Nuclear energy is tho only feasible source of carbon free energy we have currently available. So we can build nukes or go back to whittling and crocheting by candlelight in front of a dark television screen on winter evenings. Sidi Obama will have to face up to that sooner or later

The nuclear Catch-22 has just dawned on the UK green lobby.

The defining characteristic of a government is that it has a legal monopoly on the use of force. It should only be involved in areas where that characteristic is necessary and appropriate, i.e. police, the courts, the military. It has no legitimate business in funding of science or any other peaceful activity. It’s influence in those areas can only corrupt.

Something that is not proven does not need disproving.

Proof is always a matter of degree – there is no such thing as absolute proof. If you don’t have any other hypothesis to match the data, why do you dismiss the theory that fits the data?

When you try to sell an idea or product, you have to show the buyer what he is getting for his money. Show me what it is you have to sell.

The current socialized cost of carbon emissions is clear in the data on global warming, glacial retreat, and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. The problem is that the worst effects of global warming will take decades, if not centuries, to be undeniably obvious in daily life, by which time the damage will be so severe that it may not be possible to reverse. If you plan to have children, you might be concerned for the future viability of the planet as a home for the human race. I suppose if you are completely self-centered, the benefits are rather intangible.

The earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years, and the long term trend is, no doubt, cooling.

There is no doubt that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. However, human beings evolved within a very narrow range of conditions, and homo sapiens now depend on a reliable climate for agricultural societies to persist. Disrupting the climate in ways that impact our ability to survive as a species is short-sighted.

Think big, David S. You wouldn’t be on this site, incessantly, if you didn’t think there is something to conservatism.

Conservatism used to mean conserving the best of the past. I’m hoping that someday it will again have the same connotation. A true conservative would recognize the value of the biosphere as a shared asset of the human race which enables our own existence, and would act in the defense of this resource.

Finding a true conservative Republican is about as likely as being struck by lightning.

Peace.

DS

In the Scientific Method, the burden of proof is always on the purveyors of any new hypothesis, to demonstrate that it explains reality better than the existing theory. Normally this is done by showing the predictive value of the new hypothesis. And as we know, the AGW purveyors are unable to predict either the climate or the weather better than by 50/50 chance. Today’s record low temps and blizzard conditions in Washington, D.C., during a global warming rally, are a case in point.

The “AGW-CO2-climate catastrophe” hypothesis postulates that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause runaway global warming. This has repeatedly been shown to be false; as beneficial CO2 steadily rises, global temperatures have steadily fallen:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MSU.jpg

The current climate is well within the parameters of normal climate change history. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary is occurring; nothing. The climate is acting exactly the same as it has since well before the first petroleum discovery. Human activity has so little effect on the climate, that any changes are so tiny that they are unmeasurable.

As anyone can see by flying across the country, the Earth is a really huge place — while all of humanity could be fitted into a sphere only six miles across, with room to spare. Termites emit almost as much greenhouse gases as all of humanity. Upwards of 40 million Bison thundered across the Great Plains before the arrival of the Europeans, farting greenhouse gases all the way. Yet people like David S. have a dishonest political agenda to convince the public that we are reaching a climate “tipping point,” where runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are close at hand. They’re deliberately lying to you.

According to the Scientific Method, the promoters of the new AGW-climate catastrophe hypothesis have the burden of showing that their alarming hypothesis explains reality better than the long accepted theory of natural climate change. It is not the other way around, where the long held theory of natural climate must prove anything to anyone. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

According to the Scientific Method, the burden is on dishonest AGW promoters like David S. to falsify natural climate variability. But since David S. is incapable of falsifying that long accepted theory, he is forced to turn the Scientific Method on its head, to try and win the debate. That is a dishonest tactic.

AGW promoters have completely failed to demonstrate that their new hypothesis explains reality better than the long-accepted theory of natural climate change. Since the burden is on the believers in the failed AGW idea to show that their hypothesis explains reality, then they need to go back to the drawing board board and start over, instead of playing their devious games by trying to subvert the Scientific Method.

You are a truly an misinformed and apparently un-informable semi-educated person. I am one of the 31,000 who has advanced scientific degrees and at one time accepted the basic AGW hypothesis. After I was asked to investigate the real scientific papers and not pseudo-journalistic propaganda, published under the thesis of “…if it bleeds or scares, it leads…”, I no longer agree. I proudly affixed my name to the skeptic petition. You sir, have done no such research, or are incapable of doing so.

The preponderance of scientific hypothetical papers of the 60s -70s and 80s supported the thesis of an AGW component of an experienced warming climate cycle. Mostly as as a gualitative proposition.

The quantitative Science of the 90s and the 21st century increasingly discredited every major single foundation of the hypothesis, with valid scientific measurements as reported by their published papers. It is now supported by a minority of genuine Scientists save for the ones profiting in a measurable way, so whose opinion is tainted. As an example, Astronomer Paul Hansen of NASA, has no training in either Climatology nor IT, both of which he controls at GISS, to the detriment of both. There are openly published evidence of financial support adding up to over a million dollars given to Mr. Hanson personally. Not to mention the position at NASA to which he was placed by Mr. Gore for his obeisance to Mr. Gore’s extremely personlly profitable idee fixe.

Now the AGW thesis is supported by by a minority of scientists, but a coterie on non scientist bureaucrats and politicians who use the scientists as mere window dressing, to push their largely political ideas.

When you write the conclusions written by some 52 non-scientists but politicians with an axe to grind, BEFORE the assessment of the current Science produced by the Scientists is completed, it betrays the whole enterprise of the IPCC as a non-scientific Farce.

I urge you to investigate the real science, with an open mind, and you will become an AGW skeptic. And perhaps even outraged to be used as a Fool by those who did it to you.

Algore seems to think that the study of sun cycles and other data are not science. He only studies that which if ambiguous enough to not risk his political theory. I wonder how he measure CO2 at 60,000 feet elevation back 1,000 years?
Did someone one tell him it is heavier that normal air mixtures?

This is not the first time I have told you to seek out your information in different places than the ones you habitually use.

I’m not in the habit of taking research advice from people that refuse to share their sources. Go ahead and post some peer-reviewed science debunking global warming, and I’ll take a look at it.

What, you say you can’t find any?

How odd.

Peace.

DS