Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

"Expansion of the topic is a time honored obfuscation technique." --homersapien (post #41 in this thread)

[homersapien 11,373]

This looks and reads a lot like science

LOL!!

That's close enough for you I am sure.

So you're saying the graph contains factually incorrect data?

I'd like you to answer my question first, Homer.

I don't know, where did it come from?

Just glancing at it, it appears to be an arbitrary range of data lifted from a much longer range (x axis) which is a classical way of misrepresenting a long term trend.

[homersapien 11,373]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

"Expansion of the topic is a time honored obfuscation technique." --homersapien (post #41 in this thread)

Actually (as I said) I was not trying to expand the existing topic. I specifically acknowledged this was an off-topic question. So this is not an attempt to obfuscate.

I am more than willing to discuss global warming. I am trying to figure out just how hopeless you guys are regarding science. If, for example, you reject evolution, it's a total waste of my time to argue global warming with you.

In fact, it's probably a waste of my time to discuss global warming regardless Anyone who really believes this is a hoax being perpetuated by the entire global scientific community on the rest of us is not going to be receptive to whatever points I have to make, period.

Am I right?

I just figured I would use a quick and dirty method to qualify you as capable of discussing this in a rational way. Accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean you can do that, but rejecting evolution is a definitive marker you can't.

[homersapien 11,373]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

I guess this thread is finished.

Please see post # 53.

[homersapien 11,373]

1:50 AM is pretty late for an old feller to be still up and posting on the interwebs.

You got that right. I should have gone to bed hours ago.

[AFTiger 282]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

"Expansion of the topic is a time honored obfuscation technique." --homersapien (post #41 in this thread)

No actually (as I said) I was not trying to expand the topic. I am more than willing to discuss global warming. I am trying to figure out just how hopeless you guys are regarding science. If, for example, you reject evolution, it's a total waste of my time to argue global warming with you.

In fact, it's probably a waste of my time to discuss global warming at all. Anyone who really believes this is a hoax being perpetuated by the entire global scientific community on the rest of us is not going to be receptive to whatever points I make, period.

Am I right?

I just figured I would use a quick and dirty method to qualify you as capable of discussing this in a rational way. Accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean you can do that, but rejecting evolution is a definitive marker that you can't.

By playing the irrelevant evolution card, you have shown that you are not capable of carrying on a rational discussion on global warming. Had you been paying attention you would have noted my reference to the age of the earth.

[BamaGrad03 0]

This looks and reads a lot like science

LOL!!

That's close enough for you I am sure.

So you're saying the graph contains factually incorrect data?

I'd like you to answer my question first, Homer.

I don't know, where did it come from?

Just glancing at it, it appears to be an arbitrary range of data lifted from a much longer range (x axis) which is a classical way of misrepresenting a long term trend.

Ad hominem approach eh? The IPCC agrees with the data that was posted. I doubt questioning the source is a fair argument here, unless you can show DIFFERENT surface temperature data.

And it encapsulates 20 years of data, showing no warming trend. That's not cherry picking - especially considering the climate scientists have said that we were to expect considerable warming within the date range shown on the table. Warming that failed to materialize.

[homersapien 11,373]

This looks and reads a lot like science

LOL!!

That's close enough for you I am sure.

So you're saying the graph contains factually incorrect data?

I'd like you to answer my question first, Homer.

I don't know, where did it come from?

Just glancing at it, it appears to be an arbitrary range of data lifted from a much longer range (x axis) which is a classical way of misrepresenting a long term trend.

Ad hominem approach eh? The IPCC agrees with the data that was posted. I doubt questioning the source is a fair argument here, unless you can show DIFFERENT surface temperature data.

And it encapsulates 20 years of data, showing no warming trend. That's not cherry picking - especially considering the climate scientists have said that we were to expect considerable warming within the date range shown on the table. Warming that failed to materialize.

Actually it's 17 years. And it may or may not show a warming trend. And you didn't tell me where it came from.

Not to say it's incorrect, but I don't like commenting on data without knowing it's origin.

Meanwhile, here's a response to your premise (no warming is occurring). I even added the reference links since you guys don't like going to my suggested sites.

---------------------------------------------

Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.

