll start taking the thread seriously now, and your are quite correct on this. Romney was attacked much more often from the so called "conservative evangelical christian" community. He has taken his lumps from the left as well on this issue, however. I only mentioned Reid as he is a poster boy for left wingers, and they are silent on the religion issue wrt to Senator Reid. With those on the left, it is apparent that a persons religion is of no consequence unless that person has an R by their name, even if they are moderate.

I have no use for any candidate that would want to impose their religious views upon the nation, and our country would have more to fear from the religious right than a Mormon, imho. It is similar to the ridiculous argument that Kennedy would not be a good president as he was Catholic, and of course that HAD to mean the Vatican would control his administration.

I also agree that unless the economy recovers, Obama is toast, regardless of who wins the Republican nomination. Even Ron Paul would have a shot.

We have more important concerns than global warming right now. The earth is 4 billion plus years old, and has had dramatic changes in climate all before the US existed, and our dreadful SUV's. However, if I could wave some magic wand and come up with viable alternatives to fossil fuels, I would do it, if for no other reason than to stop giving money to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. My proposal to go the way of France and be 70% nuclear powered would be shouted down by environmentalists.

I thought the OP gave a link to good commentary. Sadly, this is the bunch we are picking to challenge Obama. Not the strongest by any stretch of the imagination, for sure. Their advantage is that Obama, and the Democrats, aren't exactly covering themselves with glory either. Almost six trillion in deficit spending, and THIS is all we have to show for it?!

That 540 million or so given to Solyndra was just sure genius. Probably had some scientist tell them to do that one.

RR

Norm,

I agree with your semantics on faith and religion. The AGW crowd believes in it as fervently as any person of any faith I have seen. They also seem to want to burn heretics at the stake.

RR

Really? Since most of it is "forged" can you tell me who is guilty of the forgery and the papers concerned?

http://www.climategate.com/

I did ask you to provide some original scientific source information: simply linking to a denialist blog site is pointless - I can find a dozen in 5 minutes and all are equally worthless. As a point of interest, which version of non-AGW do you support: there are several:

Global warming isn't happening
Global warming is happening but it's all natural
Global warming is happening but human contribution is puny
Global warming has happened but it stopped in 1998
Global warming is happening but the outcome will never be as severe as predicted

Hardly a coherent or consistent denialist viewpoint!

What is "the political aim" of the science behind AGW?

Global wealth redistribution in the guise of saving the planet. The Kyoto protocol was set up for this express purpose, and europeans were at it's head in order to hit back at US economic growth.

Laughable. An unsupported conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure. I suppose NASA never put people on the moon as well. Odd that Europeans are making an effort to reduce CO2 output if it's so damaging economically.

And yes, even some of those on the right have been seduced by it. But the calamity that was called for 10 years ago has not happened. Scientists cannot predict next year's hurricanes accurately, much less climate change.

A calamity wasn't predicted to happen by now: the calamity will be insidious and may take decades to play out fully. And your confusing isolated events with a trend. If I turn the thermostat up in my house, I can't predict where an oxygen molecule will be, but I can say that the temperature will rise.

While I do believe in science, I do not believe they have this one right.

Belief isn't an argument against evidence: you need to provide counter-evidence.

As you say, nothing is ever proven, and I see no reason to send our economy into an even bigger tail spin when no other country will do so.

There a re plenty of countries that are making an effort at implementing the Kyoto agreement. The UK is one of them. And it creates jobs.

The Chinese, Indians, Brazilians etc., don't seem to concerned about global warming, and they are busy drilling and exploring for oil, building coal plants etc.

They are also building nuclear power stations and installing solar energy.

I guess they don't believe the science either. But you EU types single out your boogey man, the US, as the biggest sinner in your religion of AGW.

Paranoia again. I'm not an "EU type" BTW. It's bureaucratic, expensive undemocratic and creates more problems than it solves.

Use that scientific minded brain to get the Chinese onboard with this hoax, and maybe I will listen more.

The Chinese are already listening:

Mainland China has 14 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give a five- or six-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 60 GWe by 2020, then 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

China has set up 8 tidal power stations with a total installed capacity of 6120KW, of which, the biggest is the Jiangxia tidal experiment power station in Zhejiang Province, with an installed capacity of 3200KW, operated in 1980, and five generating plants connected to grid in 1985.

http://www.inverter-china.com/blog/articles/green-energy/tid...

At the end of 2011, wind power in the People's Republic of China accounted for 45 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generating capacity,[1][2] and China has identified wind power as a key growth component of the country's economy.[3] With its large land mass and long coastline, China has exceptional wind resources.[4] China aims to “have 100 gigawatts (GW) of on-grid wind power generating capacity by the end of 2015 and to generate 190 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of wind power annually”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

The amount of electricity generated with solar power within China itself is so far comparatively small: as of the end of 2008, the solar power capacity attached to the national grid (i.e., excluding autonomous systems) was under 100 MW (Megawatt), i..e merely 0.01% of the nation's power generation capacity... The government has announced plans to expand the installed capacity to 1,800 MW by 2020. If Chinese companies manage to develop low cost, reliable solar modules, then the sky is the limit for a country that is desperate to reduce its dependence on coal and oil imports as well as the pressure on its environment by using renewable energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Ready to listen more?

Since you seem to have some mind reading skills, and you assume I am faith based, tell me what faith I have?

The faith that you are right and legions of professional scientists who study climate change are all wrong.

Out of curiosity, how many Prime Ministers in the UK have been athiest rationalists? Or, how many have campaigned on that, saying religion is a load of tosh?

Nobody really cares. Anyone who campaigned on the slogan that "religion is a load of tosh" would be laughed out of the election.

Contrast with the Republicans who feel obliged to out-god each other and campaign on the slogan that science IS a load of tosh. I know which I prefer.

I have a challenge for you, Mr. Scientist....

go here...read what he says and then tell him he doesn't believe in science.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/table-of-conte......

Evidently he does. But he has mis-interpreted it. The IPCC has a web-site and his CO2 saturation point is answered there.

http://realclimate.org/

They like taking questions. Why don't you ask them why they're engaged in trying to destroy the US? Several of them teach at US universities BTW.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

Before you do embarrass yourself, know that he has degrees from Princeton and Harvard.

Degrees in what? English? History? Basket-weaving?

Yet another denialist blog. So what?

You seem to have some sort of ego the size of jupiter that thinks that anyone who dares disagree with you is somehow less intelligent. I find your sanctimony and egomania most distasteful.

Ah, the gratuitous insult. The hallmark of either some who knows they haven't any evidence to support their assertions, or who has been hitting the bottle (or both).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Old news that didn't amount to anything then and hasn't changed anything. But yet again, you rely on someone else to form your opinions. Did you actually read the leaked e-mails?

In either case, there are more important issues, like the EU imploding completely. As stupid as we Americans may appear, you in Europe look even dumber for your nanny states that are completely unsustainable. Nice work there, cousin.

