Sins of a Solar Empire : Real-Time Strategy. Unrivalled Scale.
© 2003-2016 Ironclad Games Corporation Vancouver, BC. All rights reserved.
© 2006-2016 Stardock Entertainment

What happened to Global Warming?

By on June 20, 2013 9:54:31 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

ZombiesRus5

Join Date 02/2009
+325

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

2913 Replies +1 Karma
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
GeomanNL
November 26, 2013 6:23:38 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Daiwa,
And to ignore non-conforming reality.

I see both sides of the fence doing that.  Without it there IS NO controversy.

The problem with this as a debate is it comes down to.....hands up who has the most least dodgey data on their side wins.

In truth it is genuinely following the Python 'argument' sketch....

...this isn't an argument...it's a contradiction....

...no it isn't....

....yes it is.....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 6:30:04 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

What data has been 'faked' has not been 'faked' by governments, just 'scientists'. 

I should have finished reading messages before posting the above post.  You are of the great scientist conspiracy group.  You uh, do realize that oil companies have deep pockets and could sponsor all kinds of studies to disprove AGW if in fact it could be disproved. You, do realize this don't you?

Are you one of those who buy into "Climategate"?  If you are, well, I don't know what the flame policy is on this board, but, if you are a Climategate guy, consider yourself flamed.

Further, even a Koch funded study undertaken by a AGW skeptic even found AGW to be real:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

So, now, care to cite actual evidence for your conspiracy theory???????

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 6:41:59 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,
If you are, well, I don't know what the flame policy is on this board,

I'll let you know when it's all a little out of hand....it's the only real reason I'm in the thread....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 7:17:43 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,
You are of the great scientist conspiracy group. You uh, do realize that oil companies have deep pockets and could sponsor all kinds of studies to disprove AGW if in fact it could be disproved. You, do realize this don't you?

Spare me, if you wouldn't mind.  You do yourself no favors with this sort of nonsense.

And, yes, Jafo will keep us in line.  Gives him a raison d'etre.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 7:47:56 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting caseagainstfaith,
Are you one of those who buy into "Climategate"? If you are, well, I don't know what the flame policy is on this board, but, if you are a Climategate guy, consider yourself flamed.

This came up many pages ago. But suffice to say that yes, several people here take "Climategate" as fact (along with other knee-slappers like the Oregon Petition) while with a seemingly straight face believing that the global warming data has been faked and all scientific institutions around the world are in on a big conspiracy to hoodwink us, or wait, was it that there really is no consensus amongst these institutions? Maybe that was faked too. Motivated reasoning does wonderful gymnastics but the cognitive dissonance must be a bitch. This is why I make faked moon landing comparisons.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 8:23:47 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

Spare me, if you wouldn't mind.  You do yourself no favors with this sort of nonsense.

Uh, you were the one who said scientists (in scary quotes) faked the data.  When you make absurd claims without supporting evidence, what kind of response do you expect?  If you expect anything more than ridicule, you come to the wrong place. Ridiculous claims (Creationism, unsupported conspiracy theories, etc.) deserve no respect.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 8:28:19 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

You really should just speak for yourself, Ekko, rather than put words in other people's mouths and make condescending generalizations which serve only to make explicit your arrogance and prejudice.  Not that you care, but all the same.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 8:30:09 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

You know, case, I know some really good remedial reading teachers.  You could use the help.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:19:08 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Ekko_Tek,
This is why I make faked moon landing comparisons.

Except that the moon landing was fake...global warming however is real....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:21:15 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

For the win:

Quoting Seleuceia,
Except that the moon landing was fake...global warming however is real....

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:27:21 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Seleuceia,
Except that the moon landing was fake...global warming however is real....

You can always tell the age of a person by whether they think the landings were faked or not....

I'd put more stock in Elvis still having yet to leave the building....or that MJ wasn't born black...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 26, 2013 10:53:32 PM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

You know, case, I know some really good remedial reading teachers.  You could use the help.

Well, what you said is:

Quoting Daiwa,
What data has been 'faked' has not been 'faked' by governments, just 'scientists'.

Since you seem to be objecting to my pinning the conspiracy label on you, what exactly are you saying?  If you don't speak your position clearly, don't complain about others misunderstanding your point.  Before offering reading comprehension classes, maybe take some writing classes?

You went on to say

Quoting Daiwa,
But governments are quite willing, sometimes eager, to use any & all justifications, falsified or otherwise, if they can serve their broader interest in growing government.

