tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post2260778380697878954..comments2024-03-28T10:16:44.231-07:00Comments on Cliff Mass Weather Blog: Climate TribesCliff Mass Weather Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948649423540350788noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-54470645343249226802013-03-22T12:51:34.613-07:002013-03-22T12:51:34.613-07:00Also, let us not forget that all of this hysteria ...Also, let us not forget that all of this hysteria preparation sounds great when you can afford to pay extra for a Prius or to buy "sustainable" (laugh) foods at Whole Foods. <br /><br />But when you live in a dirt or cardboard hut, as most of the world's population does, you burn wood or do what you can to survive. And if your banana republic leaders sell you out at the UN because they got to go to a fancy all expense paid Climate Hysteria Conference in Brazil, or Sweden, you still suffer. <br /><br />The arrogance of the Climate Hysterians is what turns the rest of us normal people off the most.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-45846306393893292452013-03-22T12:44:51.293-07:002013-03-22T12:44:51.293-07:00The irony here is that the Warmist/Hyperbole crowd...The irony here is that the Warmist/Hyperbole crowd acts offended that no one instantly bows down to their decrees, even as they fudge data, control peer review, and make wildly outrageous predictions that do not hold up for even a year or two out. <br /><br />It is simple. Humans are very adaptable, and everything changes all the time. Resources are a function of technology. Today's fuels will be not tomorrow's. So there is never any reason for panic and hysteria. And just to take our local region as an example. We all visit the Sound at least a few times a year. For example, I have relatives with property on the Sound. They have lived there for 60 years and there has very little change to their waterline. Certainly no change that they cannot easily adapt to both financially, and physically in terms of keep a seawall up to date, etc. <br /><br />The wild claims of sea level rise appear to be ridiculous to the point, that nobody takes people like Al Gore, Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen, or their media sycophants seriously anymore. <br /><br />If you cry wolf as much as the Climate Hysteria crowd has, you can expect to be dismissed. <br /><br />It's nice to read from real scientists like Cliff, but seriously, there is NOTHING to worry about any time soon. And if there is, you cannot predict it anyway. <br /><br />The whole thing is like a future large meteor strike or an earthquake. A reality to be sure, but not one worth fretting about becasue there is probably nothing we can do anyway.<br /><br />Get back to the real science please, and stop asking for money and handouts. Go raise your own the old fashioned way.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02059221822159483655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-87054637890780509852013-03-22T11:08:06.618-07:002013-03-22T11:08:06.618-07:00Issues regarding the environment have always been ...Issues regarding the environment have always been politically polarizing. If you cared about the environment at all you were a hippie liberal. If you didn't think it was more important than human jobs, you were a dispassionate conservative. Global warming was just more fuel to the fire, LOL. If not for Al, the polarization would still be heavily in place.<br /><br />Thus, I would give Al Gore more credit than blame for his "work". He brought the issue to the masses in a way that may have converted some. Without him, the issue would have been more in the abstract.<br /><br />What's probably hurt the issue was his label "global warming". (I'm not sure who was really responsible for that, but he's the one who placed it in the mainstream.) It should have been called "climate change" from the outset. <br /><br />It's so easy to say "global warming" does not exist as I sit here looking at the snow out my window in March. But climate change is more about facts and figures. Teresahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09704607178106828945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-47624356927187659272013-03-19T13:28:33.513-07:002013-03-19T13:28:33.513-07:00Thanks for the thoughts, Cliff.
I'm not sure...Thanks for the thoughts, Cliff. <br /><br />I'm not sure this problem easily fits analogies with other more familiar partisan issues.<br /><br />It helps to remember that polarization doesn't mean that both sides are equally correct. The camps around "2+2" are also highly polarized, though in that case one camp is much larger than the other.<br /><br />10 years ago if somebody had the descriptive means to publish a paper predicting the current state of Arctic sea ice it's dubious whether such a paper would have found a journal to call "home." The author would likely have been decried as "alarmist," part of a polarization (sorry!) problem. Yet today that hypothetical author's alarmism is shown to be justified. <br /><br />As well, it may help to remember there's a qualitative difference between the two camps. One person may be passionately defending a way of life justifiably seen as comfortable and pleasant, the other may be equally passionate in their frustration with the failure of people to take heed of warnings we see in science and (more latterly) observation. While "feelings don't lie," at the end of the day these qualitative differences in feeling don't matter as much as does physics. In this case physics is going to end up justifying one set of feelings more than the other. <br /><br /> dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-31479793323214168922013-03-18T23:12:39.162-07:002013-03-18T23:12:39.162-07:00Thanks Unknown - I do generally want to get as muc...Thanks Unknown - I do generally want to get as much information as possible.<br /><br /><br />Ars Technica in fact has an article out today mentioning a study saying that we should see stronger hurricanes due to climate change, but I'm not sure the timing (meaning cliff's post wouldn't necessarily disagree): <br /><br /><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/a-warmer-planet-means-bigger-hurricane-surges" rel="nofollow">A warmer planet means bigger hurricanes</a>Brandenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11780920750288881616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-14187155410443031052013-03-18T21:50:30.742-07:002013-03-18T21:50:30.742-07:00> Art
> solution is to fund ....