Another gratuitous insult. As I told you earlier, I don't like the EU and never have. Why you should hold me responsible for it's travails is beyond me.

I think that students should be made aware of all viewpoints, including Creation theory and Intelligent Design.

Perhaps in a philosophy class, but not as part of a science course, They are faith-based positions unsupported by any evidence. Science requires evidence or it is nothing.

Whether you like the fact or not, Plato actually deduced the existence of a Creator with characteristics of the Judeo-Christian deity by rigorous logic alone. Note that he lived in a Pagan culture, and probably was not familiar with the Book of Genesis

I neither like nor dislike it, but his deduction is open to interpretation. Thomas Aquinas came up with similar proofs which are nothing of the sort.

In any case, I though that faith was an important concept in religion. If you could prove God's existence then it would remove the need for belief.

There is also a fair amount of evidence to support Intelligent Design.

Such as?

Note, BTW, that the most common objection to the account of creation in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis depends upon the fundamentalist interpretation of the word "day" to mean the period of twenty-four hours from sunrise to sunrise. Alas, the text itself shows this interpretation to be impossible: the sun does not come into existence until the third "day" of creation. There is, however, another sense of the word "day" that is fully consistent with the account: in prhases such as "in Caesar's day" and "in the present day," the word "day" means an era. When one reads the account of creation in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis with this understanding, one discovers that it is fully consistent with both the "Big Bang" theory and Darwin's Evolution of the Species.

Since Genesis was originally in Hebrew and has passed down to us via translations from Greek and been re-written by a committee of King James's scholars, I should think it has become a bit garbled in the process. There is also the business of working back through the "begats", as Bishop Ussher did, to deduce an age of the Earth of 6,000 years. It won't stand any scrutiny today.

There are actually major problems of corruption in the supposed "science" of "global warming" (now called "global climate change" -- the Earthc's average temperature actually dropped in the first decade of the present millennium).

I'm afraid that's a common fallacy amongst AGW deniers. see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Unfortuantely, people with an agenda to use fear of major environmental change to advance a political agenda that would impose major restrictions on our freedom gained control of government agencies that fund research in this area several decades ago and have systematically terminated funding of researchers who reported evidence that did not support the conclusions that they desired, essentially forcing researchers to distort or suppress such results if they wanted to continue work in this area. These individuals also started new technical conferences and journals in this area and used the "peer review" process to suppress papers that presented conclusiosn that they disfavored, so those who had contrary results even without government funding could not get published. The scandal involving e-mail correspondence addressing what to do about research that yielded the "wrong" results at a British research institution three or four years ago may have been the first major public glimpse into the consequent distortion, but it is only the proverbial tip of the iceburg. Independent analysis of global temperature history has shown even the "Hockey Stick Curve" presented to the public three or four decades ago to be wrong.

The same conspiracy theory as used by RR. Where's the evidence for this??

There's also another reality about the "global warming" fraud. The climatological models which show extreme excursions do so precisely because they omit negative feedback mechanisms that stabilize the actual environment. Back in the late 1970's and early 1980's, some "scientists" (?) published results of computer simulations predicting that the Earth's mean temperature would increase enough to completely melt the polar ice caps by the year 2000, yet it did not happen. The problem was the omission of the feedback mechanisms present in the real environment from their models.

The IPCC models use both forms of feedback. Unfortunately, virtually al the feedback is positive. There are a few negatives from clouds, but not enough. See Realclimate.org. But where's the evidence for your assertion?

As to Darwin's theory of Evolution of the Species, there are some serious questions. To date, nobody has observed a biological process in which one speices has evolved into another -- which is precisely what Darwin's theorty would require.

Given the timescales required, it's hardly surprising that species aren't popping up every five minutes. Darwin recognised this. But speciation has been observed. Spartina anglica, a marsh grass appeared as a new species in 1870 in the south coast of England. It is a hybrid between two others. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartina_anglica

There is also the interesting case of the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) and Lesser Black-backed gull (L. fuscus). In Europe they are separate species and do not interbreed. However, if you track the Herring gull westwards and the Lesser black back eastwards, they meet in Japan as the same species with no differentiation. Starting in Japan, therefore, and heading east or west, you'll see speciation in action.

There are also the famous missing links, which admittedly could be extinct species -- but we don't even have fossils for them.

There will always be missing links. If you take a two closely related species in the fossil record, say Australopithecus africanus and A. robustus, there will be a gap. If you find an intermediary, there will be two gaps, and so on. Creationists will never be satisfied.

Thus, doubts as to the veracity of Darwin's theory are well-founded -- and this fact also should be presented in the classroom, rather than presenting Darwin's theory as though it were established fact.

There has been a lot of work done since Darwin's day. Unlike religion, science progresses. No biologist nowadays has any doubts about the truth of evolution.

I think that these comments have adequately addressed the rest of the issues that you raised.

No, they haven't.

It's not so easy to do the research necessary to refute anyting when one is systematically refused (1) funding for such research, (2) access to raw data, and (3) access to conferences and journals in the field in which to publish one's results. Unfortunately, that's what those who control the funding and the journals have done

1) You don't need funding to look at data that's already been collected.
2) Have you applied for accesss to the raw data (or is this all part of the conspiracy theory?)
3) You mean scientific journals are kept from public view???

You might try and contact Steve McKintyre at climateaudit.com He's a disbeliever in AGW but at least he had a stab at analysing the data. So far he's found a discrepancy of 0.1 degree. I wish him good luck.


At the time the Kyoto protocol was agreed, the US was the largest emitter of CO2.

Factually not true. India and China produced considerably more carbon dioxide then, and continue to do so.

In order for the Protocol to enter into legal effect, it was required that the Protocol was ratified by 55 Parties including 55% of 1990 Annex I emissions (Dessai, 2001, p. 3).[48] The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

In 1990 China's emissions were half that of the USA. The protocol came into force in 1997, but used 1990 as the baseline year. China overtook the USA in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_emissions_China_USA_19...

In 1997, China produced ~3.1 gigagrams of CO2. The USA produced ~6.4 gg.

https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/1218.p...

But that said, there's also a glaring omission in the papers that allege carbon dioxide to be a problem. Nobody to date has done a study on the impact of the concentration of carbon dioxide on the rate of photosynthesis in a plant's leaves or the consequent growth of plants. Le Chartelier's Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Chatelier%27s_principle for Wikipedia article) predicts that an increase in concentration of carbon dioxide would accelerate the rate of photosynthesis, causing plants to grow more quickly and thus increasing the leaf area on which the photosynthesis occurs. It should be quite easy to study this in a laboratory: simply grow several flats of identical plants under identical artificial lighting in chambers with controlled atmospheres having various (natural and artificially high) concentrations of carbon dioxide.

There have been several studies on the effect of increasing concentration on plant uptake.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-...