Answer:

Global Warming is not an output of computer models, it is conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places, in England for example, that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
  
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1295957/Info+sheet+%231.pdf/c612fc7e-babb-463c-b5e3-124ac76680c5
  

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. As well as the direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead us to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

• Satellite Data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
  
• Radiosondes http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
  
• Borehole analysis http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
  
• Glacial melt observations http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html
  
• Sea ice melt http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
  
• Sea level rise http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
  
• Proxy Reconstructions http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
  
• Permafrost melt http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500
  

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic. http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence/</p>

[homersapien 11,373]

Raptor, JapanTiger, BamaGrad, AFTiger, Loggerhead:

(Hope I didn't leave anyone out)

Not to change the subject, but I have a off-topic question that I would like to ask of each of you.

Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific Theory (large T)?

"Expansion of the topic is a time honored obfuscation technique." --homersapien (post #41 in this thread)

No actually (as I said) I was not trying to expand the topic. I am more than willing to discuss global warming. I am trying to figure out just how hopeless you guys are regarding science. If, for example, you reject evolution, it's a total waste of my time to argue global warming with you.

In fact, it's probably a waste of my time to discuss global warming at all. Anyone who really believes this is a hoax being perpetuated by the entire global scientific community on the rest of us is not going to be receptive to whatever points I make, period.

Am I right?

I just figured I would use a quick and dirty method to qualify you as capable of discussing this in a rational way. Accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean you can do that, but rejecting evolution is a definitive marker that you can't.

By playing the irrelevant evolution card, you have shown that you are not capable of carrying on a rational discussion on global warming. Had you been paying attention you would have noted my reference to the age of the earth.

Sorry I missed that. (What post #?)

And are you saying you accept evolution as established science? ("Yes" or "No" will work just fine.)

And really, "playing the evolution card"? :-\ Did you not understand my post (#53) explaining that?

[BamaGrad03 0]

Actually it's 17 years. And it may or may not show a warming trend. And you didn't tell me where it came from.

So the IPCC admits that there wasn't a warming trend, but you still aren't sure?

Not only that, here's a chart of the actual temperatures vs the IPCC projection (you know, the projections on which funding is based, on which enviornmental laws are enacted, on potentially economic crippling sanctions and world wide practices are being adopted)

The data came from Remote Sensing Systems: http://www.remss.com/about_rss/about_rss.html

Similar data can be found from:

- GISS

- UAH

- HadCRUt4

- NCDC

Every single data model of surface temperatures is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the IPCC's projections. Like obliterating them...

[homersapien 11,373]

And the following is a response to the specific claim that warming stopped in 1998. It explains in detail the point I was trying to make to you regarding your (BamaGrad's) chart:

http://scienceblogs....topped-in-1998/

Objection:

Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global Warming is over.

Answer:

At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent levelling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick because NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.

Now this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs, but any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can not extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. This is why it is hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe that they are a voice of integrity in this debate, rather it appears more to be an abuse of the trust people would like to place in them as scientists. Bob Carter is such a voice and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and has been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of sceptic websites.

Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing as he tries to pre-empt objections in his article by basically insinuating that any choice of starting point, (such as 1978), will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion, it is not the simple act of choosing at all, as one must choose some starting point. In the case of his example year, 1978, this is often chosen simply because it is the first year that satellite records of tropospheric temperatures were available. (http://en.wikipedia....perature_record )

So what choices are there, what are the reasons for those choices and what are the conclusions we can draw from them?

• As just mentioned above, one could chose to examine the last 30 years because that is the period of time where both surface and tropospheric readings were available. We have been experiencing warming of approximately .2oC/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming did in fact end in 1998.
  

• You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis as this was the start of the late 20th century warming and as such it is a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6oC warming.
  

• You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis as this is when the recent warming started in their record. This record shows around .5oC warming of the smoothed trend line.
  

• You could choose 1880 in the NASA record. This shows .8oC warming.
  

• You could choose 1855 in the CRU record. This shows .8oC warming. Again, with this trend and the above we can not say it is over without many decades more data all indicating cooling.
  

• You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis because that is its entire length. This puts today about 1oC above the temperatures in the first 3 centuries of that record. The record of today’s trend in that kind of analysis will be hidden from view for many more decades.
  

• You could choose to look at the last one thousand years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
  

Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used),

they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

(

http://www.ncdc.noaa.../paleolast.html

)

I think that about covers any periods of time relevant to today’s society. Clearly, "it has stopped warming" is only supported by taking a single specific year out of context and using a 7 year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That is a classic cherry pick.

You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10k yrs ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a very long and stable period with a very slight downward trend and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilisation, the entire Holocene. Such a long view applied to today will take many centuries to clear up. The situation is a bit more urgent than that!