Later, you indicated you don't believe in some coordinated conspiracy.  But also said:

Quoting Daiwa,
And to ignore or suppress non-conforming reality.

Sorry dude, but this all adds up to a conspiracy.  Either that, or perhaps you are proposing that merely a small number of people faked data, but then the rest of the world's scientists and governments just accepted it at face value and never checked it.

You just can't get from your point A (at least some faked data) to point B (majority of world's governments and scientists accepting AGW) without either proposing a massive conspiracy or massive incompetence.

Or, if you have another way to get from point A to point B, you haven't explained it.

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 12:00:50 AM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

You're being too concrete.  More a passive conspiracy of convenience, fueled by avarice and incompetence at the governmental level.  Lord knows both exist in abundance in the world.  More than enough to get from A to B.

If my understanding is correct, current AGW theory posits that, with 95% confidence (per the IPCC, whatever that means), human activity is the principle driver of the known rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration which is, in turn, responsible for the runaway rise in global temperature which hasn't occurred for fifteen years.  No one person, no group of people, not all the world's scientists combined have the first clue what can be done about it, reasonably or otherwise.

Dude.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 2:33:01 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

1. Imo it's pretty simple: people who think there's a conspiracy just don't have a clue how difficult it is to handle real-life measurements. They think the world is perfect, measurements are perfect. Well wake up: they aren't.

There are biases and artificacts in the data. Sometimes there are trends in the data.

For example a measurement device grows older and older and as a result the data slowly change in time. What used to be 0.0 degree becomes 0.1 degree after a long time for example.

For example the environment changes and as a result the temperature measurements change a little. For example a new city block is built nearby. As a result the measured temperatures change a little.

Those are KNOWN biases and people try to correct for these as well as they can. And sometimes there are new insights or new correction methods and sure... magically the data change a little bit.

The only crime would be, to leave the data uncorrected and biased, because then you'd include those artifacts in your studies.

 

2. People who insist that the current flat line of global temperatures is the end to warming, simply fail to ignore a shitload of other measurements (like the ocean heat content). They also fail to take into account the mitigating mechanisms that are responsible for the flat-lining.

An El Nino that transported a good amount of heat into the deeper ocean... the heat hasn't gone, it's just moved deeper down.

A cooler sun.

A few volcanic eruptions that cooled the planet down a little.

They ignore the possiblity that, without warming, we could've had a very cool couple of years with harsh winters and cool summers, like you normally have under these circumstances. Instead, we still had hot summers.

 

3. People who insist that there's not enough warming considering the amount of CO2 ignore that

- it takes time to warm the planet, because the oceans take time to warm up. There are studies that it can take as much as 100 years.

- or they look at regions and sure, some regions respond differently. Like the Antarctic ice sheet, which magically expands. But that's a result of melt from the Antarctic glaciers and it's only a natural consequence of the warming.

- or they look at their own backyard and sure, they don't notice anything. But I look at my own backyard and I do notice that we've had really hot summers in the last 10 years, and I notice that I cannot skate anymore because the winters are rarely cold enough anymore.

- mitigation effect of massive smog clouds.

- a slow buildup of ozone in the upper ozone layer.

 

 

4. deniers haven't read this:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths

 

 

5. Deniers have not read about what the Triassic and Jurassic eras were like.

I think those are awesome stories and very informative about what we're heading for.

But for some reason they ignore this. It's a conveniently ignored massive set of data... like this article, deniers never mention it because such a thing cannot be denied:

http://io9.com/5953178/triassic-eras-extreme-heat-created-dead-zones-across-the-planet

 

 

6. Although to be fair, occasionally they have a point.

But not enough to support their point.

For example to state that cloud cover is an unknown and would mitigate future warming... well it's an interesting viewpoint, but you cannot rely on such a hope that clouds will save us. It could just as well be that there'll be fewer clouds in a warming world.

 

 

7. And finally, they don't understand that we have to work with what we know, not with what we don't know.

Alarmists say: we know that we're heading for a warming earth. We don't know exactly how much and how fast, but it has lots of nasty consequences.

Deniers say: we don't know exactly what will happen, let's wait until we know exactly what.

 

Well... they are just hoping that magically somehow our predictions turn out to be 100% off. Or they hope that magically somehow there'll be a very cheap technological development that will allow us to reshape our CO2 based economy to a zero-emission economy instantly and at almost no cost.