Plants do grow more efficiently and I believe that commercial growers pipe CO2 into plants under polythene to boost yields. However, plants can't keep up, as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise, year on year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2

Most Americans don't consider a candidate's religion when they go to the polls on election day.

Then why on earth do virtually all Republican candidates feel obliged to trumpet their religious opinions. It's relatively recent. I can't recall Nixon or Eisenhower having anything to say on the subject. I think it began with Ronald Reagan who publicly proclaimed that the end times were close.

Atheism (literally, the affirmative belief in the absence of any deity) is itself a religion

Only in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Laughable. An unsupported conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure. I suppose NASA never put people on the moon as well. Odd that Europeans are making an effort to reduce CO2 output if it's so damaging economically.

Well with all the conspiracy theories aimed at the US, I thought turn around was fair play.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-ca...

From The Guardian even.

You think China is a "green" Country? LOL

Dream on Macduff.

RR

The faith that you are right and legions of professional scientists who study climate change are all wrong.

Try answering the question, pompous one. What is my faith?

RR

Nobody really cares. Anyone who campaigned on the slogan that "religion is a load of tosh" would be laughed out of the election.

So, your country is no better than mine. Yet you feel the need to lecture.

It would amaze your narrow view of the world the degrees that some Republicans have, and probably even more the disciplines that are studied at religious schools. You are so insular.

RR

Ah, the gratuitous insult.

Well, you started it.

RR

Another gratuitous insult.

Is this autobiography on your part?

RR

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

Ten years ago, on June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. His testimony coincided with a very hot, dry period (much worse than the summer of 1998), and subsequent polls showed that, as a result of his testimony, the public believed that the 1988 drought was caused by human-induced global warming.

At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model was one of many similar calculations that were used in the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC", 1990), which stated that "when the latest atmospheric models are run with the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, their simulation of climate is generally realistic on large scales."

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.

I have tons more. Apparently you missed this same discussion years ago on this and other boards.

Go and spew your love for "Green" China, but it only proves you have a political agenda, and it has nothing to do with saving the planet.

You are a watermelon...green on the outside, red on the inside.

RR

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13756

In a stunning slap at the sovereignty of everyone on the other six continents, the European Court of Justice last week said it was just fine and dandy for the European Union to levy fees on planes flying elsewhere.

As the Europeans see it, global warming is so bad that they have to tax ... us.

....And the EU's not just planning to hike the tax — it's already mandated it. By 2020, it will tax planes for using more than half their 2002 fuel, and while newer planes are more fuel efficient, they're not making gains close to that level.

According to Fitch, United, Continental, Delta and American are likely to get hit the most, because about 20 percent of their revenue comes from European travel.....

In 2009, the last year for which we have good data, China emitted 142 percent of the US total of "greenhouse gases" — up from just 51 percent 10 years earlier.

But the Europeans aren't willing to let futility stop them from launching a perfectly disastrous crusade — or even from exporting it to America.

RR

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR021405.html

Many economic studies predicted Kyoto would have resulted in massive economic losses for the U.S. economy. A Clinton Administration report estimated that stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels would cost 900,000 U.S. jobs in 2005.7 This figure rises to 1.1 million annually from 2008-2112, according to DRI/McGraw-Hill.8 Of course, extending emission caps to Kyoto's demands of 7 percent below 1990 levels would have an even greater impact on employment losses.9

Moreover, economic data from The Department of Energy predict that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink $397 billion by 2010.10 The regulatory and tax costs of complying could be as high as $338 billion (1992 dollars) annually from 2008 to 2012.11 Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, finds that Kyoto would cost the world economy as much as $274 trillion by 2100.12 Consumers would also feel the pinch as housing, gas, medical, and food costs would skyrocket, as demand for these increase.13

If the case for Kyoto is to be made, supporters need to explain how spending untold amounts of money on a treaty that will have little impact on global warming are worth the carnage it is sure to generate today.

RR

Does it bother anyone that one of the High Priests of Global warming in the US, Al Gore, would become filthy rich if his advice were taken?

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

First, identify prominent purveyors of global warming doom-and-gloom. The bigger the media ham, the better. For a jumping-off list, I suggest Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm......

Sometimes you might get lucky and discover a deluded alarmist who has beat you to the punch and offered such a bet on his or her own volition. For example, I just stumbled across this blog post from Joe Romm offering to bet even money that the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free by the year 2020. Talk about taking candy from a baby! I will be contacting Joe immediately. I urge all readers of this column to do the same.

I will bet you any amount of money, Snodgrasse, that the Artic will not be ice free in 2020. You game?

RR

Well with all the conspiracy theories aimed at the US, I thought turn around was fair play.

Simply adding to conspiracy theories doesn't get you anywhere - it merely serves to reinforce your prejudices.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/world-ca...

From The Guardian even.<

You think China is a "green" Country? LOL

Dream on Macduff.

It was you, was it not, that introduced the topic of China's energy consumption, on the basis that it wasn't making any effort to use renewables? I demonstrated that it was. You now introduce the straw man argument that I claimed China is "green": I made no such claim. I also told you that China overtook the USA in CO2 output in 2005.

Use evidence, not fake arguments.

Try answering the question, pompous one. What is my faith?

I did. The faith that you are right and legions of professional scientists who study climate change are all wrong.

So in two replies, we have:

1) A straw man argument.
2) A gratuitous insult.

You're powers of deductive logic are amazing!

So, your country is no better than mine. Yet you feel the need to lecture.


I'm not lecturing, merely making an observation that Republicans find it necessary to wear their religion openly.

It would amaze your narrow view of the world the degrees that some Republicans have, and probably even more the disciplines that are studied at religious schools. You are so insular.

The number of degrees that Republicans have is irrelevant to their airing religious beliefs in public. As for Disciplines in religious schools, do you mean, for example, Creation studies?

http://www.nwcreation.net/colleges.html

And to finish, yet another gratuitous insult.

Ah, the gratuitous insult.

Well, you started it.

Where?

Another gratuitous insult.

Is this autobiography on your part?

Not sure what you mean. Can you please stick to the subject in hand.

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Figure 2 compares this to the observed temperature changes from three independent sources. Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. Lower atmosphere temperatures measured by ascending thermistors on weather balloons show a decline of 0.36°C and satellites measuring the same layer (our only truly global measure) showed a decline of 0.24°C.

I note that you pick the Cato institute, a well known denialist organisation to make your interpretations for you.

That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C

The IPCC doesn't make "predictions": it makes projections based on different scenarios. As ever, Dr. Hansen presented three different projections, labelled A, B and C.

See what the climate scientists themselves have to say:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansen...


The bottom line? Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise!

I.e. Far from being wrong as deniers like to assert, Hansen's model was accurate.

I have tons more. Apparently you missed this same discussion years ago on this and other boards.

I expect your "tons more" are equally valueless. For the umpteenth time, try looking at some science not denialist blogs.

