Logic of worst-case scenarios: 1) If the climate change scientists are
right but we do nothing to reverse climate change, we're facing
catastrophic destruction of habitable Earth and a shift to Desert Earth
with mass extinctions (already under way) including humans. 2) If the
climate change deniars are right but we make a sudden transition away
from fossil fuels, we will waste a few trillion dollars and have a
long-term sustainable energy system in place for post peak-production
when that inevitable phase happens.

Extinction or "wasting" money that will create and destroy jobs, smooth out energy costs, etc. There are about $25 trillion offshore in tax havens available for this transition.

This is not meant as a dis on anyone but I keep seeing people throw around comments illustrating what liberals or conservatives say. If one decides to believe in something or not believe in something (like climate change) because people of a certain party tell you to then you are not using your brain and looking at the problem objectively (or effectively). Instead of blindly following what the political party you identify with says people should research the problems themselves by reading articles and studies based on actual scientific evidence. Have a wonderful day everyone!

Search The Right Climate Stuff...these guys raise valid points that all should consider. Also, The Inconvenient Skeptic is an opposing view that deserves attention.

"The Right Climate Stuff" is a group of retired non-climate scientist climate "skeptics"* headed by a 79-year-old former oil and gas executive:

"Mr. Steward has extensive experience in the oil and gas exploration and production industry... Mr. Steward is former Chairman of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association and the Natural Gas Supply Association, and is currently an honorary director of the American Petroleum Institute."

http://www.forbes.com/profi...

Funny how many "skeptic" roads lead back to the oil industry, isn't it.

* "NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority"

http://www.skepticalscience...

"The Inconvenient Skeptic" is another non-scientist "skeptic".

Which is to say none of your sources -- all global warming "skeptics" -- are experts in the subject . Why do you take their word over the experts at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences?

We now have enough knowledge and data to warrant some sort of insurance - a Plan B. After all - there is no Planet B to evacuate to...

People tend to insure their homes in case of fire. The odds of that happening is 1 to 1000, so why bother? Because the consequences are so dire. We have no neighbors, family or friends to seek help from if the climate goes awry - then we're all in the same predicament...

...and what would a Plan B look like?
Solar on the roof of most homes, kitchen gardens, rooftop hydroponics in cities, public transportation, better bike lanes & sidewalks, sustainable farming and more.

Less dependency on fossil fuels would mean more power to everyone (pun intended), with the exception of the fossil fuel magnates and utility companies - unless they too divest. Cleaner air & water, less destruction of nature, better energy security and green jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.

Plan B has benefits here and now - as well as reducing the odds of dangerous changes in our climate. Fee & dividend is one great way of redistributing wealth from polluters to the population. A price on carbon where polluters pay, and the collected money goes back out to every citizen.

Federal Government report just released states climate change is naturally occurring not cause by man. I know that flies in the face of what the liberals in the Federal Government have been claiming. But then we were supposed to have lost the polar ice caps by now as well.

Both of your claims are false. You are pushing lies, wittingly or otherwise.

What report are you referring to? What scientific data sources did it use? Have you read those as well? What is your source that claims that the polar ice-caps would be lost by now? I have read many official government reports on climate. and not a single one has claimed that human activity has zero to do with climate change as is your inference.

Al Gore said that. You know the liberal guru and Nobel Prize winning liar. He said it at the United Nations.

Not a government report, and not recently released...Saying something at the UN is not tantamount to a government report by any conceivable measure. However, the UN has done in-depth and broad research in this area, and it would be highly educational to familiarize yourself with their most current findings.

Search The Right Climate Stuff...these guys raise valid points that all should consider.

That's odd.....I could not find a single peer-reviewed article authored by The Right Climate Stuff or its staff. Why do you think that is?????

"The Right Climate Stuff" is a group of retired non-climate scientist climate "skeptics"* headed by a 79-year-old former oil and gas executive.

Precisely, this statement sums up the real underlying reasons we have such disagreement on this issue. Common sense says that of course man has some role in climate and also that the sun itself has much to do with climate. But to say that everyone agrees that Global Warming, now changed to Climate Change, is 100% man made is lacking important information and a balanced perspective.

You can scour the scientific journals and not find a single one that claims any such nonsense as "100% man made", this is language of the ill-informed. If you wish to conduct an honest investigation on this topic, the scientific information is out there and is readily available.

I think we are saying the same thing.

No, you're not. Unlike Kirk, you are pushing anti-science straw men.

Really? To say that the sun has a role in climate is anti-science? Your statement is ludicrous and the most on its face anti-science point of view I think I have ever heard.