I think that's just hopeful dreaming.

 

 

Quoting Daiwa,
No one person, no group of people, not all the world's scientists combined have the first clue what can be done about it, reasonably or otherwise.

There are several alternatives for sure: nuclear fission energy, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, wave energy. These are available NOW.

The only thing in the way are scared politicians who don't want to spend a single penny on such things. And of course their voters who don't want to spend more money on electricity...

In the future, hopefully maybe even nuclear fusion energy, but when and whether it'll be affordable... we'll have to see.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 9:49:15 AM from WinCustomize Forums WinCustomize Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

You're being too concrete.  More a passive conspiracy of convenience, fueled by avarice and incompetence at the governmental level.  Lord knows both exist in abundance in the world.  More than enough to get from A to B.

If there was that much incompetence in the sciences, computers would never have been invented.  Nobody denies governments can be incompetent, individual scientists can be incompetent.  But to get from some alleged 'scientists' (your scary quotes) who allegedly faked data (which you haven't demonstrated) to near universal acceptance by world governments who would be greatly inconvenienced by having to address AGW is a hypothesis that both flies in the face of common sense.  And further lacks a shred of evidence.

Meanwhile, the facts that I and others have posted have been ignored. Swept under the rug by your infantile fantasy of grand incompetence.

So, here's the deal...  If you want ANYBODY with TWO brain cells to take you seriously, you need to do a few things.

1.  Demonstrate there was faked data.

2.  Demonstrate it being accepted by worldwide governments and scientists.

3.  Explain why support of AGW would be in the interests of world governments.  Which would be rather difficult to do given that AGW is rather against most government interests.

4.  Provide verifiable explanations for the data in favor of AGW.

5.  Back this all up with peer reviewed research.

Until you do so, I suggest you keep your infantile fantasies of worldwide conspiracy and incompetence to yourself to avoid making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

And gee, denialists get soooooo bent out of shape when the are compared to Creationists and given the rather appropriate label of denialism.

 

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 11:10:48 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

You really should just speak for yourself, Ekko, rather than put words in other people's mouths and make condescending generalizations which serve only to make explicit your arrogance and prejudice.  Not that you care, but all the same.

I like how you try tone trolling me and then follow up with:

Quoting Daiwa,

You know, case, I know some really good remedial reading teachers.  You could use the help.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 11:49:22 AM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

I found this a good read for anyone that will bother to read past the 1st line and not go into a tirade.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 1:09:15 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting myfist0,

I found this a good read for anyone that will bother to read past the 1st line and not go into a tirade.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html[/quote]

Good read.  The science points at a possible conclusion (that AGW is in fact true), but there is lot of uncertainty around the data and even more around the process that has reached the tentative conclusion.  The behavior of AGW proponents leaves something to be desired in terms of having a real discussion of the issue.  

It's almost like there is real reason to be skeptical and it isn't all dreamed up by the Koch brothers in their evil laboratory.  

It's been my point all along that even if the AGW folks turn out to be right, there is still plenty of reason to be skeptical at the current moment especially given how huge and life altering any real solution would need to be.  And the behavior of AGW proponents does nothing to convince me that I shouldn't be skeptical.  In fact, their behavior and their reaction to skepticism only increases my skepticism, because they sound like the Wizard of Oz yelling not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.  

And:

Quoting GeomanNL,

There are several alternatives for sure: nuclear fission energy, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, wave energy. These are available NOW.

The only thing in the way are scared politicians who don't want to spend a single penny on such things. And of course their voters who don't want to spend more money on electricity...

In the future, hopefully maybe even nuclear fusion energy, but when and whether it'll be affordable... we'll have to see.

 

so drastically oversimplifies the "solution" to AGW as to be laughable.  It's not simply short sighted politicians or cheap citizens that are preventing us from switching to zero carbon energy.  Such a solution using modern energy generation is hugely complex, would necessitate VAST sums of money, would take years to implement and requires a level of international cooperation that simply isn't going to happen.    

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 1:30:37 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Here's another little inconvenient truth:

I don't have to 'demonstrate' or 'prove' anything to anyone, regardless of the number of brain cells they possess.  'Denialists' aren't trying force anyone to do squat.  The burden of proof is on AGW advocates and, as a member of the 'jury' in this analogy, I get to decide whether that burden has been met.  And I don't find ad hominems, condescension and pejorative labeling to be particularly persuasive.

