You know, Dm, political process is so important, and you just want to ignore it. YOU are the one that makes claims like "nothing can be done" because I suspect you don't like the political movement associated with climate change and all it represents. But that movement essentially embraces environmental health. "Climate change" is the banner under which the battle is fought, but it represents so much more. It's an entire philosophy, and I'm absolutely for it.
Here you go, making assumptions again.
You suspect wrong. I am actually not claiming with certainty, "nothing can be done". I specifically think that GW is overwhelmingly due to natural processes that we can't do anything about, but this is my
opinion. And I reached this opinion as a scientist after reading enough on the subject and being in the pro AGW camp for years (not combative, but generally pro). But again, I am advocating an open scientific debate to determin whether we can do anything about GW. As for general "environmental health", you simply make assumptions without knowing anything about me, my way of life.
I don't really care to discuss the "facts" as you'd like to "debate" them because the "facts" regarding climate change aren't really at the core of the problem.
Obviously. That's really a nice way to advance knowledge.
I have the scientists I believe - an awful lot of them - and you have yours. Arguing about it is a waste of time. I think the consensus agrees with me. But most importantly, I have my own observations -as does anybody with eyes that can see and a nose that can smell - and those observations undeniably underscore the need to change our behavior.
See, here is the difference between us. You simply believe what others tell you. Is it based on actually reading scientific papers, or just reports in the media? I, on the other hand, take care to actually read relevant papers from both sides and analize (to the extent I understand them. After all, they are not in my field) and to reach some conclusions. And the last sentence has what to do with GW, again? See, you keep lumping pollution with GW. I have no problem whatsoever of going for more efficient cleaner technologies. But that doesn't prevent me from distinguishing between different things. To you, on the other hand, as you yourself admitted, it isn't a matter of science, but a matter of ideology.
What's at the core of the disagreement about climate change is philosophical. It's political. And the people who want to maintain the status quo are going to lose, because the movement toward a healthier enviroment is far too strong and an absolute priority.
That is complete bollocks. Two sceptics I constantly cite -- Nir Shaviv lives in an environment friendly house (that means off the grid) and the other one Antony Watts, is also environment friendly (driving an electric car). The core of the debate (at least for many people) is what we base our actions on. And whether turning a scientific debate into basically a witch hunt is the right thing to do.
Here is a little note. I think IPCC and the whole AGW crowd has done science maybe irreparable damage. They try to suppress the opposition, push legislation and declare that "science is in". Well, there are a lot of signs now that science is definitely not in. If they are wrong (something I believe) we will continue to see divergence from the mainstream theory and scientists abandoning the ship. But here is the problem, IPCC, given the force of their statements have nowhere to retreat. If they admit they were wrong, it would mean they pushed bad science and this will damage the authority of science. Not to mention the policies they tried to pass. If they don't admit they were wrong, but shown to be wrong by continued refutation of their predictions, it will have the same effect, maybe even worse (and this pains me to say as a scientist). Hell, you see the number of Americans agreeing with the consensus theory going down already. What do you think it'll do in the future, when you try to make a case for other enviromental issues?
