Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Happy]

Swifty response could be that melting icecaps required 80 kj per every gram of melted ice and probably this is what will be official line, convenient line.

 

[ghotib]

I'm going to do something you'll never see a warmanista admit to, and that is admit to confirmation, and a number of other biases.

I realise that as a human, that I'm subject to these. What really concerns me is that warmanistas refuse to acknowledge their own biases and the distortions in their thinking it causes. They believe themselves to be somewhat popelike in their infallibility. Not good.

My actual bias is to refuse to accept that MMCC is occuring. By accepting that I am biased, I have forced myself to consider valid refutations of that.

This is the challenge I have with warmanistas, the absolute refusal to admit bias and accept valid refutations of their own junk (The extreme on the other side is also guilty of this).

I still think you are holding up expectations from this article you would never expect from articles that fit your own cognitive biases.

I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.

Catch is, the climate doesn't think.

I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.

Proposed ground rules:
1. No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.

2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.

3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.

4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.

Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??

Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.

Catch is, the climate doesn't think.

I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.

Proposed ground rules:
1. No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.

2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.

3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.

4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.

Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??

Ghoti

There are a number of reasons why that wouldn't work as it is no longerr possible to separate physical climate from politics.

Prime example - funding of research.

From comments in a CC thread

Paul Vaughan responded as follows:

Actually not so hard.

Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Follow the money ”” perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.

Also doubt whether a conflict resolution technique is applicable to matters of science.

One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.

Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.

But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.

 

[Knobby22]

One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.

Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.

But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.

My experience with bureacrats is that some are good, some are paper pushers heirachists and some are clueless, bit like the human race really. The good ones can be very good however.

I am personally very glad that the conference didn't go the way it was being pushed of setting up a huge parrallel economy in ETS. I think that in six months we are going to see some clever people achieve something much better and hopefully more wide reaching.

I think we have a few more years to get it right and also see how the science continues to shape up.

Also, there are a lot of clueless greens. There was a dodgy scientist getting plaudits for developing a speed hump to provide power for traffic lights. To me, with my engineering backgound, the use of kinetic energy to feed a battery is inefficient as there is a lot of machinery to convert it into electricity, not green as it uses batteries and not free as the kinetic energy comes from cars which will use more petrol to go over the speed humps.
Yet the fools were almost worshipping the con artist! There a a lot of dumb greens as there are a lot of dumb skeptics. Sometimes I wonder how mankind keeps succeeding.

On a good note I'm with Tim Flannery take on the conferance.

"[But] if I was to sum it up in a single phrase I'd say this has been a good, successful meeting."

"It's only one step on the road but we are now really in the throes of tackling this very difficult problem and this meeting has been a very significant step forward. I wouldn't like anyone to undersell what's been achieved. I think it is very significant."

"We've made a huge advance at this meeting on a number of fronts, one being those pledged emissions, another being the funding we've got for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, and of course the REDD Negotiations, the world's efforts to protect the tropical rainforests," he said.

"That seems to be going very well indeed. I'm just waiting to hear the final status of REDD but I'm very hopeful we'll get a good agreement."

 

[Aussiejeff]

Here's some more of today's hysterical news...

[size=+3]Deadly snow storm blasts US[/size]
A DEADLY storm described as one of the worst in a decade blanketed much of the eastern United States overnight, grounding flights and bringing traffic to a standstill on the last weekend of the holiday shopping season

Rapid global warming eh?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316

 

[wayneL]

Here's some more of today's hysterical news...



Rapid global warming eh?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316

Snow on the beach at Nice, France.

 

[Calliope]

On a good note I'm with Tim Flannery take on the conferance.

"[But] if I was to sum it up in a single phrase I'd say this has been a good, successful meeting."

I'm surprised that Australia's leading climate hysteric thought it was a successful outcome. The truth is that is was the monumental failure it deserved to be when an unelected world body tries to interfere in the economies and foreign affairs of sovereign states.

These power brokers are not going to stop. However it will become much more difficult for people like Rudd to sell a proposition which is, as becomes more apparent daily, in his interests and not ours.

 

[moXJO]

Less pollution is always a good thing and I support that.
But you have to wonder if this is a push to develop the poorer nations into the world’s next consumers to exploit. The whole thing has a stink of ulterior motives about it and the environment is a very distant concern imo.

 

[basilio]

I don't know what defines a "warmanista", which might be why I'm only guessing that MMCC stands for "man-made climate change". However, I'm perfectly happy to admit to confirmation bias, on account of I'm human too. I'm even willing to bet that all the people who've ever thought about the climate, right back to Adam, thought with confirmation biases.

Catch is, the climate doesn't think.

I suggest an experiment from the mediator's toolkit: I will research and argue your position and you will research mine, and we'll see what that does to our respective biases. Christmas is going to interrupt the process, and I have to state immediately that I no longer have unlimited fast broadband so my research is slower than it used to be.