Just FTR, note how I use the 'scare' quotes on 'Denialist', too, though they aren't meant to 'scare' anyone.  Also FTR, being 'taken seriously' here is not on my bucket list but I've found this discussion, such as it is, to be at least interesting, Jafo's eye-rolling notwithstanding.


Note to Ekko -

You are correct (at least about this).  I should have said:

"Case, please re-read my comments.  Thank you."

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 1:37:18 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Daiwa,
Here's another little inconvenient truth:

I don't have to 'demonstrate' or 'prove' anything to anyone, regardless of the number of brain cells they possess.  'Denialists' aren't trying force anyone to do squat.  The burden of proof is on AGW advocates and, as a member of the 'jury' in this analogy, I get to decide whether that burden has been met.  And I don't find ad hominems, condescension and pejorative labeling to be particularly persuasive.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 1:39:49 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Daiwa,

I don't have to 'demonstrate' or 'prove' anything to anyone, regardless of the number of brain cells they possess.  'Denialists' aren't trying force anyone to do squat.  The burden of proof is on AGW advocates and, as a member of the 'jury' in this analogy, I get to decide whether that burden has been met.  And I don't find ad hominems, condescension and pejorative labeling to be particularly persuasive.

I think this might be the first time anyone has made this point this explicitly here.  Well done. 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 1:48:55 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Kantok,
It's been my point all along that even if the AGW folks turn out to be right, there is still plenty of reason to be skeptical at the current moment especially given how huge and life altering any real solution would need to be.

But if mankind really causes global warming and it only becomes a true fact near 2040, wouldn't it be already too late to think about what should be done? We don't even know what are the limits of our planet, and I guess we don't really want a major climatological catastrophy, and if there is a 10-20% chance of we are the ones fucking up the planet, I think we should already start living sustainably, and introduce changes around the whole world.. This is not a game, this is about the lives of billions, or even trillions of (future) humans.

Introducing environment-friendly things that do not need extreme amount of historic stored Sun power to be used constantly (coal, oil, gas etc) and to use things that are not unlimited.. And poison the atmosphere..

Quoting Kantok,
It's been my point all along that even if the AGW folks turn out to be right, there is still plenty of reason to be skeptical at the current moment especially given how huge and life altering any real solution would need to be. And the behavior of AGW proponents does nothing to convince me that I shouldn't be skeptical. In fact, their behavior and their reaction to skepticism only increases my skepticism, because they sound like the Wizard of Oz yelling not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

But do you think environment friendly things are that bad for us (like sun, wind or fusion power)? Do you really think we should continue the current level of coal and oil usage? And we shouldn't even try to reduce our dependence on them? This is going against common sense, and I cannot really understand why are you afraid of environment-friendly technologies? Or are you afraid that this current quality of life will decrease if we go sustainable? This current level that would require 2 Earths or even more to satisfy the needs of mankind? I wouldn't complain to live a somewhat lower level quality life if it means I will be able to drink clean water and eat healthy food 30 or 50 years later, or my future kids (if i'll have any..) will have the chance of a good life.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 2:11:44 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting myfist0,

I found this a good read for anyone that will bother to read past the 1st line and not go into a tirade.

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html%20

Thanks for that - was a good read.

"So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry."

What I got out of the article was that there are certain areas of the science and of the IPCC that need improvement - and I don't doubt that for a second - but most of those skeptical of the science do not engage at this level. I would much rather see criticisms like this than the same tired old canards, misunderstandings and conspiracies that get endlessly repeated and have been long debunked. I'd love to see the quality of the criticism improved.

I have to wonder how much of the "fortress mentality" stems from the rabid nature of some of the skeptics. Hacking emails. Death threats. Legal harrassment. Political muzzling.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 2:21:19 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Turchany,


<snip>

Introducing environment-friendly things that do not need extreme amount of historic stored Sun power to be used constantly (coal, oil, gas etc) and to use things that are not unlimited.. And poison the atmosphere..

<snip>


But do you think environment friendly things are that bad for us (like sun, wind or fusion power)? Do you really think we should continue the current level of coal and oil usage? And we shouldn't even try to reduce our dependence on them? This is going against common sense, and I cannot really understand why are you afraid of environment-friendly technologies? Or are you afraid that this current quality of life will decrease if we go sustainable? This current level that would require 2 Earths or even more to satisfy the needs of mankind? I wouldn't complain to live a somewhat lower level quality life if it means I will be able to drink clean water and eat healthy food 30 or 50 years later, or my future kids (if i'll have any..) will have the chance of a good life.