Go and spew your love for "Green" China, but it only proves you have a political agenda, and it has nothing to do with saving the planet.

Completely, utterly, totally irrelevant. Can't you deniers actually construct an intellectual argument that an adult would recognise as having some value?

You are a watermelon...green on the outside, red on the inside.

My politics are also irrelevant to the truth of scientific enquiry. I am, however, a Conservative voter.

In a stunning slap at the sovereignty of everyone on the other six continents, the European Court of Justice last week said it was just fine and dandy for the European Union to levy fees on planes flying elsewhere.

As the Europeans see it, global warming is so bad that they have to tax ... us.

....And the EU's not just planning to hike the tax — it's already mandated it. By 2020, it will tax planes for using more than half their 2002 fuel, and while newer planes are more fuel efficient, they're not making gains close to that level.

According to Fitch, United, Continental, Delta and American are likely to get hit the most, because about 20 percent of their revenue comes from European travel.....

In 2009, the last year for which we have good data, China emitted 142 percent of the US total of "greenhouse gases" — up from just 51 percent 10 years earlier.

But the Europeans aren't willing to let futility stop them from launching a perfectly disastrous crusade — or even from exporting it to America.

I have, more than once, told you I have little time for the EU. Aviation is a long way from being the most serious source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Many economic studies predicted Kyoto would have resulted in massive economic losses for the U.S. economy. A Clinton Administration report estimated that stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels would cost 900,000 U.S. jobs in 2005.7 This figure rises to 1.1 million annually from 2008-2112, according to DRI/McGraw-Hill.8 Of course, extending emission caps to Kyoto's demands of 7 percent below 1990 levels would have an even greater impact on employment losses.9

Moreover, economic data from The Department of Energy predict that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink $397 billion by 2010.10 The regulatory and tax costs of complying could be as high as $338 billion (1992 dollars) annually from 2008 to 2012.11 Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, finds that Kyoto would cost the world economy as much as $274 trillion by 2100.12 Consumers would also feel the pinch as housing, gas, medical, and food costs would skyrocket, as demand for these increase.13

If the case for Kyoto is to be made, supporters need to explain how spending untold amounts of money on a treaty that will have little impact on global warming are worth the carnage it is sure to generate today.

And how many of the denialist studies include the costs of doing nothing? Devastation to agriculture and sea level rise being the most obvious. They aren't factored in at all.

Does it bother anyone that one of the High Priests of Global warming in the US, Al Gore, would become filthy rich if his advice were taken?

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

I don't know what point you're trying to make about Gore. The link doesn't say anything about him.

I will bet you any amount of money, Snodgrasse, that the Artic will not be ice free in 2020. You game?

By ice-free, you mean the summer as indicated by
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_std...

and not the entire year?

If so, yes.

I stopped reading through your replies about three or four down, Snodgrasse.

I also looked through my previous posts, and noticed a tone that is not becoming a constructive debate. I have already gone through so much of this before and all the other criticisms of my country by Europeans that I have fallen into a default setting that puts me very suspicious of Europeans in general. I have been called many things here, like a nazi, a racist, ignorant, and "non science" believing before, so I just figured you were yet another one that feels if I do not agree with them, then I have a less than intelligent thought process.

I have good reasons for my world view, and you might find it surprising that not all here in the US will accept dictation from Brussels, whether it be in the form of Kyoto, which was designed deliberately to emissions levels from 1990, or the ICC, which was a European trump card on US foreign policy.

Europeans will rail against the US whenever they get the chance, but will defend countries like China, the old Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda quickly and fervently. Europeans denigrate Americans not only in foreign policy, but as a people, and I find it all rather tiresome, given the warts and blemishes you have.

Back to the point, I will ask you a simple question. If life hangs in the balance due to carbon emissions, do you really think per capita statistics are relevant? I have noticed on these boards and in your media that Europeans will use whatever benchmark puts the US in the worst light possible. For carbon emissions, it is per capita, for foreign aid, it is gdp, but in military spending it is total dollars.

China has some of the dirtiest cities in the world, and is hardly green, yet no one seems to want to include them in carbon reduction. Instead, they go after only the US. Europe seems to have only one target in mind when they come up with proposed supranational treaties and regulation.

Kyoto was perhaps the most obvious one, and the 1990 targets did not go un-noticed here. Some points we noticed about this treaty. Thse information is dated obviously, but the suspicion of European motives, much like you are suspicious of ours, is current.

European (and Japanese) economic growth has stagnated since 1990, while the US economy has grown like crazy. By setting the target date back to 1990, rather than just starting from today, the treaty is effectively trying to roll back the economic growth in the US that other major world economies did not enjoy.

This difference in economic growth is a real sore spot for continental Europeans. In 1990, Germany was reunified, and Germany inherited a whole country full of polluting inefficient factories from the old Soviet days. Most of the factories have been closed in the last decade, giving Germany an instant one-time leg up in meeting the treaty targets, but only if the date was set back to 1990, rather than starting today.

Since 1990, the British have had a similar effect from the closing of a number of old dirty Midlands coal mines and switching fuels from very dirty coal burned inefficiently to more modern gas and oil furnaces.

Since 1990, the Russians have an even greater such effect, given low economic growth and the closure of thousands of atrociously inefficient communist-era industries.

Now, about faith. Do you think faith based religious institutions in the US are only teaching intelligent design or creationism. Do you think Universities like Notre Dame, Boston College, Depaul, SMU, BYU, are not teaching relevant courses in science and other disciplines?

It may come as a shock to you, but Europe is not viewed as always being of benign intent, with some superior knowledge or culture that is always for human good. I can certainly continue insults, as that is something I am used to on this board. Or we can try to find some common ground somewhere.

Up to you.

RR

I am agonostic, btw.

And, I can demonstrate how Al Gore was poised to make a ton of money off Carbon trading. This is the puzzling part to me. Again, if the survival of Earth is in the balance, why stop carbon emissions in the US only to send them off to China, India or Brazil?

If the total is not being reduced, why bother?

King Obama will not allow the US to drill off our shores, but is happy as a clam to help the Brazilians do the same, and said he hopes the US will be their biggest customer. It all sounds rather hypocritical to me, and gives the notion that carbon emissions, drilling for oil, building Nuclear power plants etc., are only a problem if the United States does it.

Does mother Earth care if the carbon was Chinese? Is Gaia worried about per capita stats?

RR

I stopped reading through your replies about three or four down, Snodgrasse.

Yes, a good way to banish the truth from your mind is just to ignore it. A very common tactic employed by AGW deniers.

I also looked through my previous posts, and noticed a tone that is not becoming a constructive debate.

You mean all those ad hominem attacks you seem to sign off with aren't any use after all?

I have already gone through so much of this before and all the other criticisms of my country by Europeans that I have fallen into a default setting that puts me very suspicious of Europeans in general.