They did f...> Art<br />> solution is to fund ....<br /><br />They did fund it and are working on it (Europeans, not the US):<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO110002/abstractUsing Climate Predictions to Better Serve Society's Needs<br />12 MAR 2013<br />DOI: 10.1002/2013EO110002<br /><br />"... there is a growing and urgent need to improve society's resilience to climate-related hazards and better manage the risks and opportunities from climate variability and climate change. This situation was recognized by governments, scientists, and decision makers at the World Climate Conference-3 in 2009, subsequently leading to the creation of the Global Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) under the leadership of several United Nations agencies...."<br /><br />(Full text is paywalled for AGU members, but any local library can get you a free copy to read)<br /><br />That project is improving the middle-range forecasts -- months to years -- that you said you require. Watch for it.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-85917951635850402342013-03-18T21:16:13.751-07:002013-03-18T21:16:13.751-07:00I live on First Hill, walk everywhere, do not own ...I live on First Hill, walk everywhere, do not own a car, do not take commercial flights, and don't have an air conditioner, and have a paperless household.<br /><br />Yet, I count myself a global warming skeptic.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Because the global warming believers, all whom preach to me ad-nasueum, pollute far more than I do.<br /><br />See, if you want to know what people believe, and I mean truly believe, don't listen to what they say … watch what they do.<br /><br />Al Gore says global warming is real, but his house uses 20x the power of an average home. Cliff Mass says global warming is real, yet I dare you to find his books anywhere but in paper form. When Earth Day participants come to town, I dare you to find parking anywhere near the event. <br /><br />Instead of actually living a low-carbon lifestyle, climate change evangelists preaching recycling, an activity which actually causes more pollution than not recycling. How do you think those objects get to the recycling center, how do you think the recycling equipment is powered, and how do you think the recycling employees get to work? Magic Pixie Dust-powered cars?<br /><br />Paper companies plant more trees than they cut down, but we pass a paper bag ban because it makes people feel good about themselves.<br /><br />Hypocrisy is always the smoke that is emitted from a fire of lies.<br /><br />Global warming is not about the planet. It's a social club.<br /><br />When the climate change evangelists stop preaching to me, and start putting their money where their mouth is -- When they start turning in their cars doing things that actually inconvenience them, I'll start to worry. Don't tell me. Talk us cheap. Show me.<br /><br />Until then, I'll continue laughing at their hypocrisy, content known that if it is real, I've been way ahead of them in carbon footprint reduction for the past 20 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-21779208932498903312013-03-18T16:37:54.749-07:002013-03-18T16:37:54.749-07:00I have a comment, prompted by Art's opinion, a...I have a comment, prompted by Art's opinion, above:<br /><br />I am sure it does seem to the laymen a lot to ask that we accept that scientists can predict the general effects of global warming when we can hardly predict the weather a few days away. But in fact it is not so far-fetched to say what the average effects of a change in parameters will be on the climate.<br /><br /><br />Weather prediction and climate prediction are very different! Climate is essentially the average weather of a place. It will always be much esier to foretell the average effect of various factors, such as increased carbon dioxide in the air, than it will be to predict the weather on a specific day two weeks away. Anyone wanting more insight on this should read up on Chaos Theory (which is scientific fact, and whole books are written on it, but the basic idea is quite simple). <br /><br />We know that certain influences TEND to warm the climate (i.e., the average weather). But we will NEVER know exactly when to schedule a vacation to the beach if we need to put in for the exact time off from work three months ahead. Unfortunately, all we can do there is look at the average weather for the time and place in question, and hope for the best. But we know what greenhouse gasses will do to the world- on average.<br />Anselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13835758313287462921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-63573900561097166432013-03-18T14:28:26.932-07:002013-03-18T14:28:26.932-07:00I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact tha...I have pretty much resigned myself to the fact that nothing we are in a position to do will be enough to prevent climate change. The fact is, for all intents and purposes, CO2 emissions = energy. And our high standard of living is spectacularly energy intensive. To become carbon neutral would essentially mean returning to a pre-Industrial Revolution lifestyle -- living in cabins, subsistance farming, and rarely traveling more than a few miles from our birthplaces. I don't see people lining up for that.<br /><br />Basically, climate change is inevitable because preventing it would require us to voluntarily dismantle our own civilization. (Mind you, it will be dismantled for us eventually, either by climate change or when we run out of fossil fuels, but "let's lower our standard of living now instead of waiting 100 years for it to be forced on us" is not a plan destined for popularity.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-78962801790295293422013-03-18T08:40:01.615-07:002013-03-18T08:40:01.615-07:00Watts Up With That - a bastion of sound scientific...Watts Up With That - a bastion of sound scientific thinking where they debunked the idea that Venus is warm due to the greenhouse effect. It's adiabiatic warming. (Forever!)caveat emptorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15318994505715193523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-80652526247892750562013-03-18T08:35:44.041-07:002013-03-18T08:35:44.041-07:00Art:
On Arctic changes:
"What evidence unequ...Art:<br /><br />On Arctic changes:<br />"What evidence unequivocally proves AGW , without putting its head in the sand and ignoring other possibilities?"<br /><br />I'm not a climate scientist either, so I can only work from my own sense of logic, reasoning, and tenuous grasp on current research.<br /><br />The arctic hasn't been seasonally ice free for at least 10,000 years... and possibly as long as 100,000 years. The modern human species has only been practicing agriculture for 12,000 years. In other words, climatic variations of large magnitude are supposed to be over millennia, not decades.<br /><br />So for such a gigantic change (75-100% loss of ice volume according to PIOMAS/Cryosat) to happen in the Arctic in only the past 30 years, a heartbeat geologically, cries out to me that other forces are at work here that have never been involved before in Earth's history.<br /><br />And those other forces can only be us and the trillions of tonnes of CO2 we have emitted into the atmosphere that was previously locked in rock<br />chrisalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04733469914802703736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-89490363188180613842013-03-18T07:04:06.886-07:002013-03-18T07:04:06.886-07:00Don't forget the other important category -- t...Don't forget the other important category -- those who manage to conflate bits and pieces of science, alarm, denial, and nonsense. Call the result, oh, "batshit insane" wouldn't be too harsh. E.g.:<br /><br />http://www.helium.com/items/1965918-keeling-curve-co2-and-loss-of-atmospheric-oxygenHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-25899568111972507892013-03-17T20:11:27.776-07:002013-03-17T20:11:27.776-07:00Even though as you say in the USA you seem to be s...Even though as you say in the USA you seem to be still stuck in a rut debating whether or not humans are causing global warming, that's not so in much of the rest of the world. <br /><br />The main problem with polarisation of 'opinions' is that it inhibits proper consideration, let alone agreement, of strategies to follow. It ends up with a scatter gun approach trying to wend a way through the opposition to clean energy.<br /><br />IMO that is the whole purpose of the thought-leaders who (publicly) reject climate science. They don't want change and they want to defer the solution to some vague time in the future. They hope that at worst, the public will think reality is somewhere in the mid-point of opposing camps. <br /><br />In reality the science describes where we are at. And it could be even worse, given science is conservative by nature, because conclusions are mostly drawn after the facts which themselves are shifting (eg Arctic ice melting faster than anticipated). <br /><br />Problem being that the longer we leave it the more difficult and costly it will be to change direction.<br /><br />IMO business / private sector is currently ahead of government on implementing solutions (clean energy). I hope governments catch up soon and create an environment for a faster shift.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-48198298635830721712013-03-17T18:29:23.637-07:002013-03-17T18:29:23.637-07:00The media opinion should be disregarded since they...The media opinion should be disregarded since they are just looking for the next headline.<br /><br />Global warming is real. However, the changes takes place slowly over multiple human generations. <br /><br />Homo sapiens are not good with multi-generational problem solving. We just aren't wired that way. Most of us are basically still tribal in social networking abilities. We are evolving, just not fast enough.<br /><br />As long governments are nearly the sole source of research money. The only way to get anyone's attention and government funding is scare the living crap out of as many people as you can.<br /><br />The funny thing is, Global Warming is the symptom. And no one wants to address the cause, over population. <br /><br />There are over 7,000,000,000 people on the planet now. The population is expected to rise to about 10,000,000,000 before it starts to decline due to lower birth rates.<br /><br />10,000,000,000 people can create a lot of atmospheric greenhouse gases.going onhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15411802980226420194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-84991853800966701692013-03-17T15:57:52.722-07:002013-03-17T15:57:52.722-07:00The funny thing is that all the recommendations fo...The funny thing is that all the recommendations for solving GCC are things we should do anyway: reduce energy use through increased efficiency, stop using coal because of all of its byproducts, make transportation more efficient, stop making and buying disposable junk, etc. <br /><br />Most of us know the difference between weather and climate forecasting. Climate forecasting depends in part on hindcasting: can our models replicate the climate cycles of the past geological periods, can our climate models use the parameters from hindcasting to forecast probable future climate scenarios using known chemical and physical laws? Are current events today consistent with the models?