Proposed ground rules:
1. No need to limit the discussion to two participants (no chance either ). Anyone can join in as long as we're all playing by the same rules.

2. Each participant states up front the position they hold before entering the debate.

3. Each participant picks one position that they recognise is against their cognitive biases and that they will attempt to fully and fairly argue for.

4. The subject matter is the physical climate. It is NOT politics. The political motivations of those who hold different positions in the debate are explicitly ruled out of the discussion.

Probably more, but what do you think so far? Worth trying??

Ghoti

Very creative and constructive idea Ghoti. I'm not sure if I would hold my breath waiting for a positive response.....

From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.

Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk. Other examples that we could recognise would be

1) Not overloading a ship recognizing that any storm would cause it to sink
2) Ensuring that there were sufficient welds on an plane/boat/bridge to hold it together under foreseeable operating conditions
3) Making sure you had enough petrol in the car before you went on desert drive...

This is the disaster insurance approach. You don't necessarily accept it is going to happen but paying a small premium now is the acceptable price for being able to recover later on.

But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.

Mind you I have been assured by those in the know that the arguments on this forum are conducted with more civility, intelligence and rationality than on other boards... which is still a worry. Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)

Good luck !

 

[wayneL]

Very creative and constructive idea Ghoti. I'm not sure if I would hold my breath waiting for a positive response.....

From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.

We've been talking about cognitive bias in this thread and we've managed to secure admissions from individuals on either side of their own biases. This is positive in any debate as at least recognition of one's own biases causes one to have a objective look at the other's view.

But here basilio reveals his screaming bias by

1/ assuming a negative response is a/ likely to come from agnostics and b/ that it is only possible that sceptics may have an epiphany and jump the fence, as it were. Then perpetuates the totally disingenuous strawman furphy by labelling agnostics as "totally disbelieving" when many agnostics have an altogether more holistic approach to healing the damage humans have cause to the planet.

2/ refusing to acknowledge the reasons for the disparity in research which has been detailed dozens of time by now on this forum. Does the term "follow the money" mean anything at all to you?

Basilio reveals himself time and time again as someone toatally incapable of having a rational debate by continuing to revert to such argumentative fallacies and leaving his biases off the leash.

In fact, most agnostics have looked at the science rationally and honestly and have come to their conclusions based on this. A prime example I posted not even 36 hours ago in this thread - Willem de Lange, Professor Department of Earth & Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato; one example of an innumerable multitude of credible, learned people who are not swallowing the alarmism of the Goreists and the warmanist lobby.

Basilio's refusal to accept that there is a great body of sceptical scientific opinion based on the science is laughable, ludicrous and cult-like.

Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk. Other examples that we could recognise would be

1) Not overloading a ship recognizing that any storm would cause it to sink
2) Ensuring that there were sufficient welds on an plane/boat/bridge to hold it together under foreseeable operating conditions
3) Making sure you had enough petrol in the car before you went on desert drive...

This is the disaster insurance approach. You don't necessarily accept it is going to happen but paying a small premium now is the acceptable price for being able to recover later on.

But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.

Your last statement is total nonsense as explained above. All before it is a reasonable proposition, but fails to take a properly actuarial approach to the risks. To use your overloading the ship metaphor, the IPCC worries about the weight in the galley refrigerator, yet ignores the number of containers being piled on the freight deck.

The hypothesis that co2 is the prime driver in climate change has been shown time and time again to be overstated and it's effects misrepresented.

Agree we should not overload the ship, but the extra crate of crown lager in the frig isn't going to sink it

Mind you I have been assured by those in the know that the arguments on this forum are conducted with more civility, intelligence and rationality than on other boards... which is still a worry. Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)

Good luck !

That bias is still off its leash. The question could equally be asked why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept that the Goreist propaganda is... propaganda.

There is also some interesting research in that field.

 

[Calliope]

Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk.

Under your rationale a pre-emptive strike against Iran would be justified. Meanwhile closer to home the Rudd government is preparing for a pre-emptive strike on GW sceptics. The spin doctors are busy with a hate campaign against Abbott and there are plans to censor the internet which could be used to filter subversive sceptic input.

However, considering the urgency and gravity of the situation, much more should be done. I am sure the Anti-Terrorist Laws could be stretched to combat and break up the anti-GW conspiracy. They are obviously in favour of destroying "the condions under which we live" and need to be put out of circulation to "remove that risk."

 

[basilio]

Good luck with your attempt to start this exchange of analysis Ghoti. I think the responses to my post illustrate the positions of some of the main protaganists. Their starting point seems to be the view that we have 2 almost equally weighted possibilities each of which under careful scrutiny could be accepted.

......As distinct from the fact that the theories and evidence regarding the man made causes of global warming are supported by 99+% of the worlds scientific community. And the small detail that many of the arguments and evidence offered to refute MMCC are simply dishonest. I note that Ian Plimer who advances some of these arguments just can't come up with the evidence to back these assertions. (Of course that has never stopped everyone else repeating them.)

And Calliope please. Is it possible that taking constructive, non violent remedial action to ensure a plane is safe or a ship is not overloaded might be slightly different to invading or destroying another country in anticipation of a possible problem?

______________________________________________________________

I came across this article with regard to the cognitive dissonance issues that global warming create in our society.

WHY WE STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE

george-marshall-012At a recent dinner at Oxford University a senior researcher in atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in Thailand. I asked him whether he was concerned that this would make a contribution to climate change (we had, after all, just sat through a two hour presentation on the topic). “Of course,” he said blithely, “and I’m sure the government will make long haul flights illegal at some point”.

To be honest the conversation had not just idly strayed into the topic of holidays: I had deliberately steered it in this direction as part of an informal research project- one you are welcome to join. Previous experimental subjects include a senior adviser to Nicholas Stern who flies regularly to South Africa (“my offsets help set a price in the carbon market”), a member of the British Antarctic Survey who takes several long haul skiing trips a year (“my job is stressful”), a national media environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka (“I can’t see much hope”) and a Greenpeace climate campaigner back from scuba diving in the Pacific (“it was a GREAT trip!”).

Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially revealing is that every one of these people has a career that is predicated on the assumption that information is sufficient to generate change- an assumption that a moment’s introspection would show them was deeply flawed.

http://climatedenial.org/

Of course the rest of the article is equally interesting so check it out.

And have a great Christmas one and all. Hope you get everything you need.

Cheers

 

[basilio]

This link may have been posted previously but it bears another look.
Essentially it is an exceptionally well laid out analysis of the various skeptical arguments against the science of global warming.

All the references can be followed up. It just works very well.

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. There seems to be increasing interest in my own qualifications to discuss climate science. I studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, I majored in solar physics in my post-grad honours year. I am not a climate scientist. Despite my scientific background, my interest in global warming comes from a layman's perspective. Consequently, the science presented on this website is not my own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to focus on the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

I receive no funding to maintain this website - it's run at personal expense. I have no affiliations with any organisations or political groups (holding no particular ideology, I would characterise myself as a swing voter). Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love - maintained in my spare time and the main thing I get from it is sleep deprivation. The design was created by my talented web designer wife.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[Smurf1976]

Also, there are a lot of clueless greens. There was a dodgy scientist getting plaudits for developing a speed hump to provide power for traffic lights. To me, with my engineering backgound, the use of kinetic energy to feed a battery is inefficient as there is a lot of machinery to convert it into electricity, not green as it uses batteries and not free as the kinetic energy comes from cars which will use more petrol to go over the speed humps.
Yet the fools were almost worshipping the con artist! There a a lot of dumb greens as there are a lot of dumb skeptics. Sometimes I wonder how mankind keeps succeeding.

A very rough calculation is that powering traffic lights that way would incease the fossil fuel consumption to do so by around 200%. That's assuming the speed bumps are designed such that cars don't brake (at all) before going over them.

It's not a rational idea from any perspective, unless the lights are located somewhere that grid power isn't available (but traffic lights are generally in cities, and cities have grid power... but there might be an exception somewhere).

 

[JimBob]

Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. There seems to be increasing interest in my own qualifications to discuss climate science. I studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, I majored in solar physics in my post-grad honours year.[/url]

He was one of my lecturers while studying at University, a very well researched website without all the political biases. Im sure he didnt believe global warming was happening while I was at uni, so any essays I wrote on the topic also didnt believe it Either he has changed his mind based on his research, or I should have done more research into his standing on the topic. Probably explains my poor marks.

He is also a gold medallist in Judo so dont talk while he is lecturing as he has challenged a few people to step outside to explain their reasons for talking over him.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, Smurf, the trouble is that technologically trained people are not in the higher echelons of most governments.

Basilio

Thanks for the skepticalscience link, a nice website.

Their is opposition but every year it gets pushed back further.
First their was no global warming and oil and mining companies supported sites arguing agains climate change, then they witdraw when they were unable to handle the public critiscm and now you see Shell taking out full page adds saying how "green" they are.

Then the argument changed tact to "its not caused by us". The science is so strong that it is that this tact was losing steam.

Now the resistors are using the "scientists are corrupted and part of a global conspiracy argument" and to do this they need to directly lie and obscurate.
Now it is only the intellectualy bereft Republicans and their tame media organisations in the US pushing that line.

It won't last in the long run. We will see action and I'm hoping it will be better than the ETS plan.

From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.