Wow! Suspicious of 500m people. I think that paranoia of yours requires some attention.

I have been called many things here, like a nazi, a racist, ignorant,

Not by me...

...and "non science" believing before,...

...Which you have repeatedly shown to be true.

so I just figured you were yet another one that feels if I do not agree with them, then I have a less than intelligent thought process.

You're making unfounded assumptions, and attributing thoughts to me that I haven't voiced and for which you have no evidence.

I have good reasons for my world view, and you might find it surprising that not all here in the US will accept dictation from Brussels,

Similar to the viewpoint of many here in the U.K. - myself included. Though I am not aware that Brussels can dictate to anyone outside the EU.

whether it be in the form of Kyoto, which was designed deliberately to emissions levels from 1990

And which was set up by the United Nations, not the EU

or the ICC, which was a European trump card on US foreign policy.

If you mean the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), then that too is a UN body, and not a "European trump card".

Europeans will rail against the US whenever they get the chance,

Paranoia.

... but will defend countries like China, the old Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda quickly and fervently.

You mean the same China that was castigated across Europe for killing demonstrators in Tianenmen Square? Or the Old Soviet Union which half of Europe was oppressed by and which the other half had tanks guarding against an invasion? Or the same Saddam Hussein that cost British as well as American lives? Or the same Al Queda that blows Europeans up? Yes we sing the praises of each one every single morning while chanting "Death to the Great US Satan" and buring old glory in our living rooms. I'm still covered in the smoke from this morning's exercise. You really are giving Paranoia a good run around this morning!

Europeans denigrate Americans not only in foreign policy, but as a people, and I find it all rather tiresome, given the warts and blemishes you have.

And we also find it rather tiresome listening to this whinging. GET A GRIP!.

China has some of the dirtiest cities in the world, and is hardly green, yet no one seems to want to include them in carbon reduction.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-unveils-carbon-emissi...

HONG KONG (MarketWatch) -- China on Thursday set its first targets designed to slow carbon dioxide emissions by the end of the next decade, setting out what could be the framework for a deal ahead of a meeting of global leaders on climate change.

China is a signatory to the Kyoto agreement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signator...

As for your remarks about economic growth (taken, I expect, from a Denialist blog), there are many factors involved. I repeat the point I made earlier: if adopting measures to reduce CO2 output - and thereby incidentally improving efficiency and reducing costs - is detrimental to economic growth, why has Europe generally embraced an international agreement, while the USA has rejected it?

Now, about faith. Do you think faith based religious institutions in the US are only teaching intelligent design or creationism

No. But a faith based approach to teaching science is not the right way to approach it. In such places, faith will always trump science. Thus, Darwin and evolution are wrong because the Bible says so. The Earth must be 6,000 years old because computations derived from the Bible demonstrate it. The physics of radioactive decay must be wrong, as must geology and even history. It's a slippery slope and wrong.

It may come as a shock to you, but Europe is not viewed as always being of benign intent,

You don't say!

with some superior knowledge or culture that is always for human good.

To further reinforce your carapace of paranoia, I can say exactly the same about the USA. Neither approach is much use as it is founded upon prejudice.

I can certainly continue insults, as that is something I am used to on this board.

And something you excel at (nice to have a strength, isn't it?)

Or we can try to find some common ground somewhere.

I rather think it's more up to you, as you are the self-confessed insult supplier.

And, I can demonstrate how Al Gore was poised to make a ton of money off Carbon trading.

I don't know if he is or isn't - and it doesn't really matter. Is there something wrong with the profit motive when it comes to environmentalism?

This is the puzzling part to me. Again, if the survival of Earth is in the balance, why stop carbon emissions in the US only to send them off to China, India or Brazil?

It's a good question and one which deserves a full answer. Unfortunately, I can't give it because it bothers me as well. I think it's more an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude.

If the total is not being reduced, why bother?

Sadly, the total isn't being reduced. It seems to be accelerating. Why bother? We have to start somewhere.

King Obama will not allow the US to drill off our shores,...

All those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are an illusion?

... but is happy as a clam to help the Brazilians do the same, and said he hopes the US will be their biggest customer. It all sounds rather hypocritical to me, and gives the notion that carbon emissions, drilling for oil, building Nuclear power plants etc., are only a problem if the United States does it.

Will you do something for me, please? Go and see a doctor about that paranoia of yours. It's not healthy.

Does mother Earth care if the carbon was Chinese? Is Gaia worried about per capita stats?

Absolutely not! But in curing the problem, you must first recognise that it's real, and not some giant conspiracy.

Wow! Suspicious of 500m people. I think that paranoia of yours requires some attention.

All 500 Million, no, but your media is chock full of disparaging comments, almost daily, about the US as a people and a culture. I am not going to give examples as I have done it before and I don't have the time, or give examples of how Americans were treated badly simply because Europeans did not like who was in the White House.

Nor will I give the opinion polls I have seen across Europe that show they think the US is the biggest threat to world peace. There are many examples all over the internet of systemic anti-Americanism in Europe, which goes way beyond mere differences in foreign policy. You dismiss it as paranoia, but the actual evidence shows it most certainly is a bit more than that.

You too are making unfounded assumptions, and also need to "get a grip". Because a person does not join the global warming alarmist bandwagon, it does not mean they reject science in general. This was the first preposterous statement you made many posts ago about me, simply because I am not in your camp on this one.

No. But a faith based approach to teaching science is not the right way to approach it. In such places, faith will always trump science. Thus, Darwin and evolution are wrong because the Bible says so. The Earth must be 6,000 years old because computations derived from the Bible demonstrate it. The physics of radioactive decay must be wrong, as must geology and even history. It's a slippery slope and wrong.

I have never argued any of that, have I? Did I say that the Earth is only 6000 years old? Did I deny carbon dating and radioactive decay or geology or history? You have lumped me in with creationists simply because I do not buy the AGW theory. This original insult and insinuation was made by you, not me.

However, you must be referring to our middle and high schools, and not our colleges and universities. The US has lead and continues to lead in many scientific fields, so somebody somewhere is studying something other than creationism or intelligent design. Now, it is true that sometimes, you hear in the news about some school district wanting to teach creationism or ID in the schools, but it is not that widespread. It is made to appear that way in European media and some of our own, but it isn't much of an issue in the vast majority of the US. You too seem a victim of your own prejudices.


Or the Old Soviet Union which half of Europe was oppressed by and which the other half had tanks guarding against an invasion? Or the same Saddam Hussein that cost British as well as American lives? Or the same Al Queda that blows Europeans up? Yes we sing the praises of each one every single morning while chanting "Death to the Great US Satan" and buring old glory in our living rooms.

Actually, most of the tanks, personnel and other equipment were American that were defending the west from the Soviet Union, a country many in Europe did not see as a big threat and thought it was the US who was causing the issues of the cold war. You also forget that the demonstrations in Western Europe were always against the US, never the Soviet Union. And yes, many in Europe have defended or excused the actions of Islamists as a result of something the US had done. Before the 2003 war, Hussein was made out almost to be like Mother Teresa on this board and in other places. I have seen this for myself, so it isn't paranoia, it is fact.