Yes, you are really pushing anti-science straw men.

No climate scientist has ever claimed or implied that climate change is 100% man-made; climate scientists have instead always stated that the Sun plays a role in climate change.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first
scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20
years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”.
Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the
“science is settled.” He is convinced that global warming is a natural
change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly
poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the
President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth
and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer
to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a
political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor.
It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of
scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there
with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are
about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus
offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their
global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles
their voice”.

Claude Allegre is a politician and not a climate scientist.

Vaclav Klaus is a politician and not a scientist at all.

Do you get your medical "science" from "skeptical" politicians too?

To be more accurate, it's how the earth behaves in relation to the sun. This behavior is quite predictable and happens over very long periods of time. The science on this is vast and comprehensive. Human contributions are invasive on a much shorter time scale. I believe the straw-man comment was directed at the statement, "But to say that everyone agrees that global warming...is 100% man made". No one with an ounce of credibility would say such a ludicrous thing, thus creating a fallacy of both logic and science.

Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated,

“When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global
warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science
works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research
became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in
reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the
man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts
the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil
companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research.
He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures
that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this
winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are
relegated to the business pages”.

Nigel Calder... You mean this Nigel Calder?

"[By the year 2000] the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide 'greenhouse' fails to occur."

-- Global warming denier (then, as now) Nigel Calder, 1980

Why yes, you do.

Contrary to your claim that no one with an once of credibility would say such a thing. There are numerous apparently un-credible people making exactly this statement and people are listening to them so what would you call that?

In the quote above, notice that he is calling out the politicians and journalists. When I say credible, I am referring to peer-reviewed science written by credentialed scientists. That being said, I still don't see any "100%" nonsense. Science deals in degrees and probabilities, not absolutes.

This whole discussion reminds me of the debate between evolution and young-earth creation. One side makes rational claims based on mountains of evidence, while the other side offers non-falsifiable claims inspired by a twenty-five hundred year old book. Let's all become more science-literate!

'Fossil Fuels'...lol! I hear those two words and I move on. I can't take such people seriously as 'science' buffs.

Conservative climate scientist Barry Bickmore:

Climate Science Deniers are "Enemies of Democracy"

Dr. Bickmore at his blog Climate Asylum:

"I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change. Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature...

"Climate change is not just a global or national issue - it will also be played out at the state and local levels...

"I'm a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run...

"Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy."

http://bbickmore.wordpress....

My position is simple: All those who want to pay higher taxes because they believe in this should go ahead and pay higher taxes.

The rest of us are already taxed enough as it is.

I recommend looking into Fee & dividend, a solution proposed by among others the economist Robert Reich. This would mean a price on carbon (starting low, then slowly adjusting it upwards) - and the collected amounts is evenly distributed among the population. No gov't interference...

Also - check out ALEC and various fossil fuel groups actively fighting solar power and wind turbines. While at it - compare the subsidies - and the number of jobs in the various sectors.

Solar passed coal recently - more people are now earning an income in that renewable industry than work mining coal. And quite frankly, I would rather install and maintain solar panels than work in a coal mine... Wouldn't you?

I am with you Roger let those who buy the lies pay these illegal taxes to the criminal class. I grow my own food, ride a bike and eat veges and fruits. All of you who drive your SUV's consume the dead flesh of factory farmed animals and support Monsanto GMO foods you pay taxes if you want. Which would only add to the absurdity of your behaviors.

That's a bogus argument. In a fair system, those who use resources pay the full cost of using the resource, including the cost to society.

So, what if we pay higher taxes and some of the predictions come true later - are you willing to pay back taxes so we can all be reimbursed for your ignorance, or do you expect us to pay for you?

It's entirely unlikely that you pay more in taxes than your SES peers decades ago. But, your idea sounds good and we'll have to find a place you can go w/ no roads, lights, fire department, police force, buyer and seller protections, no schools, no mail, etc. Perhaps along the Florida coast a sub-society can be built with 'your' tax dollars & you can use some of your tax savings to build a house on stilts.

"With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”

And how do they debunk this data? By saying this:

"“There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time."

A lot of evidence. Not proof. They didn't prove that this is false, they're just saying they have evidence to explain it.

In other words, climate alarmists are fine with cherry-picking data, that's what the entire industry of "climate science" is doing, excluding some data for data they find more reliable. And what makes data more reliable? When it fits their religious moral crusade's narrative, that's when.