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic. http://scienceblogs....k-to-a-sceptic/

[BamaGrad03 0]

I agree that 1998 is an anomaly, but we are still 'warming' below the trend that was projected. So regardless of what baseline you choose, scientists are scrambling to excuse the fact that our warming pattern doesn't satisfy their prediction models.

And instead of saying 'hey before we make anymore sweeping pronouncements that may also prove to never matrialize, let's observe for a while and see what happens. Maybe revist or data, reformulate our hypothesis' They say - you need to enact economic crippling laws and sanctions based on what we're saying - even while what we are saying is shown to not be the gospel. And we don't need to look at an alternative hypothesis because if you don't believe us, you're just a whacko nutjob who is likened to a birther or someone who believes the moon landing was staged.

And I find it WILDLY disingenuous to say - nope, I know for a fact that humans are making the earth hotter...but if the earth doesn't get hot as fast as I was certain it would, it's not because I was wrong, it was because of nature. "Nature is only capable of cooling itself organically. If nature warms, it's human's fault" That's absurd.

That's just not an honest position. The fact that from day one, these guys have gone out of their way to marginalize ANYONE who disagrees with them (even within their respected community) as crazy, makes me think that they have ulterior motives.

Like these:

There's a reason that even scientists at the top of their field get exiled from the scientific community and marginalized as heretics. In what other area of science are differing forumlations so hated and met with such bile?

[homersapien 11,373]

Actually it's 17 years. And it may or may not show a warming trend. And you didn't tell me where it came from.

So the IPCC admits that there wasn't a warming trend, but you still aren't sure?

Not only that, here's a chart of the actual temperatures vs the IPCC projection (you know, the projections on which funding is based, on which enviornmental laws are enacted, on potentially economic crippling sanctions and world wide practices are being adopted)

The data came from Remote Sensing Systems: http://www.remss.com.../about_rss.html

Similar data can be found from:

- GISS

- UAH

- HadCRUt4

- NCDC

Every single data model of surface temperatures is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the IPCC's projections. Like obliterating them...

You didn't dig into my post did you?

Do you understand the concept of "cherry-picking" data?

[homersapien 11,373]

I agree that 1998 is an anomaly, but we are still 'warming' below the trend that was projected. So regardless of what baseline you choose, scientists are scrambling to excuse the fact that our warming pattern doesn't satisfy their prediction models.

And instead of saying 'hey before we make anymore sweeping pronouncements that may also prove to never matrialize, let's observe for a while and see what happens. Maybe revist or data, reformulate our hypothesis' They say - you need to enact economic crippling laws and sanctions based on what we're saying - even while what we are saying is shown to not be the gospel. And we don't need to look at an alternative hypothesis because if you don't believe us, you're just a whacko nutjob who is likened to a birther or someone who believes the moon landing was staged.

And I find it WILDLY disingenuous to say - nope, I know for a fact that humans are making the earth hotter...but if the earth doesn't get hot as fast as I was certain it would, it's not because I was wrong, it was because of nature. "Nature is only capable of cooling itself organically. If nature warms, it's human's fault" That's absurd.

That's just not an honest position. The fact that from day one, these guys have gone out of their way to marginalize ANYONE who disagrees with them (even within their respected community) as crazy, makes me think that they have ulterior motives.

Like these:

There's a reason that even scientists at the top of their field get exiled from the scientific community and marginalized as heretics. In what other area of science are differing forumlations so hated and met with such bile?

So are you now changing the subject to Economics?

Figures.

[Weegle777 78]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

[AUloggerhead 2,231]

Global warming is real and has been happening since the end of the last glaciation - about 12k years ago, give or take a couple of centuries or two. Global cooling is also real and will happen again with the start of the next glaciation period. How & when these natural cycles occur is not well understood because the forces involved are immense, not to mention incredibly complex. Also, the timetable for these type of events are on geologic time. All of recorded human history only spans about 5k years.

I've said this before in a previous global warming thread: I live in Washington state. At the peak of the last glaciation, the geologic record shows the ice thickness over the location of my house was estimated to be 2500-3000 feet thick. (I thank God that global warming occurred when it did otherwise my daily commute would be even more difficult than it already is.) Something caused all that ice to melt and it wasn't coal-fired power plants, the Industrial Revolution nor soccer moms driving around in large, inefficient SUVs. That melting happened all on its own without a carbon tax in place, too.

[homersapien 11,373]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

First, not all scientists are climate scientists (me for example). And I'd like to know who the climate scientist is that says it has stopped.