If you mean the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)...

NO, I meant the ICC. Nothing to do with climate, but another pet project of the EU, like Kyoto, and another source of criticism from Europe. Like your assertion that not wanting to sign up to AGW alarmism means you reject all science, anyone opposed to the ICC meant that they were ok with war crimes. Each of those is a rather ignorant conclusion.

Originally, China, India and other so called developing nations were exempted. The economic concerns in the US were also genuine and fact based. Sad you just see that as simply paranoia.

RR

Sadly, the total isn't being reduced. It seems to be accelerating. Why bother? We have to start somewhere.

So start with the real problem. China. According to that link I gave a few posts back, Europe and the US have reduced carbon emissions by about the same percentage, while China, India, and a few others have shown dramatic increases. The US reduced it's emissions all without signing up to Kyoto even!

Usually, at this point someone will throw out the per capita stat again, which is irrelevant to me.

Absolutely not! But in curing the problem, you must first recognise that it's real, and not some giant conspiracy.

You say now China is also a concern, but back in the 90's, the target was the US, and AGW types would always throw per capita stats around. China and others were exempt. The EU wanted a roll back to 1990 levels and there were reasons for that. Did you miss that part in a previous post?

Wanting cleaner air, cleaner water, and maintaining preservation of the natural landscape are all splendid ideas, and very much worthwhile I certainly want it as well, but for you or anyone else to deny some of the other parts of these treaties that have seemed to be specifically targeted in one certain direction and also point to global wealth redistribution schemes, is also to stick your head in the sand.

RR

All those rigs in the Gulf of Mexico are an illusion?

Obama has placed moratoriums on the use of many of the rigs and banning of exploration, while encouraging most other countries to go ahead with the same activity, Brazil in particular, where he hopes the US becomes it's biggest customer. The House did try to reverse a lot of his actions, thankfully.

Obama is doing everything he can to stop the US from developing it's own resources, and at the same time encouraging other nations to do so. He also has thrown money down the toilet in green energy companies that have gone bankrupt. A more lengthy description of all this is probably necessary, but just don't have the time at the moment.

Because a person does not join the global warming alarmist bandwagon, it does not mean they reject science in general.

You're rejecting the physics, the geochemistry and the biology simply because you don't like the results and/or you think there's a conspiracy behind the project. I have absolutely no problem with anyone rejecting a scientific result PROVIDED they can give a SCIENTIFIC reason why. You haven't and, more importantly, you can't (so far).

This is why you, and all AGW deniers are anti-science. It's that simple.

I have never argued any of that, have I? Did I say that the Earth is only 6000 years old? Did I deny carbon dating and radioactive decay or geology or history? You have lumped me in with creationists simply because I do not buy the AGW theory. This original insult and insinuation was made by you, not me.

You can't even read your own question. Here it is again:

Do you think faith based religious institutions in the US are only teaching intelligent design or creationism. Do you think Universities like Notre Dame, Boston College, Depaul, SMU, BYU, are not teaching relevant courses in science and other disciplines?

The question you put to me is, "are these institutions only teaching intelligent design or creationism?" I didn't give an answer that concerned your opinions, simply one that referred to "these institutions". I therefore haven't "lumped you in with creationists." This, I'm afraid, is simply another example of your inability to construct a logical, scientific argument. It's a non-sequitur!

However, you must be referring to our middle and high schools, and not our colleges and universities. The US has lead and continues to lead in many scientific fields, so somebody somewhere is studying something other than creationism or intelligent design.

I didn't say they weren't! You asked me about "faith based religious institutions". Stop moving the goalposts!

Now, it is true that sometimes, you hear in the news about some school district wanting to teach creationism or ID in the schools, but it is not that widespread. It is made to appear that way in European media and some of our own, but it isn't much of an issue in the vast majority of the US. You too seem a victim of your own prejudices.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "prejudice"? It means to pre-judge, that is to make a decision or form an opinion before you know the facts. When you AGREE that some faith-based school districts want to teach creationism, you are agreeing with me that the problem exists, irrespective of its size. It is not therefore, a prejudgement. It is not a prejudice. Your argument is, again, a non-sequitur.

Actually, most of the tanks, personnel and other equipment were American that were defending the west from the Soviet Union, a country many in Europe did not see as a big threat and thought it was the US who was causing the issues of the cold war.

Evidence for that statement, please.

You also forget that the demonstrations in Western Europe were always against the US, never the Soviet Union.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/feature-boycotts-countries....
To protest against the Soviet Union's invasion of Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland withdrew from Melbourne Olympic Games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring
Like the Italian and French[54] Communist parties, the Communist Party of Finland denounced the [czech] occupation [by USSR].

I also recall a demonstration in Trafalgar Square about the same occupation.

You may recall that the destruction of the Berlin Wall was also a joint effort by the East and West German populace.

And yes, many in Europe have defended or excused the actions of Islamists as a result of something the US had done. Before the 2003 war, Hussein was made out almost to be like Mother Teresa on this board and in other places.

Not least by the US government, as he was seen as a bulwark against Iran.

NO, I meant the ICC. Nothing to do with climate, but another pet project of the EU, like Kyoto, and another source of criticism from Europe. Like your assertion that not wanting to sign up to AGW alarmism means you reject all science, anyone opposed to the ICC meant that they were ok with war crimes. Each of those is a rather ignorant conclusion.

Now you've lost me. I don't know what the ICC is or what relevance it has to climate change (though I assume you're not talking about the International Cricket Council.)

Originally, China, India and other so called developing nations were exempted. The economic concerns in the US were also genuine and fact based.

So for the third, and hopefully final time, why did the EU saddle itself with a binding pledge to reduce CO2 output if it was so destructive of our economies?

So start with the real problem. China.

I thought you said there wasn't a problem. If AGW is not a real effect then China can emit as much greenhouse gas as it wants. In the last post, you said you don't buy into the science of AGW. So, do you or don't you? If you do, then China is a problem; if you don't, then China and India are not problems. First get your science straight.

You say now China is also a concern, but back in the 90's, the target was the US,

As I have repeatedly told you, the US was not "the target". when Kyoto was first signed, the USA was the largest emitter. Simple fact.

Wanting cleaner air, cleaner water, and maintaining preservation of the natural landscape are all splendid ideas, and very much worthwhile I certainly want it as well, but for you or anyone else to deny some of the other parts of these treaties that have seemed to be specifically targeted in one certain direction and also point to global wealth redistribution schemes, is also to stick your head in the sand.

A bit garbled, I'm afraid. Can you rephrase?