 

I absolutely do not think that being environmentally friendly is bad.  I have solar panels getting installed on my house in the coming months.  My wife takes public transportation to work and I work from home.  We don't have AC and we recycle.  All fine things and some of them contributing to the fight against AGW (if it exists).  

My problem is with the idea that, despite the fact that it clearly ISN'T settled, we are told to shut up and go along.  Any solution, any real solution that averts the supposed coming catastrophe MUST, by the nature of how this problem would be solved (if it's even possible, also not a proven fact), make the world a poorer and more unstable place in the short and medium term.  Any solution that had a hope of actually making a difference, again assuming that the IPCC and its ilk were right, would be heavily disruptive to the first world economies, would further tax those economies because we would be the ones financing any solution in the 3rd world as it developed and would lead to conflict and potentially war with some of the BRIC nations.  These concerns are never addressed, but we're supposed to shut up and sign on anyway.  

Look at it this way.  Assume that if it exists humans are the primary cause behind global warming (AGW, essentially).  There are four possibilities.

  1. AGW is real and fixable immediately through our actions
  2. It's real and will get fixed on its own through the natural evolution of energy technology in the next 100 years
  3. It's real and not fixable 
  4. It's not real.  

#3 is the basic we're fucked scenario.  Doesn't matter what we do so we might as well enjoy the ride down.  For the remaining 3 we have 2 options:

Option 1:  If we implement some world wide program that attempts to solve AGW we are guaranteed to have slower growth (or a decrease) in quality of life over the next few decades while the resources to solve the problem are expended regardless of which of the remaining 3 options above is correct

Option 2:  If we don't implement something then we only have a negative outcome in 1 of the 3.  

There is a barrier of proof around AGW that must be provided before I'm willing to voluntarily sign up for guaranteeing worse quality of life prospects in my children's future (moving from Option 2 to 1).  Regardless of the fact that AGW does have some evidence, there are entirely too many reasons to be skeptical for me to agree that we should drastically alter the world economy just in case.  The article above does a much better job explaining that skepticism than I have here in this thread.  

None of the precludes individuals from "doing their part".  But really, if individuals "doing their part" is enough, then there is no coming catastrophe at all. Either this is a problem that requires immediate world wide action or it isn't.  There is no middle ground allowed by the AGW proponent's own language.  

Personally, right now I believe #2 above.  I think humans probably contribute to global warming, though less than the current "consensus" suggests.  I also think that the natural (and constantly increasing) rate of technological change means we'll be off of fossil fuels before the human component pushes us anywhere near the edge.  Cheap, safe nuclear power via Thorium supplemented by other renewables is the wave of the future. I think the shrill response to skeptics and the laziness around the handling of data and the loose "consensus process" is less conspiracy and more simply the fact that humans who invest their lives in a particular narrative, regardless of the narrative, have a very hard time modifying it or letting it go.  I think organizations made up of those people magnify that hesitance at an organizational level.  

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but the arguments of AGW proponents coupled with their behavior isn't very convincing.  

I'm also open to some magic world wide solution that doesn't require 1) drastically disrupting the current state of things and/or 2) going to war and/or 3) giving giant amounts of power to small, unelected "experts" to make decisions for us.  But alas, no one can even really come up with the hard, expensive solution let alone the easy to implement solution.  

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
November 27, 2013 2:26:12 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Ekko_Tek,
I have to wonder how much of the "fortress mentality" stems from the rabid nature of some of the skeptics. Hacking emails. Death threats. Legal harrassment. Political muzzling.

You mean like

cwon14/WUWT ignorantly spews toxic venom:
• Dr. Curry’s “technical comments are a distraction”, and
• Dr. Curry’s views “aren’t a rational position”, and
• Dr. Curry’s merely “the least insane person”, and
• Dr. Curry is “a poster child for failed skeptics”, and
• Dr. Curry “is completely corrupted”, and
• Dr. Curry “is a statist in the end game”, and
• Dr. Curry’s weblog is “where skeptics go to die”, and
• Dr. Curry’s “‘pause’ is yet another stupid concept”, and
• Dr. Curry’s belongs to “pinhead academia”, and
• Dr. Curry’s research is “more climate science magic dust”
    (multiple further abusive claims not quoted)

I have seen 1st hand what happens to what were once reputable scientists once they question anything the IPCC states.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000469   Page Render Time: