No hurricane damage in the United States this year

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You use a lot of big word, Gene Hunt but all I hear is another commie plotting to destroy Western civilization.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's a very sad day when scientific research is dismissed as merely political skulduggery. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Will politicians use scientific findings to their own advantage if/when they can? Sure, but the actual research is fundamental to the continued prosperity of the human species, not to mention it's fun and interesting.

And a waste of billions while millions starve around the world. But then again, the more humans we can eliminate the better for the planet right?

So in the absence of a political response to climate change, we would magically solve world hunger?

I should laugh, I really should.

Modern intensive agriculture is beset with all kinds of problems - relating not only to environmentally unsustainable practices, but also to issues of overproduction and market fixing.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gore may well be wrong, but for the rest of the world GW isn't about Gore

I find it odd this determination to prove GW false for some spurious points scoring. If there isn't a danger from GW, then hurrah I say. However, I still want scientists and climatologists to carry on investigating the science of climate - it will always be useful. I still think to dismiss change in the environment just because the environment has always changed as very head in the sandish behaviour.

Just about the best response to the back and forth about Global Warming/Climate Change/Why is it so f***ing cold this morning? that I have on the 974,234 VJ threads on the subject.

Support it or not, we do not have an answer, we have theories. Theories get closer/get proven/are disproved by continuing research. We MUST continue research to try and understand the global climate better, for better or worse. Because right now, here's where we live - we got nowhere else to go.

Indeed

Do remember though that if climate scientists may or may not have it 100% right at the moment, that there are- as we can read here- a determinate population of ignorami capable of proving that they know even less and try to pass it off as actual knowledge. Scary isn't it??

You use a lot of big word, Gene Hunt but all I hear is another commie plotting to destroy Western civilization.

Always is a Communist plot to drain bodily fluids.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do remember though that if climate scientists may or may not have it 100% right at the moment, that there are- as we can read here- a determinate population of ignorami capable of proving that they know even less and try to pass it off as actual knowledge. Scary isn't it??

That about sums up every thread ever posted on this subject. Concensus is demonstrable - I'll stick with that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Do remember though that if climate scientists may or may not have it 100% right at the moment, that there are- as we can read here- a determinate population of ignorami capable of proving that they know even less and try to pass it off as actual knowledge. Scary isn't it??

That about sums up every thread ever posted on this subject. Concensus is demonstrable - I'll stick with that.

Yep. And demonstrable at times requires a basic understanding of the lingo and facts behind the research.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

Science is not exact, so I am sure whatever the consensus of scientific opinion is at the moment, it will change in the future, as it has in the past. After 20 million years of trying to figure out what mother nature will do next, I hardly think we suddenly have all the answers. If scientists are so confident in the scenario de jour, then perhaps it is time to stop all funding on climate research. After all, there is no reasonable dissent, right?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Peikko 1,575]

That's not why climate science needs to continue - the raison d'etre of Climate science is not simply to prove or disprove GW (although some of the nut jobs seems to think it is ). There are many and various advantages and requirements from the study of climate.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Do remember though that if climate scientists may or may not have it 100% right at the moment, that there are- as we can read here- a determinate population of ignorami capable of proving that they know even less and try to pass it off as actual knowledge. Scary isn't it??

Yep. As my engineer stepdad was fond of saying, "The scientists got it wrong again!"

[HAL 9000 96]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

Science is not exact, so I am sure whatever the consensus of scientific opinion is at the moment, it will change in the future, as it has in the past. After 20 million years of trying to figure out what mother nature will do next, I hardly think we suddenly have all the answers. If scientists are so confident in the scenario de jour, then perhaps it is time to stop all funding on climate research. After all, there is no reasonable dissent, right?

If we actually pay attention to the research and the consensus, we'd discover that what Pike is stating is much more accurate than what the naysayers would like to admit. Ignorance? Perhaps. It is a bit funny, no- scary, that there are people all for limiting the progress of scientific thinking just because they're not halfway versed or simply not interested for X or Y reasons.

Do remember though that if climate scientists may or may not have it 100% right at the moment, that there are- as we can read here- a determinate population of ignorami capable of proving that they know even less and try to pass it off as actual knowledge. Scary isn't it??

Yep. As my engineer stepdad was fond of saying, "The scientists got it wrong again!"

Been down that road before.

[*JG* 2]

Maybe Bill Gates already started his hurricane proofing project and we haven't been informed yet!!!!!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's not why climate science needs to continue - the raison d'etre of Climate science is not simply to prove or disprove GW (although some of the nut jobs seems to think it is ). There are many and various advantages and requirements from the study of climate.

I agree. However, the current theories seem to have taken on an undeserved Biblical importance, although by the hand of man, not of any diety on high. I look at Kilauea, and realize how insignificant that man really is in controlling his own destiny. Vog, also known as Sulfur Dioxide, is a killer.

[HAL 9000 96]

EPA tried mentioning more than just CO2 as greenhouse gases a few years ago. I wonder what happened with that too.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's not why climate science needs to continue - the raison d'etre of Climate science is not simply to prove or disprove GW (although some of the nut jobs seems to think it is ). There are many and various advantages and requirements from the study of climate.

I agree. However, the current theories seem to have taken on an undeserved Biblical importance, although by the hand of man, not of any diety on high. I look at Kilauea, and realize how insignificant that man really is in controlling his own destiny. Vog, also known as Sulfur Dioxide, is a killer.

Not by those who matter most, the scientists. These people remain remarkably aloof from the silly wrangling that goes on in their name.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not to mention the folks here are dismissing it based on nothing but their own gut.

Meanwhile, it can be reasonably demonstrated what the current state of world scientific opinion is on this issue - but rather than acknowledge that, people would rather give credence to claims that not only do they not fully understand, but also cannot place within the context of overall scientific understanding.

Science is not exact, so I am sure whatever the consensus of scientific opinion is at the moment, it will change in the future, as it has in the past. After 20 million years of trying to figure out what mother nature will do next, I hardly think we suddenly have all the answers. If scientists are so confident in the scenario de jour, then perhaps it is time to stop all funding on climate research. After all, there is no reasonable dissent, right?

If we actually pay attention to the research and the consensus, we'd discover that what Pike is stating is much more accurate than what the naysayers would like to admit. Ignorance? Perhaps. It is a bit funny, no- scary, that there are people all for limiting the progress of scientific thinking just because they're not halfway versed or simply not interested for X or Y reasons.

Without all that sophistication, there comes a low threshold for BS detection. Carl Sagan was excellent at explaining complex ideas to the unwashed masses that cared to pay attention. But, with the current climate discussion, there is a level of smugness that causes an early alert, especially with those of long memories, that have seen this all before, different theories, dire doomsday outcomes, and yet, we are still all here. Who remembers when your wooden desk in school could protect you from all calamities, man-made, or natural?

[Peikko 1,575]

The smugness of which you speak (and yes I can detect it) is a product of journalism, not science.

Of course and by extension the opportunistic of the politicians. Not all politicians are the same, although they are all wrought from the same cloth