Obama has placed moratoriums on the use of many of the rigs and banning of exploration, while encouraging most other countries to go ahead with the same activity, Brazil in particular, where he hopes the US becomes it's biggest customer. The House did try to reverse a lot of his actions, thankfully.

Obama is doing everything he can to stop the US from developing it's own resources, and at the same time encouraging other nations to do so. He also has thrown money down the toilet in green energy companies that have gone bankrupt.

Shrugs shoulders.

This is why you, and all AGW deniers are anti-science. It's that simple.

And yet, your climate models have been wrong, wrong and wrong again.

The predictions of your "science" are just flat wrong, again and again.

Now, onto your first insult that those that do not want to join your global warming alarmism, yeah, "The End is Nigh, the end is nigh" as you do, you claim we do not believe in any science. Stuff and nonsense, sir.

I didn't say they weren't! You asked me about "faith based religious institutions". Stop moving the goalposts!

IN the US, faith based institutions do a far better job of educating people than their ts.government counter parts.

What you said I was, I am a person that rejects science. You said that Democrats voted down the Kyoto protocol because their constituents were soley moved by the Bible. That is outright horse dung.

In your previous posts, you lumped me in with creationists, even when I have said in my posts the Earth is billions of years old and saying outright I am agnostic. I am not in your camp on buying the global warming alarmism, so I have to get my guidance from the Book of Genesis, right. You are one funny person.

You may recall that the destruction of the Berlin Wall was also a joint effort by the East and West German populace.</i

My ass. Let's get real here. The Berlin wall came down because the Soviet Union was stared down by American Power. You people could not even fight a war against Serbia on your own. NATO, without the US, is pathetic and sad.


RR

Bit of a problem I had with quotation marks, but make no mistake here. NATO, without the US, and the funding by American tax payer dollars, is a joke. The political reality created the political structure, not some cunning European diplomatic initiative.

It was the power of the US, not Germany, France, or the UK, that stood up to the Soviets. They feared western europe like they feared an ice cream cone.

RR

I thought you said there wasn't a problem. If AGW is not a real effect then China can emit as much greenhouse gas as it wants. In the last post, you said you don't buy into the science of AGW. So, do you or don't you? If you do, then China is a problem; if you don't, then China and India are not problems. First get your science straight.

If carbon emissions were a problem, then surely the learned Europeans would see that China and India would need to be addressed, yet they were not. The first Kyoto protocol exempted them, and targeted the US. China and India were exempt as it would hurt their economies, but Europeans and the American left said it would not hurt the US economy. LOL.

You are the one that has to explain why you wanted to exempt China and India and the like, not me. I was pointing out the obvious flaws in treaties like Kyoto and it's naked attack on the US. It is up to you AGW believers to continue to defend a dreadful polluter like China. Oh sure, you will give your usual per capita non-sense and talk about how much money they spend on green energy compared to the US. Truth is, the us spends twice as much per capita as the Chinese on green assets, but you will not want to use per capita stats on this one. It will not put the US in the worst possible light.

RR

And yet, your climate models have been wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Please show me a link that demonstrates this.

The predictions of your "science" are just flat wrong, again and again.

You're growing a little repetitive. As I told you before, the IPCC does not make "predictions": it makes projections based on scenarios. Please show me a link that demonstrates they are wrong.

Now, onto your first insult that those that do not want to join your global warming alarmism, yeah, "The End is Nigh, the end is nigh" as you do, you claim we do not believe in any science. Stuff and nonsense, sir.

What point are you trying to make in this piece of garbled gibberish?

IN the US, faith based institutions do a far better job of educating people than their ts.government counter parts

By what criteria do you measure that? What analysis supports your assertion?

What you said I was, I am a person that rejects science.

Yes, that is self-evidently true.

You said that Democrats voted down the Kyoto protocol because their constituents were soley moved by the Bible. That is outright horse dung.

Laughable. You're just making this up. Show me where I said that.

In your previous posts, you lumped me in with creationists,

Laughable. You're just making this up. Show me where I said that.

I am not in your camp on buying the global warming alarmism, so I have to get my guidance from the Book of Genesis, right.

No, that's a straw man argument. You don't buy the global warming "alarmism" because you reject the science.

Look, it's easy. Just point me to a link that provides a rational, scientific reason why AGW is wrong. You keep saying you don't buy it, but you can't provide a coherent reason why.

You are one funny person.

I do my best.

Bit of a problem I had with quotation marks, but make no mistake here. NATO, without the US, and the funding by American tax payer dollars, is a joke. The political reality created the political structure, not some cunning European diplomatic initiative.

Did I make a claim that there was some "cunning European diplomatic initiative"?

It was the power of the US, not Germany, France, or the UK, that stood up to the Soviets.

Really? If the Soviet Union invaded had invaded Western Europe, would a US President have ordered a retaliation, bearing in mind (a) there was no liklihood of a Soviet invasion of the US and (b) it could have escalated into a nuclear exchange. Would Congress REALLY have taken the risk? I doubt it.

I never thought the Soviets would risk it anyway: their strategy was to play a long game. But a deterrent was a) a nuclear-armed France and b) a nuclear armed Britain. The USA was nice to have, but irrelevant really.

They feared western europe like they feared an ice cream cone.

I think they ignored it. Their borders were set along the iron curtain and that was enough.

If carbon emissions were a problem, then surely the learned Europeans would see that China and India would need to be addressed, yet they were not. The first Kyoto protocol exempted them, and targeted the US. China and India were exempt as it would hurt their economies, but Europeans and the American left said it would not hurt the US economy.

I agree that the exemptions granted to China and India in the Kyoto protocol were a bad step. The treaty is far from perfect, and I'm not an apologist for China (or India).

You are the one that has to explain why you wanted to exempt China and India and the like, not me. I was pointing out the obvious flaws in treaties like Kyoto and it's naked attack on the US.

You're making things up again. Where did I say I wanted to exempt China and India (as if it was in my power anyway!)

You seem blinkered to the obvious fact that the US wasn't a specific target. It really is like discussing things with a small child who puts his fingers in his ears and shouts "La-la not listening, not listening." A genuine exchange of intelligent views seems impossible.

Truth is, the us spends twice as much per capita as the Chinese on green assets, but you will not want to use per capita stats on this one. It will not put the US in the worst possible light.

As this is a "truth", can you provide some evidence to support it?

And yet, your climate models have been wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Please show me a link that demonstrates this.

It's obvious, isn't it?

If the models weren't wrong, it wouldn't be necessary to keep funding the research to put them right.

PetraM

If the models weren't wrong, it wouldn't be necessary to keep funding the research to put them right.

There is such a concept as refining them to make improvements! Such is the nature of any sort of mathematical or physical modelling.

If the models weren't wrong, it wouldn't be necessary to keep funding the research to put them right.

There is such a concept as refining them to make improvements! Such is the nature of any sort of mathematical or physical modelling.

Yes, my comment was partially tongue-in-cheek.

