Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[Quasievil]

your not satisfying my cravings

Sorry I will never be gay

[mstriumph]

I don´t know how you can be so sure its not man made when so many scientists are in disagreement. This whole thread is just regurgitating select facts from the internet were not even remotely qualified to understand. New Zealand carbon emissions aren´t the problem so I can understand why no one in NZ wants to pay the tax, Europe China and America are a different story.

what bothers me is that there seems to be no middle ground in this debate and EVERYONE on BOTH sides of the argument seem to be having such a good time slinging so called facts and statistics at each other that nothing seems to be getting done.

me? I know the climate appears to be changing and i'm totally prepared to believe that humankind is playing a part in it. i don't know precisely how great a part that is and i'm fairly certain no-one else does either ... leaving it to be a rubbery statistic open to exaggeration or otherwise, dependent on the viewpoint of whoever is speaking at any given time.

my point? who CARES who's most responsible and to what extent? Irrespective of the size of our particular contribution, the planet would benefit if we reduced it.

we won't reduce it with knee jerk reactions like julia stupid bitch's australian carbon tax (tax the polluters who pass on the tax in costs to consumers who stupid bitch then compensates out of the proceeds of the tax with a large percentage of the proceeds sticking to the fingers of the additional bureaucrats she's putting in place to administer the cynical political money-go-round)

we MAY reduce it or at least slow it down by putting in place simple, cost-effective commonsense measures right now.

i listed a few here then deleted them because i'm sure that you can think of just as many as i can, some more viable than others, and i don't want to start yet another arguement

we need to stop arguing and start thinking, researching and acting - now.

think about the children!

[Badjelly]

For what it's worth, I don't think Quasi holds the opinions he does on global warming (comprehensively wrong as they are) because of his job.

Just as an aside to the main thread of the discussion (whatever that is), I often wonder why people like Quasi and my brother-in-law can be so sure and so wrong. Well, now there's a scientific explanation in an article in the journal of Global Environmental Change, called "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". It's at this link (but I don't know if you can see it because we scientists don't like the hoi polloi reading our stuff):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5937801100104X

To quote

Yet, this pattern—where conservative white males are more confident in their knowledge of climate change than are other adults, even as their beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus—is consistent with our expectation that identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies are especially strong within conservative white males. Such processes, we argue, lead them to reject information from out-groups (e.g., liberals and environmentalists) they see as threatening the economic system, and such tendencies provoke strong emotional and psychic investment, easily translating into (over)confidence in beliefs.

Yep, that sounds right to me. (And as I'm a white male myself, if it sounds right to me, it must be true.)

Quasi, I'll get back to you on the temperature-changes-CO2-changes-temperature thing when I get a chance.

[Cheshire Cat]

I think you're very ignorant if you think this "global warming" is real.

[oneofsix]

Just as an aside to the main thread of the discussion (whatever that is), I often wonder why people like Quasi and my brother-in-law can be so sure and so wrong. Well, now there's a scientific explanation in an article in the journal of Global Environmental Change, called "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". It's at this link (but I don't know if you can see it because we scientists don't like the hoi polloi reading our stuff):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5937801100104X

To quote

Yet, this pattern—where conservative white males are more confident in their knowledge of climate change than are other adults, even as their beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus—is consistent with our expectation that identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies are especially strong within conservative white males. Such processes, we argue, lead them to reject information from out-groups (e.g., liberals and environmentalists) they see as threatening the economic system, and such tendencies provoke strong emotional and psychic investment, easily translating into (over)confidence in beliefs.

Yep, that sounds right to me. (And as I'm a white male myself, if it sounds right to me, it must be true.)

Quasi, I'll get back to you on the temperature-changes-CO2-changes-temperature thing when I get a chance.

alternatively they tend to be better educated and can remember all those lessons where the scientific consensus got it wrong. Also they can remember this "climate crisis" being pushed by the liberals and environmentalists for so long ago that marijuana was still legal.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just as an aside to the main thread of the discussion (whatever that is), I often wonder why people like Quasi and my brother-in-law can be so sure and so wrong. Well, now there's a scientific explanation in an article in the journal of Global Environmental Change, called "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". It's at this link (but I don't know if you can see it because we scientists don't like the hoi polloi reading our stuff):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...5937801100104X

To quote

Yet, this pattern—where conservative white males are more confident in their knowledge of climate change than are other adults, even as their beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus—is consistent with our expectation that identity-protective cognition and system-justifying tendencies are especially strong within conservative white males. Such processes, we argue, lead them to reject information from out-groups (e.g., liberals and environmentalists) they see as threatening the economic system, and such tendencies provoke strong emotional and psychic investment, easily translating into (over)confidence in beliefs.

Yep, that sounds right to me. (And as I'm a white male myself, if it sounds right to me, it must be true.)

Quasi, I'll get back to you on the temperature-changes-CO2-changes-temperature thing when I get a chance.

That to me just sounds like they're trying to "belittle" any opposition, which usually people do when they know they're argument is wrong but they still want to win. Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

[avgas]

modern scientists are afraid to disagree with the accepted current theory, engineers take pleasure in pointing out the errors in another engineer's idea

Yep sad truth there.
Makes me feel sad for the scientists out there that do think that all is not right.

[Badjelly]

...Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

[SPman]

That to me just sounds like they're trying to "belittle" any opposition, which usually people do when they know they're argument is wrong but they still want to win. Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

Just like the deniers..........

[bogan]

That to me just sounds like they're trying to "belittle" any opposition, which usually people do when they know they're argument is wrong but they still want to win. Next they'll start on the straight-up personal attacks of the opposition.

Not sure if you guys can see the article (Massey has a subscription so I can), but a skim doesn't show that the author claims that they are wrong, just that they deny man made global warming.
Badjelly would have been better to say that 'they can be so sure, while being of a different opinion to so many'.

[oneofsix]

Just like the deniers..........

If the "deniers" (what a belittling term btw) make you feel belittled perhaps the fault is the believers argument.
I'm skeptical.

[Badjelly]

Badjelly would have been better to say that 'they can be so sure, while being of a different opinion to so many'.

I wasn't discussing the paper at that point in my post, just providing background leading up to it. What I wonder about Quasi and my brother-in-law actually is how they can be so sure and so wrong.

[oneofsix]

I wasn't discussing the paper at that point in my post, just providing background leading up to it. What I wonder about Quasi and my brother-in-law actually is how they can be so sure and so wrong.

because they are not

[SPman]

Unfortunately, the "climate change" "debate" seems to have become like the evolution/creation "debate" - entrenched sides and points of view and "facts" becoming a tradeable,debateable or bashable commodity.......

I think you're very ignorant if you think this "global warming" is real.

- so ..ocean warming, ocean acidification and glacial melt isn't happening, either? Global warming is contextual - it refers to a human point of reference where human habitation has taken a particular generally comfortable climatic regime as a "standard" reference point, and the climate is now starting to stray, upwards, out of that "comfort zone". Quoting different climates at different epochs is meaningless in that there was then,as far as we know, no human society around. What is relevant is what the climate is doing now, and how it is going to affect human society - and to deny there is a shift going on and that nothing untoward is happening, in particular with respect to it's effects on human habitation of this planet is foolhardy and extremely short sighted!
I think you're ignorant if you think it isn't!

[bogan]

Unfortunately, the "climate change" "debate" seems to have become like the evolution/creation "debate" - entrenched sides and points of view and "facts" becoming a tradeable,debateable or bashable commodity.......

Except in this case, one side should be able to prove their claims. Pity those who would look at the problem objectively, are vastly outweighed by those obscuring results for their own ends.