Meanwhile, I'm persuaded by the "consensus":

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus/

[homersapien 11,373]

Global warming is real and has been happening since the end of the last glaciation - about 12k years ago, give or take a couple of centuries or two. Global cooling is also real and will happen again with the start of the next glaciation period. How & when these natural cycles occur is not well understood because the forces involved are immense, not to mention incredibly complex. Also, the timetable for these type of events are on geologic time. All of recorded human history only spans about 5k years.

I've said this before in a previous global warming thread: I live in Washington state. At the peak of the last glaciation, the geologic record shows the ice thickness over the location of my house was estimated to be 2500-3000 feet thick. (I thank God that global warming occurred when it did otherwise my daily commute would be even more difficult than it already is.) Something caused all that ice to melt and it wasn't coal-fired power plants, the Industrial Revolution nor soccer moms driving around in large, inefficient SUVs. That melting happened all on its own without a carbon tax in place, too.

Natural cycles are taken into account in the science of global warming. It's a red herring to bring them up as if they are sole cause of present-day warming.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/it-was-warmer-during-holocene-climatic/

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green/

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/global-warming-is-nothing-new/

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/vineland-was-full-of-grapes/

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/12/we-are-just-recovering-from-lia/

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle/

etc.

[AUcivE09 582]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

[telling tiger 156]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

That is utterly ridiculous, lol.

[homersapien 11,373]

I have stated several times that I work with this daily. Yet people still choose to beleive whatever is on the internet that supports their theory. The carbon tax is just that - a tax on business under the disguise of environmental protection. Just read the freaking regulations. All the government calls for is that facilities "use BMP and boilers/steam generating units operating with maximum efficiency". Guess what - the better these things run - the more CO2 they produce (as opposed to Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxides). So the governement wants to increase the amount of CO2 produced and then charge them for it. There are absolutely ZERO control devices out there that are even remotely feasible options. But by all means - do not listen to the people who actually work with this and have to implement and enforce this crap.

No me. I always consider the quality of the source. In fact, I am always preaching not all sites are equal anymore than a given "scientist" represents an authoritative position.

But we are talking about the validity of AGW theory, not the pros and cons of what a given response should be.

Having said that, and not to change the subject, but I think you are conflating the term "efficiency" with maximum output. You also seem to conflate the carbon tax theory with direct regulations when they are essentially opposite in philosophy.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

That is utterly ridiculous, lol.

So you say. You're a no good, stinkin................ What are you again?

[Weegle777 78]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

The argument is a broken record. What I find interesting is that some believe that humans will destroy the planet. But, those same people will state how resilient life is because life evolves and adapts to change in its environment. So from that, I am hearing that life is resilient, but the planet isn't. This planet, over centuries and centuries, has regulated itself, through unbelievable natural disasters that would make the threat of CO2 and human caused future disasters seem like a blip on thr screen. To say that we are that powerful, and have the ability to cause a greater impact to this planet than what historical records have stated that monumental and catastrophic "natural disasters" without human intervention has caused, is the height of arrogance, and for people to actually buy that line, is the height of idiocy. Anybody that can read history, can see what this planet has been subjected to. And guess what, it has always regulated itself, and adapted and repaired itself accordingly. This planet will always balance itself, the historical record tells us that.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

These global warming threads are funny. They always come down to which side of the aisle you are on. Some scientists that you guys quote, say that GW is happening, some scientists say that it has stopped. Which ones are correct?

Reality has no place in the world of politics. You pick a side and adopt the foolish notion that your side is always noble and correct, the other side is evil and wrong. Come on Weegs! Get with the program. Rhetoric is better than truth. Look at the last twenty years. Things have never been better. The last thing we need is truth, cooperation, and compromise. Reality is whatever your team says it is. You have to bend reality to suite your needs.

The argument is a broken record. What I find interesting is that some believe that humans will destroy the planet. But, those same people will state how resilient life is because life evolves and adapts to change in its environment. So from that, I am hearing that life is resilient, but the planet isn't. This planet, over centuries and centuries, has regulated itself, through unbelievable natural disasters that would make the threat of CO2 and human caused future disasters seem like a blip on thr screen. To say that we are that powerful, and have the ability to cause a greater impact to this planet than what historical records have stated that monumental and catastrophic "natural disasters" without human intervention has caused, is the height of arrogance, and for people to actually buy that line, is the height of idiocy. Anybody that can read history, can see what this planet has been subjected to. And guess what, it has always regulated itself, and adapted and repaired itself accordingly. This planet will always balance itself, the historical record tells us that.

Well then, that changes my answer. The scientist, or economist for that matter, who is correct, is the one who tells you what you want to hear.