Human’s naturally don’t like change. We will go to great lengths to tell ourselves that everything is fine until it is blatantly obvious that it is not.

We also don’t like complexity. We can’t wrap our heads around it. With the climate you have a system that has almost an infinite number of variables and outcomes and the scientists are saying well if you look at one millionth of the outcomes (snow, floods, specific areas warming) we are pretty sure that this one specific variable which we produce is the cause.

It is easy therefore to say “no you are wrong” because we believe that we have to potentially change our lifestyle for the worse and in their two hour speech to convince us, we lost them at “Good morning, the following dissertation will show with probability of …”

I find it amusing that climate scientists must “prove” that humans are changing the climate, but people with no training in the area can just say “no your wrong” and think they have won the argument.

BTW: Here’s an example of eco-spin going the other way as well…Where even MIT is prone to pumping up good stories, rather than good science…

http://environauts.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/has-pr-trumped-science-at-mit/

What will they think of next !

its a no brainer.

The only evidence that keeps piling up is the evidence that tells us how uncertain and anecdotal climate science is. Antarctic sea ice has been (and continues to) GROW. But they don’t tell you THAT. Do some research instead of just chanting the mantra. The amount of OLR (that CO2 is supposed to trap) hasn’t changed in 40 years. That alone is enough to kill that theory of AGW. If you bothered to look at the evidence you’d see sea level rise is actually slowing. You can no longer deny the realities.

All those bad things that Al Gore says if, could, might, possibly happen would take ten thousand years or more, so will simply never happen, even in his wildest wet dreams. We’re more likely to get hit by an asteroid in that time. Even according to the IPCC 1 billion LESS people will be stressed for water in a warmer world. And please don’t buy into all this “Hottest Decade on Record” crap either. It’s all spin… like saying the tortoise was the fastest because he beat the hare to the finish line. There hasn’t been a new continental temperature record set in over 30 years. Look it up.

Don’t worry… be happy. :^)

MrC

Nobody has come out and said that we have to do X in order to avoid catastrophe Y. There is no target that will lead to a probably positive outcome, and they don’t seem to know what we have to do to achieve stability or reversal. But, they are happy to say that we have to spend a lot of money anyway. To fix it? We don’t know.

In other words, what is the IPCC’s backout plan if they spend everyone’s money, possibly bankrupt some big economies that are already under stress, and then find out that it didn’t do anything with respect to climate change?

Would it be cheaper to funnel money into a bureaucracy whose intentions are unclear, or cheaper to simply deal with the fallout of climate change?

As an aside, the naysayers have been pretty subdued until recently. They are the ones that are underfunded. There is a lot of money to be made from climate change because government subsidies are everywhere, boosting investments. Carbon trading markets are new places to make money. David Suzuki and Al Gore don’t seem to be too hard up for funding, nor do all the people who flew to Copenhagen.

To lament about the taunting language and hateful Emails penned by critics or skeptics of AGW over the past 3-4 months since the Email hack or leak is laughable, given that for the past 2 decades AGW proponents have derided and dismissed those who disagree as deniers, truthers, flat earth society members, scientific hacks, has beens, or in the pocket of big business.

Tyler have you ever reported that Al Gore is essentially a corporate lobbyist, guilty of blatant spin or that David Suzuki uses individual weather events (lack of snow on a low altitude Cypress Mountain for the 2010 Olympics) as proof of climate change?

If I could suggest to you and your readers that they read a very balanced article in wattsupwiththat.com called “climate plausibility and the blogosphere” written by Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University, where he is a environmental consultant, professor of philosophy of science and author of a book challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity.

Perhaps Tyler a little bit of balance, a hint of skepticism, and a touch of humility would serve science and the mainstream media through these difficult times.

Signed a believer in Partial Manmade Climate Change

It doesn’t matter how often you say the world is flat it is still round. Even when humans couldn’t prove the world was round it still was.

So my question to the skeptics would be, what if that remote possibility that you are incorrect proves to be true? What then? Where is your backup plan? Surely they have thought this through and can tell us what we should do if the climate is changing.

Or are we all just merrily rolling along, like the US financial system in 2006, believing that Climate Backed Securities are the greatest thing since sliced bread. Sure we don’t understand them, but if everybody agrees they are good then we all get to drive big cars and buy new kitchens rather than solar panels.

hhmmm, sounds like a good idea. Maybe I’ll start selling Climate Backed Securities.

Not sure if you’ve had a chance to read Richard Gwyn’s recent take on this, but I’d suggest you corner him in the coffee room next time you see him and set him straight. At the very least ask him how many actual climate scientists he interviewed before he wrote his piece. I suspect we both know the anwser. Hint, it rhymes with “Hero”

cheers,

p.s. did you catch the news about Performance Plants?

It’s a travesty that we need to read a select few blogs to get the true story on climate change because the mainstream media are, at best, getting it wrong – and, at worst, deliberately misinforming their readers.