DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

[white men can't jump]

What I would really like to see is collaboration between skeptic and believer scientists.

That will likely never happen because of the vested interests of both parties.

However that is unfortunate because the goal of science is to learn, I believe, not prestige and funding based on political or corporate agendas.

This kind of thing is why some scholars say we're currently in a "dark ages" type era. Priorities are all messed. The biggest victims are things like art and philosophy, but the orientation toward more material concerns has also impacted the way science is carried out and discoveries made. It's all about accumulation, prestige and the power that comes with those.

[Scraptor]

Bold 1: Is it?



There are many more examples but I think there are convinced minds around these parts.


Bold 2: I've downplayed nothing. The evidence is not there to back up the claims - bottom line. There has been a 25% in carbon dioxide in the last 17 years and the earth temperature has not risen. Oh, and I've said all along that individuals, corporations, and government should be striving to reduce pollution.


Bold 3: I don't like someone holding a gun to my head - sorry. The alarmists are essentially doing that with zero academic proof. There is all sorts of incidents of fudged or doctored "scientific" evidence. This is no different than Hank Paulson coming out and saying, "We need to bailout all the banks or else!" Look in to the outcome of Iceland and compare that to everyone other country who has gone the bailout route.

The evidence is there, you are simply choosing to see what you want to see. Picking 1997 as a starting point is, once again, far too short term in scale to really understand what is happening. As I pointed out in a previous link, the warming of the oceans is one possible explanation, but it's also possible that over many decades, things don't rise in a straight line but in a series of peaks and valleys.

And you want a collaboration between skeptics and believers? Here you go:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group was established to provide a robust, open measurement of surface temperatures, in a manner that addresses previous criticisms that temperature trends had been “cherry picked” or that “urban heat islands” provided a false picture of how fast temperatures on the Earth’s surface were rising. The Group is led by Dr. Robert Muller, a physicist who in the past had been notably critical of climate science methodology. The group is funded by a number of different sources, including Bill Gates’ Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

BEST has now released their data, and determined that their findings are well within the range of previous research. BEST’s findings indicate that in the past 50 years, the average land surface temperature of the Earth has increased about 0.911 degrees Celsius. Moreover, BEST concluded that past research by NOAA, NASA, and other groups were accurate in their estimates of warming.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...arming-exists/

After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller now says "global warming is real and humans are almost entirely the cause." The admission by Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, has gained additional attention because some of his research has been funded by Charles Koch of the Koch brothers, the right-wing billionaire known for funding climate skeptic groups like the Heartland Institute. "We could make the scientific case more solidly than had been made in the past," Muller claims. "I think this does say we do need to take action, we do need to do something about it."

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2...entist_richard

You are painting a massive, massive amount of science with a few tainted brushstrokes. It's a tactic that was used by Big Tobacco and is now being used again by the fossil fuel industry.

This is an excellent book which touches on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doub.../dp/1608193942

Peace.

[mcHAPPY]

The evidence is there, you are simply choosing to see what you want to see. Picking 1997 as a starting point is, once again, far too short term in scale to really understand what is happening. As I pointed out in a previous link, the warming of the oceans is one possible explanation, but it's also possible that over many decades, things don't rise in a straight line but in a series of peaks and valleys.

And you want a collaboration between skeptics and believers? Here you go:



http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknap...arming-exists/



http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2...entist_richard

You are painting a massive, massive amount of science with a few tainted brushstrokes. It's a tactic that was used by Big Tobacco and is now being used again by the fossil fuel industry.

This is an excellent book which touches on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doub.../dp/1608193942

Peace.

Thanks for the information.

1997 wasn't picked as an arbitrary starting point. It is known temperature increased until 1997 but has not since 1997 despite an increase of 25% for carbon dioxide.

[stooley]

The reality, for me, is there is no scientific proof validating the claims of climate change alarmists and we know weather has acted in cycles for thousands of years. I firmly agree the theory of an increase in carbon dioxide should result in an increase in temperatures but it just isn't a true statement and when you combine the research in weather cycles I'm going to need a lot more than beliefs to enact change that is going to drastically economically impact the lives of just about everyone. But again, I'm also not willing to risk being wrong either which is why you provide tax incentives to produce and use greener technology, not taxes.

What you just suggested, tax cuts for firms that don't pollute, is essentially what the IMF just recommended, but in the form of carbon taxes.

The IMF suggested revenue neutral carbon taxes. This means that they cut income tax by the same amount that they increase carbon taxes. What this results in is incentive for firms to avoid polluting and thus develop green technology.

[mcHAPPY]

What you just suggested, tax cuts for firms that don't pollute, is essentially what the IMF just recommended, but in the form of carbon taxes.

The IMF suggested revenue neutral carbon taxes. This means that they cut income tax by the same amount that they increase carbon taxes. What this results in is incentive for firms to avoid polluting and thus develop green technology.

I'm not Ivy League like yourself dude.

I'm just a peasant.

Quite spending time on me here and in personal messages and go plan your next getaway to Davos.