<br /><br />Mean global temperatures in the past 200 years appear to be increasing at a rate consistent with only known possible forcing function, an increase in atmospheric CO2. We have fewer data concerning the positive feedback from melting of methane clatherates in the Arctic but it's something to look for.<br /><br />If the glaciers are melting, sea level rising, redistribution, frequency and intensity of severe weather events increasing, shouldn't we expect these events to continue unless there's some known reason they shouldn't? Whatever their cause shouldn't we be attempting to ameliorate the results? <br /><br />One implicit reason for rejecting the GCC hypothesis is that current economic policies and practices are already too unstable to cope with remedation and mitigation for future climate scenarios. If conditions continue to worsen, it's likely instability will increase and then we'll be powerless to exert any control over events. <br /><br />Australia is similar in size to the contiguous United States, but closer to the equator. Thus it has a greater area of desert but has a tropical forest environment on its northern coast. The Australians are seriously concerned with GCC. Take a look at this website:<br />http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-angry-summer/<br /> ------Herb Curl<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284402843693197005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-85114526408397279322013-03-17T12:39:47.550-07:002013-03-17T12:39:47.550-07:00I'm with you Branden. Asserting that some theo...I'm with you Branden. Asserting that some theory is wacky and easily debunked without providing any actual debunking only leads to more confusion.<br /><br />Just a few days ago meteorologist Jeff Masters had this to say about the Arctic-Rossby waved theory on his blog at Weather Underground: "Humans tend to think linearly--one plus one equals two. However, the atmosphere is fundamentally non-linear. What may seem to be modest changes in Earth's climate can trigger unexpected resonances that will amplify into extreme changes--cases where one plus one equals four, or eight, or sixteen."<br /><br />Whom to believe? At least Masters laid out the theory in some detail.<br /><br />- DouglasDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13400304542602805292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-80237116070080263202013-03-17T11:19:36.036-07:002013-03-17T11:19:36.036-07:00Chrisale
"There is absolutely nothing that c...Chrisale<br /><br />"There is absolutely nothing that can create those changes other than AGW. And the predictions for that change to happen have now been proven extremely conservative."<br /><br />Those are just statements that nobody has convinced me of, perhaps I am ignorant and stupid ? I'll concede that as a possibility of a starting point. I do not study global warming, I am an engineer, but I can't tell you how many hundreds and (thousands ?) of times I have seen disaster in a solution based on red herrings. What evidence unequivocally proves AGW , without putting its head in the sand and ignoring other possibilities?Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456259466875283137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-48596444873334250742013-03-17T10:43:49.775-07:002013-03-17T10:43:49.775-07:00Al Gore started looking at what needed to be done ...Al Gore started looking at what needed to be done decades ago. He went out of his way to make it a bipartisan issue. About 2000 oil lobbiests science deniers decided this was a great issue to turn into partisan politics. <br /><br />The Democratic concensus is that it is time to increase efficiency, end subsidies to oil and coal, and provide moderate subsidies to renewable. This is not an extremist view. At one time it was the view of most Republicans (except they all seem to love oil and coal subsidies). RLLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13850927095383579725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-13719648751411626472013-03-17T10:21:22.522-07:002013-03-17T10:21:22.522-07:00Cliff, great info as usual. Although I'm not ...Cliff, great info as usual. Although I'm not an expert is either field, I'm sold on your view of the two sides in the climate debate, and sold that weather forecasting deserves greater resources and specifically computer power.<br /><br />However, I see no destructive competition between the two - if anything, greater public and political focus on climate should spill over to greater interest in understanding and forecasting weather. The warming deniers are AGAINST climate research, not diverting weather dollars to climate research.<br /><br />I think it might be more fruitful to emphasize that just as understanding climate is important in the long run, understanding weather is important in the short run, and in fact discovers and quantifies critical details about how the Earth works to climate science. Sell investing in the science of weather on its merits rather than by tearing down its perceived competitors.John Vidalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871768524749705799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-44223048574822071822013-03-17T09:04:12.398-07:002013-03-17T09:04:12.398-07:00Art:
Just look at what is happening in the Arct...Art: <br /><br />Just look at what is happening in the Arctic. It well on track to be ice free in September within the next 5-10 years, some even think this year if conditions are perfect. <br /><br />There is absolutely nothing that can create those changes other than AGW. And the predictions for that change to happen have now been proven extremely conservative.<br /><br />If that can't convince you the world needs to change its collective lifestyle, surely nothing will?<br /><br />chrisalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04733469914802703736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-91218976900201988122013-03-17T08:50:50.846-07:002013-03-17T08:50:50.846-07:00This story is a good lesson in a powerful tactic l...This story is a good lesson in a powerful tactic long used:<br />http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html<br /><br />The tactic: fund the extreme opinions, those points of view out at the edges around an issue -- polarize a discussion, hollow out the middle ground where agreement could be possible, and so delay action.<br />http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9fp6566b<br />http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9fp6566b?image.view=generateImage;imgWidth=600;pageNum=8<br /><br />It's unpleasant to doubt the motivation of those who want to give you money to promote your ideas in a controversy. And it's necessary.<br /><br />"Just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side."<br />-- Teresa Nielsen Hayden<br /><br />A thoughtful discussion here:<br />http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/<br /><br />"When one side has chosen to make science their battleground, the public will hear a wide range of conflicting bits of scientific information. Most of what they hear will be from people who are at either extreme of the range of scientific opinion....<br /><br />"The public receives this mixed scientific-political information, and now how do they choose what’s reliable? ... they know which networks, commentators, or political parties they trust ....<br /><br />"What can scientists or educators do for those people ... whose knowledge about climate change is strongly driven by the political sources whom they trust, and which will inherently be one-sided, no matter which side it falls on?<br /><br />"My answer is simply this: be in perception and reality a reliable apolitical source of scientific information....<br /><br />"State climatologists are almost designed to fulfill that role...." <br /><br />-- John Nielsen-Gammon, writing in the Houston ChronicleHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-13306646263436262402013-03-17T07:41:36.909-07:002013-03-17T07:41:36.909-07:00One side is trying to prevent huge problems in the...One side is trying to prevent huge problems in the future (which YOU Cliff Mass, agree with).<br /><br />The other is being a much more dangerous level of dishonest by trying to do everything in its power to confuse the layperson into thinking there is some kind of debate on whether or not global warming is a danger to us.<br /><br />Just some of the comments on this board show that there is a huge lack of scientific knowledge on the subject.<br /><br />Make sure not to lend to much credence to the side you know doesnt deserve it.Michael Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230219537755848399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-9068645794633197202013-03-17T06:37:14.147-07:002013-03-17T06:37:14.147-07:00Cliff I love your blog. Here is the one and only ...Cliff I love your blog. Here is the one and only one reason why I am a skeptic. Short range prediction models fall apart on specifics after about 7 days. You have stated how much wasted energy this causes from erroneously closing air ports etc. So from this same field albiet a different aspect, I am supposed to change my life based on their future predictions. The logic makes about as much sense as telling me I need to prepare for snow storm because we had one last week. Solution is to fund the short range prediction model to the point where they can tell me the weather 2 months out, and then and only then will I will believe cause and effect of man made factors in the global warming debate.Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03456259466875283137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-44025254130402743732013-03-16T22:50:53.461-07:002013-03-16T22:50:53.461-07:00Research on the subject -- how harsh responses pol...Research on the subject -- how harsh responses polarizes discussion online:<br /><br />https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html<br /><br />http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/blog-comments-the-nasty-effect/<br /><br />I do miss Usenet -- newsreaders like "NN" provided very competent killfile tools, so when someone's posts led to flamewars you the individual reader could choose what not to see, knowing what kinds of bait-to-be-stupid you preferred not to be tempted to take. It was possible to have a sober scientific hard argument 'under the noise' by ignoring the people who weren't contributing, from all sides.<br /><br />Alas.<br /><br />Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478606652950905956.post-73054312319104222112013-03-16T21:47:57.923-07:002013-03-16T21:47:57.923-07:00I also believe by the way that your post completel...I also believe by the way that your post completely ignores the proven and very significant influence of corporate lobbyists.<br /><br />In other words, in the face of billions of dollars thrown at the denial industry... what are people supposed to do? Lie down and take it?<br /><br />We will never know what the discussion would have been like had there not been a tobacco style industrial push to delay any concrete action to limit CO2 emissions.chrisalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04733469914802703736noreply@blogger.com