This is why the IPCC comes out and says "We're 98% positive there is warming caused by humans". They say this because 98% is a big number and sounds close to being certain, but the scientific method does not yeild to "almost certainty". It requires 100% predictable, reproducible SCIENCE. Before that, it's just a theory.

Humans are having some effect on the climate. The issue is HOW MUCH. And before we can answer that we need a lot more understanding of the climate. Before we have that understanding, it makes no sense at all to implement policies that will not only cause suffering to people the world over but will hamper the economic engines that will actually solve environmental problems.

But progressive religious crusaders can't accept this. I wonder why.

"...progressive religious crusaders..." Really??? So where do these people come from? http://www.cornwallalliance...

As for "just a theory..." You really don't know anything about science, do you?

Because most people who haven't bought the argument hook line and sinker know that this is all about raising a global tax to fund the New World Order's move to regulate us all into the dark ages.

And your (evidently non-existent or at best very weak) scientific education that makes you somehow think you understand climate science better than the experts at the National Academy of Sciences is... what, exactly?

Only those corporations who are members of the club will be allowed to pollute to their hearts content. The rest of us will be blamed and made to pay.

Michael Peter: "the scientific method does not yeild to "almost certainty". It requires 100% predictable, reproducible SCIENCE. Before that, it's just a theory."

drkent3 is correct - you don't know what you are talking about. All you've done there is demonstrate how deeply science-illiterate you are.

Scientific theories are NEVER "proven" with 100% certainty, and scientific theories ALWAYS remain "just" theories.

-----------
"Any physical theory is always provisional... you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory."
- Dr. Stephen Hawking

"With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been 'no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.'”

Michael Peter: "And how do they debunk this data? By saying this:

'There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time.'"

Guess again.

* All global temperature datasets, save for one of the satellite (lower atmosphere) temperature datasets (the RSS dataset), show surface and lower atmospheric global warming over the past 17+ years.

* Per the heads of the team that maintains the other satellite global temperature dataset (UAH) - prominent global warming "skeptics" Roy Spencer and John Christy - the RSS satellite global temperature dataset that shows no warming over the past 17+ years is very likely biased against actual warming because it uses old satellites and uses a "model" that doesn't correctly control for their orbital decay.

http://www.drroyspencer.com...

* Over 90% of global warming happens in the oceans in any event, and ocean data indicates warming over the past 17+ years.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC...

Again you don't know what you are talking about.

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Science is NEVER 100% certain of anything. And a theory is not a theory because it is "100%", it is a theory because it has been tested with all available data. A theory can always be proven false - by simply running a test that disproves the results that the theory predicts. Simple. The fact that nobody, including Exxon Mobile with huge amounts of cash available to pay people to develop and perform such tests, is strong evidence (yes, not PROOF) that the theory is correct.

The only thing that I find clear in all of this back and forth name calling is that a lot of information has been falsified and changed to make some pretty outrageous statements about what we can expect in the future. What I am more concerned about is the present. What I find particularly interesting is that there is no mention of atmospheric, soil and water toxicity. These are in fact the most insidious and alarming datasets we should all be most concerned about.

What data has been falsified? If you actually take some time and use your own God given intelligence, you can find the data yourself and examine it. Don't have the education to do that? Fine, but don't go around claiming those who do don't know what they are talking about. It is dishonest at best to do so.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its
hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the
potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was
filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get
something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist,
astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all
know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s
popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his
movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and
stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the
political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the
research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”.
They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that
theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar
activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he
presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core
samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2
being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of
scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around
800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise
in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing
temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it
follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group
also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge
in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four
decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN,
which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists,
“was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who
disagreed with its findings.”

My brother works for NOAA and NASA. I absolutely assure you that none of them cares one whit about Al Gore or what his charts indicate. Using Al Gore as your 'proof' that climate change is 'a sham' is disingenuous, at best. It isn't Al Gore that is gathering and analyzing the data - it is the top climate scientists *in the world*. Almost ALL of them.

Unless you and your ilk can actually present some data and/or analysis that contradicts the theory, and that passes a peer review, you cannot be taken seriously... at all. And if you think that there are no scientists that would absolutely love for the theory to be wrong, you are, at best, a very naive person. Scientists *live* for the opportunity to prove a widely accepted theory wrong - it will make their entire career for many of them.

"a lot of information has been falsified"

Wrong.

You make a good parrot though.

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made.
He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to
human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest
deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting
time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear
and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then
he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of
dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific
position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to
meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very
interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing
that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global
cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species,
that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting,
sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that
climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always
occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the
Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was
known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with
changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing,
changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and
that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling
engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”