 

[Julia]

From even the most generous objective point of view the weight of research and evidence that support's anthropogenic climate change is so much larger and more comprehensive than the opposing views

To accept this is to accept that scientists opposing the popular view do actually have the same access to publication that the "mainstream" do.
Not all of us accept that that is the case.

it would be very, very challenging to to look at it rationally and honestly - and then totally disbelieve it. But that is what you are asking Wayne and others to do. Big call.

Equally, you are unprepared to even remotely consider that your beliefs may be, if not wrong, not completely correct.

Even tougher is the fact that a realistic risk management approach would not even demand a complete proof before taking necessary action. If one found even a relatively small risk (say 10-20%) that a course of man made action was going to devastate the conditions under which we live then the only sensible approach would be to take the actions that would remove that risk

That seems a reasonable view. However, I think you are possibly under estimating the damage to the economies of individual countries and the combined global economy. You seem to completely disregard this, and I'd suggest it's this lack of objectivity that so frustrates many of us who are simply unsure about where the truth lies.

But as I watch the discussions on this forum and others I see no evidence that even this quite pragmatic approach to a world changing event is accepted by those who reject IPPC global warming position.

I think there is equal frustration on 'the other side'.

Perhaps another approach might be to ask why do so many seemingly rational intelligent people resolutely refuse to accept the possibility that MMCC might be happening. (There is some interesting research in that field)

Again, it would be equally possible to address this concern to those of you who are so absolutely unprepared to consider that there could be flaws in the science to which you are so devoted.

Now it is only the intellectualy bereft Republicans and their tame media organisations in the US pushing that line.

I don't believe that's true. People of all political persuasions lack confidence in the current direction. And I doubt that it's reasonable for you to suggest that your level of intellect is hugely superior to all Republicans.
It's this sort of comment that is entirely gratuitous, fails to contribute to constructive debate, and assists no one.

From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.

Again, the derogatory personal remark. Why is this necessary, Knobby?
I used to regard you as someone who was fair minded and reasonable, not into snaky personal stuff.

 

[Calliope]

From what I have seen, most of the climate hysteria has on this thread has been on the "denier" side. Aussiejeff, Calliope etc.

You are too modest. From what I have noticed you and Basilio are becoming more hysterical each day with all your worries about an impending apocalypse. This doom and gloom scenario worries me not at all.

Even if you are right and mankind is doomed, this can only be good for the earth. With the exodus of man, the polluter, all other species will thrive.

They reckon there will be 9 billion of us by 2050, and all the idiots at Copenhagen and all "the science" still haven't to to grips with what the problem is. It is us.

 

[Purple XS2]

Here's some more of today's hysterical news...

Deadly snow storm blasts US
A DEADLY storm described as one of the worst in a decade blanketed much of the eastern United States overnight, grounding flights and bringing traffic to a standstill on the last weekend of the holiday shopping season

Rapid global warming eh?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/wo...ton-snowed-under/story-e6frf7lx-1225812126316

I gather both "sides" of the Climate kerfuffle recognise 1998 as the warmest year in the global record.
1998 began, if you recall, with the appalling Ice storm in NE USA and SE Canada.
One thing we can expect from global warming is all manner of anomalous events, and we may also see some localities reaching a cooler average amidst wider variability.

Severe snow in Europe this time of year does not invalidate the man-made global warming hypothesis.

Disclosure: yes, I am a card-carrying greenie, if that makes this post easler to trash.

Regards, P.

 

[ghotib]

...Also doubt whether a conflict resolution technique is applicable to matters of science.

I doubt that too, but most of the argument here is not really about resolving matters of science because very few of the posters here are practising scientists and I can't think of anyone who's said that they're a scientist presently working on climate-related problems.

I think that for most of us it's a question of who to trust, and that's why I think that trying to argue against our own position might be useful. As I've said before, I got into this because I wanted The Great Global Warming Swindle to be right about the state of the climate and climate science. That's what? 2 years ago? I've put in a lot of time and effort trying to understand the science, but the confirmation bias I've developed is based more on my experience of the sources I've found than on my assessment of the scientific content. I think that's true of you as well? I'm willing to try and argue for Pielke Jr (Snr would be harder) as the most reliable guide to the science of global warming if you'll try and argue for RealClimate. Hopefully we'd both learn something.

One important point that keep sliding past people I debate with - I think humans have some influence in changing climate and have stated this numerous times. I differ on how, when, where, and on what scale that influence is, and how we should be addressing it.

Step 1 for me is to hope for the defeat of the co2 religion and and hope that people finally realize what we should actually be doing.

But as usual, once bureaucrats become involved, everything gets totally ####ed up.

Well calling it the CO2 religion probably isn't the best way to convince people that your position is based on science. Why not quantify the relative influences? Specify how they work? Propose specific actions to address negative human influence on global climate?

Cheers,

Ghoti