Climate Change: Paris 'Last Chance' For Action'

You are correct, the weather isn't the problem. It's the CLIMATE. You really should learn the difference between "weather" and "climate". Is the water problem in the Western US weather or climate? Are you willing to risk it's just "weather"?

Yup, we'll adapt because humans are incapable of change until it's the only option. As Bill Mahr joked, we'll just learn a bunch of different recipes for cooking rats and jellyfish, since they'll be the only things left for us to eat.

One word: Gillectomy.

Cheers. - Frank

There ya' go. Fixed that for you. No charge.

Cheers. - Frank

Opposing opinions? You have a point. But opposing facts is another thing.

If 99.9999% of all climatologists agree that global warming is real, it may be just opinion. It would be an astronomically high probability that they know something we don't.... but it's just opinion. Like your opinion, my opinion.

But measurements aren't opinions. They're facts. And all measurements in ice thickness at Antarctica, ocean levels, temperature, (globally), and CO2 levels, are unanimous and incontrovertible.

You will die, never changing your mind, I know this. But you are wrong. You are treating this like a political issue, not a scientific study. And again, I'm wasting my time.

I wonder what that means? Why do I keep making efforts to correct flaws in thinking...in other people..knowing it won't make a difference? Interesting.

You somehow believe that sticking to your belief, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary...is thinking. But you are running out of "Op Ed" pieces.....and posts on political blogs.

Rage, Rage against the dying of the light. (Sorry, I just love that line)

Yep. The WSJ has gone downhill since Murdoch bought it out. It's now just FoxNews with some stockmarket data thrown in. I guess it won't be long until they're hacking into dead girls phones. Sad, very sad.

Fair point, but as I have stated every time this subject comes up, my "belief" in AGW does not come from politics, religion or even science. It comes from the insurance industry.

Long before Al Gore "jumped on the bandwagon", the insurance industry was making documentaries about the dangers we faced, and how something needed to be done.

If you'd like to know more, talk to your insurance company about it, or better still their insurers (ie the Re-insurance industry). You'll be disappointed, shocked, horrified and enlightened all at the same time.

Mother Nature doesn't like what we are doing to her child, and like every other mother will defend her child and punish those who abuse it.

The human race cannot win a fight against her. Our only hope is to work with her.

You do realize that assumption works both ways, don't you?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But don't be so quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "koolaid drinker" who doesn't want to think. That's just blatant arrogance on your part.

"punishment - even so far as execution - of non-believers and heretics"? Really? That is the first time I have ever heard of this. Please give a name or two of someone killed because they weren't Global Warming enthusiasts.

My guess (and it's only a guess) is that you are referring to inflated claims...either made by a very small lunatic fringe, or just invented claims that are passed off as something to argue against.

What claims are you referring to?

Please understand that I know that insane people are not exclusive to one political party, or one agenda. It's possible that you have read claims that are not made based on science.

"Propaganda and fanatics"? Absolutely. Stupid and insane people are in every group.

I only read this one. The scientists' comments about their own papers should be respected.


However, I have a few observations. The author of the web page says, "I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. "


What concerns me is that he didn't state the sample size, nor did he tell us how he selected his sample. Did he send out 6 emails and all 6 responded negatively or did he send out 1000 emails with only 6 responding? Or did he send out 1000 emails, got 100 responses and cherry picked those that matched an agenda? Where these emails sent at random or did he cherry pick?


Also, of the 6 on the web page a few of them say they believe in AGW, although not to the extent of others.


I also find this comment interesting:


While the claims of his papers not being categorized correctly may be accurate, I would say that having 111 "neutral" papers and 1 that "strongly endorses AGW", tells us that he believes in AGW, since he doesn't seem to have any papers that try to deny AGW. So which is more important to the point, that his papers were mis-catorgized or that he believes in AGW?


Another researcher or two also cited solar occurrences as contributors to GW. The problem with this is that if it was the Sun, then it follows that summer and day time temperatures would be rising the fastest, since it stands to reason that solar activity would most influence Earth when it was facing the Sun during the day and having more exposure to the Sun during summer months. However, just the opposite is true. It's the night time and winter temps that are raising the most. This is consistent with CO2 retaining heat.


Which brings us to, I believe they all said that GW was occurring. They only disputed how their papers were classified and if it's man-made, or what percentage is man-made. Let's assume that GW is all "natural". Don't you think we need to still take action?


I did find it interesting that "neutral" papers were on a sharp increase in the study in question though.


BTW, as I said above I don't need to prove AGW to make a case to do away with carbon based fuels. I just need to prove they pollute my air, water and soil. Care to debate this point?