Nevertheless, I recall it being said* not so long ago and I certainly have no reason to believe things have improved significantly that the best way to validate a climate model was "to have a climate expert look at it and say if it 'felt right'".

And clearly that means the "accuracy" of a model is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

The science of climate modelling isn't quite as mature as many would have us believe.

PetraM

*On a radio 4 prog with climate experts discussing modelling. It may have been one of the mathematical programmes or might have been material world. About a couple of years ago, IIRC.

And clearly that means the "accuracy" of a model is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

Probably so. IIRC, one of the current IPCC models shows that doubling CO2 from its base (280 ppm) will cause a 3-4.5 deg C. rise, so there's some scope for refinement.

"The science of climate modelling isn't quite as mature as many would have us believe."

"Probably so. IIRC, one of the current IPCC models shows that doubling CO2 from its base (280 ppm) will cause a 3-4.5 deg C. rise, so there's some scope for refinement."

I can't see the science of climate modelling ever becoming a perfect science, so depending on where people may decide to set the bar of what's good enough evidence to take action, there will always be disagreement.

I wonder whether there are models that predict that doubling CO2 from its base will not cause a temperature rise and may even make our planet cooler?

If there are plausible alternative models of this kind then we could have a level field, where we may assess the strength of different models against each other, from a scientific perspective.

However if there are no plausible alternative models, then I guess we will have to do with one side trying to improve the existing models that predict global warming and the other side simply trying to discredit these models and objecting to their relevance.

I can't see the science of climate modelling ever becoming a perfect science, so depending on where people may decide to set the bar of what's good enough evidence to take action, there will always be disagreement.

Modelling is hardly ever (perhaps ever) perfect. There are always uncertainties and random events that perturb a model away from the ideal. The best it can do is give a framework or a close approximation of what a system does or will do within defined probabilities.

I wonder whether there are models that predict that doubling CO2 from its base will not cause a temperature rise and may even make our planet cooler?

I'm not aware of one: I think the modeller would have to ignore some physical laws to create it.

If there are plausible alternative models of this kind then we could have a level field, where we may assess the strength of different models against each other, from a scientific perspective.

Completely agree. It's always something I ask of AGW deniers - come up with an alternative model that explains the observations we've made and that gives a scientific explanation we can discuss. Off-hand dismissals on the grounds that you don't like the results or believe there to be a conspiracy theory are valueless. I really would like there to be such an alternative. But...

However if there are no plausible alternative models, then I guess we will have to do with one side trying to improve the existing models that predict global warming and the other side simply trying to discredit these models and objecting to their relevance.

There is no plausible alternative. So one side - the anti-scientific egos who think they know best - simply stands on the sidelines shouting illiterate clichés at the scientists.

You're growing a little repetitive. As I told you before, the IPCC does not make "predictions": it makes projections based on scenarios. Please show me a link that demonstrates they are wrong.

As are you. And is not predictions and projections a semantics thing.

No, that's a straw man argument. You don't buy the global warming "alarmism" because you reject the science

Actually, I was repeating what you implied.

I guess the reason I doubt Kyoto is that, if as you say, the science is absolutely certain and life on earth hangs in the balance, why exempt nations like India and China? The global treaty did not care about the fact that China will be belching forth coal filth for decades, but if the US tried to put ONE coal factory online, it was a detriment to the world.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/another-day-another-study...

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...

http://www.paulmacrae.com/

It is all over the net. just the first one's that came up.

I like the Hurricane predictions as well. Splat.


Laughable. You're just making this up. Show me where I said that

Yes, that is self-evidently true

You deny saying something in the same post that you most clearly keep "preaching" LOL.

Did you not say that all those that reject AGW where only guided by faith based beliefs? You do not remember what you typed? Your original post was mocking ALL republicans, to the letter, as being non science believers.

They are non science believers as they do not subscribe to the notion that China can do as it pleases, but the US has to shut down or ramp down it's economy. And don't give me that usual bunch of links trying to convince me that China is green. Yes, they spend a lot more total dollars on green assets, but not in per capita spending. LOL... Notice people shift the benchmark once again to put the US in the worst possible light.

http://www.mackinac.org/15493

However, in perspective, the difference may not seem so staggering. With 1.3 billion-plus people, China is the most populated nation on Earth, with more than a billion extra souls needing energy than the United States has. In terms of investment per capita, the $21 billion in “hard asset” spending by the United States (6.8 cents of so-called “clean energy” spending per person) is nearly double that of China’s $47 billion (3.5 cents of “clean energy” spending per person).

You have done your best to defend China, as I knew you would. They are the world's biggest polluter, but you throw per capita stats in our face, to put the US in the worst possible light. Well, shift the benchmark again, I suppose...use total dollars.

YOu tell me I am faith based, but I tell you I am agnostic. You say the science is irrefutable, yet no one cares what China and India are doing, at least not politically. I will tell you that the US will manage to reduce our emissions and invest in so called "green" technology, all without a supranational treaty that favors China over the US.

The earth is billions of years old, and it has gone through major climate change, and to think we can hasten it, or slow it down, is folly. However, we can do things to keep our air clean and our waters safer, etc. All in favor of that, but I don't want to scuttle our economy to do it, while China, Canada and Brazil do as they please without the uproar from Europe.

RR

Really? If the Soviet Union invaded had invaded Western Europe, would a US President have ordered a retaliation, bearing in mind (a) there was no liklihood of a Soviet invasion of the US and (b) it could have escalated into a nuclear exchange. Would Congress REALLY have taken the risk? I doubt it.

Good question. Look at the US graveyards in Europe when Nazi Germany never attacked us. You decide.


I never thought the Soviets would risk it anyway: their strategy was to play a long game. But a deterrent was a) a nuclear-armed France and b) a nuclear armed Britain. The USA was nice to have, but irrelevant really.

and then...

I think they ignored it. Their borders were set along the iron curtain and that was enough.

Irrelevant really? Move forward to a problem on your own continent, Serbia, that you could not solve yourself, either militarily or politically.....Your armed forces are a joke, and the Soviets knew it too. They probably thought they could take you whole without firing a shot, given most of you were demonstrating against the US the whole time. Don't blame them. Soft and weak.

You might have doubted our resolve, but I bet you the Soviets did not. MInd you, it would not have been for altruistic reasons completely. It would have been out of self preservation.

RR

The USA was nice to have, but irrelevant really.

I reread this statement several times. LOL.

Funniest damn thing ever!

Stick to science, as military questions and geo-politics is obviously not your game.

However, if true, I wish Europe would have told us this back in the 50's. Would have saved us some cash for sure.

RR

Folks,

This thread seems to have rapidly descended to swapping personal insults, and arguing about AGW and religion. As such it is off-topic for the board and for the thread topic, and has gone way beyond the bounds of Civil Discussion for Mutual Benefit.

Please now consider it CLOSED.

Foolish regards,
Alan
TMFBoing
Fool UK Community