“Climate change is happening, humans are almost certainly to blame, and there almost certainly will be hard consequences if we don’t start dealing with it soon”
And we come full circle. There is NO proof of this, which is why there’s such vitriol. It’s purely speculation based on models that make assumptions. e.g. Industry causes CO2, CO2 causes warming; using GDP to measure industrial output, extrapolate future GDP and from that, extrapolate future warming. That’s the ESSENCE of what IPCC’s report does!
Mark’s mentality: “even there is no conclusive proof, let’s do it anyway,” is fine and dandy, but convince companies that will go bankrupt to go along with you. There’s a lot of things humans do based on perceived, rather than real, benefit. If using science to understand global warming doesn’t matter in the end, what’s the point of being scientific?
jrp1: “In fact, it would be historic if anyone can conclusively prove that AGW is a farce.”
Exactly!
I was asked: “Anyways, I have a question for you, futureSDperson. Do you consider offering $10K cash awards to anyone that will dismiss scientifically determined results a good method to discover the truth? Discuss.”
I find that odd, because the other people have already countered the IPCC report. The oil companies would be better off coordinating these various people to come up with a good peer review of the IPCC report.
I don’t care who’s behind it or how much money is involved (but I do care that funding is given to both sides fairly, which isn’t happening). When it comes to science, the more scutiny you give to a theory, the better. This is obvious.
My counter question: The earth was warm enough to offer the vikings an ice-less Greenland 1000-1200. How did this happen without human-caused CO2?
