Here is the working link for: No scientists are not ignoring increase in sea ice.

This article is just another PRATT. No scientists are not ignoring the increase in sea ice. I think the parent comment reflects the depth of AGW opposition.

Right, that would fit into an NSF grant. Also, their promo video says that they were the most read paper (in some time frame), but really, it would be more interesting to know how many times they are cited.

Yeah, and think of all the high technology jobs the UK would have created. Granted the military industry has big hooks into the government... and all that money talks...

Gee how to do you know that that cannot be done. You see, maybe the technology isn't around now, or maybe it is, and the electricity infrastructure needs to be updated. But it is not entirely stupid.

The financial industry is sitting on trillions of investment dollars that are looking for a home. Wonder who buys all that sovereign debt? That's because there's nothing better out there for all that money. Or at least, that's the financial industries story. We're really looking at the failure of financial institutions to manage investment dollars. They will only lift their game insofar as things like kickstarter forces them to.

Haven't you heard about the consensus. (Before claiming that science is not consensus, that is a different issue, and a way to avoid the point, that the vast majority of scientists disagree with you.)

Oh yeah, there are problems in how the final language of the report is written, which every county pushing their special interests into the language. Don't change the fact that the scientists signed off on the document.

That's a howler, because I *have* read some of the citations of the report, and it seems very well written to me. If you a referring to some particular controversy in some paragraph (or sentence) of AR5, then you should (1) provide a citation, and (2) admit that the report is larger than one paragraph or sentence.

I know of complaints from scientists about how the science gets watered down, and a rosey sheen is painted onto some parts of the problem. Doesn't change the central point that I was making: we can and must move to a carbon neutral economy. Quibbling over semantics won't change that at all.

We are all victims... that's the point. There is a way to side-step these types of cognitive biases, which is a life-long obsession of mine. There are certain red flags which the mind tries to stop itself from paying attention to. I could go on at length about that; however, the linked material raises several red flags. Just something to think about.

Haha, sounds like you need to read: why politics makes us stupid.

Well, according to actual scientists, the politicized bullshit is on WUWT et al.

The value of all the proven reserves will plummet if the market for oil and coal decreases. That is the source of the disinformation campaign.

We cannot do without coal/oil in 2014, but with the correct incentives, we can change our infrastructure to do with a *lot* less, and emerging markets can skip the coal trap all-together.

According the IPCC AR5 WG3, sustained movements away from carbon over 90 years will do the trick. You can still drive your car, and so can your children.

There is a lot of detail to get into for why we should be introducing economic incentives now -- you can read all about it in the 1700 page report, and 10k references.

The solution *has* been proposed, and big oil is fighting it with a misinformation campaign as to whether AGW is happening at all.

We could fix this problem easily with barely any significant change to our style of life. Sure there will be winners and loser, and the losers will be big oil/coal companies -- some of the most powerful institutions in the world -- and that's why nothing is being done. It is really easy to throw mud and claim there is "confusion" on whether AGW is happening. Meanwhile, they tell themselves a story about how CO2 isn't a pollutant, and doing anything would be communism, and therefore morally wrong.

AGW is easy to solve compared to the little lies we tell ourselves about what is moral, in order to protect our little empires.

I'm pretty sure that most people agree on most things, and even policy wonks can find a huge amount of common ground to move forward on. Alas that politics is all about fighting. I heard one GOP insider saying that they push some of the conspiratorial nonsense to distract the base from making up nonsense about the GOP leadership.

If you are a conservative, you may enjoy this 20thC history of economics. The analysis leaves out a few important details (like the role of the OPEC crisis, and Nixon's price and wage controls, as causal factors in stagflation), but I think the general idea is pretty accurate. But no one theory of economics can claim to describe the economy, so it's important to realize that you are looking at a point of view that has blind spots, even if it is mostly true.

Even that is overstating the case. Global cooling was *investigated* by a small number of scientists, including Steve Scheider (!). Time magazine and the media pushed it as a good story. Must have sold newspapers.