Hi char,

Quote:
iowan15: "Notice that, from the perspective of the global warming hysterics, it is 'not entirely rational' to research, suggest, or hypothesize other causes of global warming. No, it MUST be due to human activity, it must, it must, it must. And the spoon banging intensifies with every suggestion to the contrary."

char: "I do see GW hysterics on both sides, but I have not been hysterical about this. I clearly stated that the case was not ironclad, but does seem quite strong. This is from data, not presupposition or desire. Who wants to pay more for energy? Not me. There just isn't a motive for making up GW. Who does it benefit? Even if you could identify a backer on the GW side as motivated and generous as the oil and coal companies are for those who disagree (the nuclear industry, perhaps), you still have to contend with the data."


The disagreements are over just what that data portends and the projections made based on that data.

Quote:
iowan15: "That's a two-way street, char. You've made it quite clear that you believe, as do Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe, that the scientists that aren't on the Al-Gore-Express are, dishonestly, in the hip pockets of 'Big Oil'."

char: "You may not have read all the posts, so I will repeat that I do believe that the majority of the researchers who disagree with the AGW hypothesis come by their opinions honestly, wherever they get their money. But when you survey the field, most climatologists agree with AGW. I don't see why I shouldn't take this into account."


I don't know that anyone has suggested you not take that into account.

Quote:
iowan15: "I suspect that there are biases on both sides that are political. That's not unusual since those who side with Al 'The Sky is Falling' Gore, such as Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe last year, have MADE it political."

char: "Politics is how we decide whether and how to deal with challenges and opportunities that are better met with concerted responses than head-in-the-sand wilful ignorance."


That is, as stunningly obvious as it can be, a false dilemma. Kyoto is a 'concerted' response. How's that workin' out for you?

Quote:
char: "There are two aspects to the response to GW that I have stressed. One is to attempt to slow it by reducing the growth in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases; if you don't think GW is anthropogenic, I can understand why you'd be skeptical of the need for that."


I don't think the human contribution to atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases is so significant as to necessitate the hysterical measures demanded by GW doom-and-gloomers like our former VP.

Quote:
char: "The other aspect is to plan and prepare for the results of GW, however it is caused. This is also something that only governments can do, and perhaps the UN."


And that it the quintessential liberal solution, government action.

Quote:
char: "Even you guys have finally backed off from denying that GW is happening, so this will still be necessary to avoid the worst dislocations that will arise from rising sea levels, changes in crop and disease vector distributions, rainfall changes, and other results of GW."


And this is where the hysteria kicks in, bud. The former Vice President (FVP) envisions the submersion of New York City.

Quote:
char: "Neither of those measures is being addressed adequately today, and the results will be apparent in several decades, and potentially catastrophic in a century or so."


Yeah, I've heard the FVP express those exact same beliefs.

Quote:
char: "I suspect humanity will muddle through, but it's unfortunate that more deaths and suffering will occur than necessary due to the pigheadedness and selfishness of so many in our generation."


Just like we muddled through the population bomb scare, the Alar scare, the acid rain scare, etc.

Quote:
char: "I don't exclude myself from this indictment; I'm just more aware of reality than some of you on this board, which makes me even more blameworthy, I suppose."


Suppose no longer. It does. It's the old 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' song and dance like that of the FVP.

Quote:
char: "It is amusing to see the evolution of the anti-AGW argument as it retreats in front of the evidence, but it's clear that minds are very difficult to change once they've dug in."


That, also, is a two-way street. What do you think are the odds that Gore with pull an Emily Litella some day and say, 'Never mind'?

Quote:
char: "By the time I die, I think the AGW hypothesis will be either refuted or confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt."


That probably covers the options.

Quote:
char: "It would be great if it turned out to be a baseless scare."


For most people, I think it would be great. But not for those who, like the FVP, have built their lives and staked their reputations on the scare.

Quote:
char: "Then, the conservation measures being pushed would have had the effect of saving energy, but been otherwise useless. If AGW is correct, though, we'll have missed an opportunity to save us all a considerable amount of grief."


You're one fearless forecaster, char! :)

Hope all is well.

later, bud. iowan15