Socialized Health Care in the USA

[kandrathe]

Funny, talking to you, one almost becomes convinced that whomever this Truth person is, she shares your politics.

I'm just noting that science is about the pursuit of truth, not popularity.

Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap. There are scientists actually working in the field who would love nothing more than to overturn AGW and replace it with their pet theory, be it solar variation, distance from the sun, geological change, whatever else. These theories have not done so well so far, we'll see how they do in the future.

<blockquote>“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”-- Physics Professor William Happer</blockquote>The debate is over, because the political mass has declared it to be so. And, yes, of course, Happer has also been linked to the evil AGW corporate funding.

If you really think one of those was true, and that *millions* will die (your words) if the AGW crowd gets their way, wouldn't it be a whole lot more than a "waste of time" to devote yourself to saying so? I would feel rather ethically obligated, myself. But then again, hot air is just hot air.

I'm guessing, because I have no idea how punitive the EPA and the government will get in enforcing a ban on CO2. I just know that every time there is a shortage of heating oil, people die. Every time the electricity goes out during a heat wave, people die. Then, we can start thinking about the 3rd world too. Less fuel for farming means less food, or more expensive fuel for farming means more expensive food (which means less food). I take it for granted sometimes that people understand how energy (and energy price) is linked to population.

... and accept it if it fits in with your view that global warming is a hoax, and ignore/reject it if it doesn't. Even your (and Pete's) hypothetical "Trojan Horse" strategy is scientifically bass ackwards: No PhD student or researcher should *ever* start from an idea like "I'm going to prove global warming is a hoax" and then go out and try to do it. You study the literature, examine past data, find new evidence, and then weigh it in light of the new things you've learned to judge the theories. The way you seem to have it figured, you already know the truth, wouldn't learn a damn thing doing an advanced degree, and the only question is if your preconceptions would be accepted by the community. Doesn't that seem kind of... intellectually dishonest, or something? Rather cocky, at least.

Yes. The reality is that currently the popular theories are a sacred cow of climatology. To question them is heresy. It is just as unscientific to form a consensus, or label those who don't subscribe to your theory akin to holocaust denial.

These geniuses are who? And how do you judge that they are the geniuses, and the ones with the "ivory tower" credentials (???) are not? You seem to have taken a lot on yourself, to have penetrated so deeply into a discipline that isn't yours. At least I have the excuse that I'm casting my lot with the majority of climate scientists, scientific organizations, and journals.

I was thinking of all the scientists who turned out to be right after suffering ridicule during their lifetime (and longer), only to be vindicated many years later.
<blockquote>"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift</blockquote>So, to summarize what I think my issues are with the current hysteria;

1. The climate models do not reflect reality. Even when the data is changed to fit the models, the models continue to fail to predict actual temperature. Clearly we don't understand *all* the mechanisms of temperature within the climate.<>
   
2. Findings confirm that global climate can change dramatically within a very short period without anthropogenic sources.<>
   
3. Environmentalists are quick to point out the causes of CO2, but fail to recognize or model the natural processes of mitigation of CO2.<>
   
4. Ice core analysis show global temperature varies independent of CO2 levels.<>
   [st]In fact, my skepticism is very much like that of Roger A. Pielke, Sr or Claude Allegre.
   
   So, what to do about it, rather than just warm our planet with more hot air? Here is my list;
   
   1. Stop subsidizing all fuels.<>
      
   2. Eliminate barriers to nuclear plant construction.<>
      
   3. Better land management.<>
      
   4. Require cities to develop a zero sum environmental plan.<>
      [st]