[stooley]

I'm not Ivy League like yourself dude.

I'm just a peasant.

Quite spending time on me here and in personal messages and go plan your next getaway to Davos.

Wow man...

You asked me a bunch of questions about carbon taxes that I didn't have time to answer until it was a couple pages back in this thread, so I messaged you about my ideas.

And now you're calling names...

[mcHAPPY]

Wow man...

You asked me a bunch of questions about carbon taxes that I didn't have time to answer until it was a couple pages back in this thread, so I lectured and condescended you about the things they told me at Ivy League and I lifted from bank of canada.

And now you're calling names...

I fixed that for you.

[enlightenment]

Wow man...

You asked me a bunch of questions about carbon taxes that I didn't have time to answer until it was a couple pages back in this thread, so I messaged you about my ideas.

And now you're calling names...

Its the persecution complex. He knows he is not educated enough to make 90% of the claims he's making, so simply you having an education threatens him.

[mcHAPPY]

Its the persecution complex. He knows he is not educated enough to make 90% of the claims he's making, so simply you having an education threatens him.

I'm not educated.... right.

One day I hope you guys learn to question and think independently. It is amazing what the world can offer when you stop and wonder.


And by the way, great job with your climatologist work there. 90%, eh? You just pull that one out of thin air?

[Joey]

Oh c'mon guys, did this really turn into this? Lets clean it up.

Everybody has raised some fantastic points, (all of which have been referenced) so I'd hope everyone could objectively look at and discuss in a mature, adult manner.

I don't want to lock the thread as its a great conversation, but it seems there's not much left to be said by either side ...

[enlightenment]

I'm not educated.... right.

One day I hope you guys learn to question and think independently. It is amazing what the world can offer when you stop and wonder.


And by the way, great job with your climatologist work there. 90%, eh? You just pull that one out of thin air?

There are enough points you made late in this conversation that I went over in my first, legitimate response to your scepticism. Scepticism is fair, but sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending someone didn't give you a legitimate answer is beyond "thinking independently", and more toward a lack of thinking.

[mcHAPPY]

There are enough points you made late in this conversation that I went over in my first, legitimate response to your scepticism. Scepticism is fair, but sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending someone didn't give you a legitimate answer is beyond "thinking independently", and more toward a lack of thinking.

Right on, cocky. I won't even bother making a dig at the spelling mistakes from an educated person such as yourself.

Your problem is you believe your answers are legitimate when they are refutable.

Climate change is not fact.
Taxation is not the answer.
Efforts should be made to reduce carbon dioxide for the simple fact, I believe, one should always aim to leave a place the same if not better than when one arrived.

[enlightenment]

Right on, cocky. I won't even bother making a dig at the spelling mistakes from an educated person such as yourself.

Your problem is you believe your answers are legitimate when they are refutable.

1. Scepticism can be spelt with a 'c', first of all. Im not sure which spelling mistakes you are referring to.

2. How can you possibly know what my responses to your concerns were? You never read them, which I can tell because you never touched upon them. Your issues with delayed-effects (common in models in everything from physics, to ecology), and cycles were touched upon in my first response, and instead of interacting with my argument, you decide to still complain that its a fundamental flaw in the theory.

[mcHAPPY]

mcHAPPY, I respect your basketball knowledge, but not your scientific knowledge. Leave your conspiracy theories at home; global warming has been in science literature for more than 100 years; unless you think some clever bureaucratic con-man began a 100 year plan to charge taxes on corporations relative to carbon emissions, you cannot convince me that the idea of global warming is "just another excuse". Besides, the IPCC is international and has nothing to gain by doing the science and modelling likelihoods based on the best available evidence.

If one model without human participation is an underestimate, and the same model with human participation fits the observation, one can reasonably assess that the warming of the earth (which is a fact, the earth is warming) is not caused by natural forces alone and that humans are causing non-negligable change to the earth's natural variations.



If you want to argue that the models are faulty, you'll have to delve into the science behind it, and I don't believe you have the education to start from the science and get a conclusion, versus starting from your conclusion and then getting to the science.

1. Scepticism can be spelt with a 'c', first of all. Im not sure which spelling mistakes you are referring to.

2. How can you possibly know what my responses to your concerns were? You never read them, which I can tell because you never touched upon them. Your issues with delayed-effects (common in models in everything from physics, to ecology), and cycles were touched upon in my first response, and instead of interacting with my argument, you decide to still complain that its a fundamental flaw in the theory.

Is this the initial response you speak of where you insult and belittle from the beginning while providing nothing new, irrefutable, or enlightening to the conversation and ending with an attack on my intelligence through a comment questioning my education and being a total hypocrite to boot?

Lol - go screw yourself

[stooley]

I fixed that for you.

Again, you've not once provided any kind of argument beyond personal attacks, disregarding my sources without justifying why and unrelated hypotheticals.

You seem to think telling you about my education was some kind of condescension. You directly asked me "who says" my opinions on carbon taxes, so I told you that these are my opinions, and I explained to you where I got them.