Probably was. Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing. It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.
>It's not possible to take at best 80 years of reasonable data from 4.54 billion years of the planet's lifetime and come up with sensible climate projections.
What an obviously vacuous statement. It's a lot like saying, "it's not possible to take at best 30 seconds of data from 10 years of a car's lifetime and come up with a sensible projects as to whether you're headed for a brick wall."
> Climate doom and gloom is a political thing, not a scientific thing.
No, it sure isn't. It's been made into a political thing because one group of businesses and their wholly-owned political party have decided to deny reality.
Let's pretend for a moment that the entire Republican party has a miraculous change of heart, and agrees to everything the "scientists" are asking for. Cap and trade, emissions taxes, unshackled EPA emissions limits, huge subsidies for renewables... you name it. A cost in trillions, I'm quite sure.
What will we have accomplished? China's still going to keep right on industrializing. They'll probably industrialize even faster because we'll have pushed all our "dirty" energy consuming industries their way, where they'll be run at less efficiency and with even greater overall emissions.
The Chinese are the "deniers" you should be worried about: They've never promised to do anything but potentially reduce their emissions "intensity", which means emissions/GDP. That was always bound to happen anyway as their industries become more mechanically efficient. In absolute terms their emissions are going to keep on growing and growing. Even if they go as "green" as the nuclear French, they'll be emitting more than the U.S. in a decade or so. They are smart folks and they've decided that giving their people a Western standard of living is more important to them than a few potential degrees of warming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it.
First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S., so the first $50 billion/year spent in any sort of anti-climate change effort is "free". Denmark, China, Germany are all countries making large investments in renewables which are likely to provide large returns. Much of what can be done for climate change are investments with real returns, not just money sinks.
The tragedy of the commons you describe is real, of course. A pound of coal burned in China does damage just like a pound of coal burned in Ohio. And yet, the U.S. does quite well at pushing countries toward what it wants, in other areas. Worldwide, the U.S. has pushed nearly every country toward supporting pro-U.S. copyright laws. These laws hurt every other country, but the U.S. has been mostly successful at pushing them. Is there some reason the U.S. would be unable to push climate laws, if it wanted to? And at the various climate conferences, it's clear that many nations are ready and willing to combat climate change, but the U.S., Canada and perhaps a few other nations are strongly opposing any action.
Why should I not throw trash in the park? Someone else could come along and throw trash in the park (perfectly true), so I should too? It's a group effort: each piece of trash not thrown in the park makes a park that is slightly cleaner.
> First order of business would be to cut the $50 billion per year in oil industry subsidies in the U.S.
Those supposed "oil industry subsidies" just keep getting bigger and bigger. In 2009, the claim from an environmental think tank was "approximately $72 billion over 5 years":
EDIT: Here's a good summary of where things stand. Nowhere near $50B, and the oil companies have a reasonable argument that the money they pay in royalties to drill in foreign nations is aptly described as a tax. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/breaking-it-down-oil-i.... Most of the other "subsidies" are the sort of tax breaks available to any producer of manufactured or extracted goods. Even windmills.
I think you haven't been around long enough to remember the climate scandals of the 1970s. You know when we had an impending ice age. My grandfather also reminded me of the heatwaves in the 1950s and the associated "science" which came out then.
In climatology, the hypothesis has become the theory. The scientific method is therefore invalid ergo it is not science.
> That if you choose to ignore all the scientific and industrial advances and their effect on the environment.
We've had a negative effect on the environment even since we've decided to not be just herders anymore, many thousands of years ago. Just as a couple of examples, the Eastern parts of Syria and Southern Turkey (which are now in an almost desert-like condition) were a lot more greener, Sicily and present day northern Libya were Rome's breadbasket, while continental Europe was covered almost entirely by forests until the Middle Ages.
Oh here we go. Go and re-read my comments, then attempt to understand them again.
The word fabricated is wrong.
The issue is that we are fed assumptions and conclusions without the supporting facts or evidence and expected to consider them as facts.
I choose not to take the conclusions as gospel unless the facts are presented to me. In neither case facts are present which are independent and not politically biased.
If you believe something without having done the research or finding any facts, it's called faith. I do not support faith of any kind. It's illogical.
No, the issue is you are a Republican voter who watches Fox News, and you've been told by your team that climate change is made up, and therefore when forced to choose between the worldwide scientific consensus and your team, you're choosing your team.
This is a very human thing to do, but it has nothing to do with science or facts. The science is, of course, 100% in favor of climate change:
I am neither a Republican voter nor a US citizen. In fact I'm sitting here at home in London in the UK staring at the Thames out of my front window.
I do not choose a team. I have no political allegiance. I do not vote as I do not wish to be responsible for the person I voted in. I try to be a rational independent human and do not align to a stereotype well. A close stereotype is secular humanist.
I suggest you do some research on "accepted norms" and how it applies to climatology plus how conflicting views with theories and data are thrown out without being considered.
So you must necessarily not accept anything without having obtained the raw data, formed a hypothesis, processed the data, and formed a conclusion, by yourself.
Or are you just selective in the facts you choose to accept without personal research and verification and the ones you don't.
Ok, so you are selective in what you choose to accept as fact. That's fine, we won't get into bias effects and the subjectivity of any possible definition of tangibility.
It's also interesting that you would categorise the holocaust as a meme or an idea, but I think that pretty much sums up the way your own personal biases affect your thinking process.
