Whoosh.

Because climate science is righteous and cannot possibly be affected by the problems mentioned in the article. Right?

Good point.

Now take a science subject, combine the journalism problems with the science problems and splash in a bit of political agenda...

Add to the mix a little bit of Group Think, and you have a very very big problem.

Again, you read propaganda, you then believe it.

Saying "deniers", "bloggers", "backed by fossil fuel industry"... All talking points fed to you by media and PR sites like "desmogblog".

You don't even realise how pervasive the misinformation campaign is. So much so, you believe skeptics are enemies.

You know propaganda is working when anyone who doesn't agree with your belief can be called by derogatory names, shunned, threatened and ridiculed, buts its ok, because your side is righteous.

Ignoring information because of its source, does not show you in good light.
You blindly following your ideology and bias, does not show you in good light.

Read it, instead of believing the propaganda. The PR and the PR money is on the green side, by such a friggin wide margin, its not even funny.

400 million a year budget for Greenpeace
Millions given to 350.org by the Rockefeller foundation

Fossil industries are throwing money at green NGOs left and right, and crumbs at the other side, yet you still believe the propaganda that its the Koch brothers against the world.

Wake up. Open your mind. Hell, what do you think, smart people with sound minds switch over to being skeptics? Judith Curry for example. But, if your dishonest and follow propaganda, your going to think she is some crackpot, just because, she wants to have a serious discussion about the science.

The media and politicians is where you are getting your information.
Not mine.

IPCC is NOT a scientific orginisation, it never was. Its a government body put together by politicians and civil servants to come to a conclusion. Read its charter.

The IPCC does not do any research. They compile research, cherry pick it.

Hell, even AR5 was toned down from previous reports, but the Report for policy makers was still fearmongering at its finest. Because the science does not support the agenda... but the agenda must go on.

I have read many of those and others. You seems to think skeptics are idiots.

That's what happens when your ideology does the thinking for you.

Models, conjectures, inferred estimates based on erroneous assumptions, incomplete data and confirmation bias. Thats is the crux of catastrophic AGW science these days.

Not all of them. Many have sound observations and some findings that could be worrisome and require more study.

Almost none of the studies made with proper data from observation come to any conclusion that would require us to panic a and kill thousands or our fellow earthlings living in poor conditions with no or limited access to energy.

I often hear people say "open your mind", it is, is yours? Remove your blinders and forget for a second that your bias and ideology has enabled you to be duped by the media into thinking that skeptics are evil, or part of a vast conspiracy by the fossil industry and simple read the research.

*sigh*

I see the brainwashing has worked wonders.

I'm all for weaning ourselves off coal. I'm all for going nuclear, its actually the only long term solution.
I live in Quebec where its almost 100% Hydro and our idiot politicians are enacting carbon trading schemes like we had 100% coal. Its ludicrous.

Solar and Wind will never provide baseload. It can help, and I'm actually for solar on an individual basis as it makes more sense. But solar farms are so beyond inneficient its not even funny.

Technologie is well on its way to improving, reducing costs and slowly transitionning into sources of energy that will be better for us.

Why use scaremongering and non issues like CO2 to grab money in pretense for saving our lives.
People with no energy or expensive energy are at a MUCH higher risk of survival than those using coal.

I keep hearing the lie that the rate of warming is "UNPRECEDENTED". What is "unprecedented" is the rate of enacting harmful laws, limiting our energy, thus increasing costs and availability to the masses.

On the contrary. I ignore nothing.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

I stated a fact. Lack of proper data for a proper conclusion and you say I reject science? ok...

Fossil fuels are not linked to millions of deaths or trillions of cost. That is again conjecture.

99.9% of scientists? Now your inventing numbers? I thought the latest PR pieces where about 97% of real "climate" scientists cherry picked.

Indeed, there is no point in talking with you, as you cannot see past your ideology.

Why? Juste because?

Improving air pollution is a fine goal. And I'm all for it.

But CO2 is not the boogeyman the media and politicians are making it out to be.

Everyone seems to be on this bandwagon of reducing resources extraction, all the while not realizing its the building block of our modern societies.

We dont have enough data on ocean PH. Historical data is regional and world wide data is very sparse.
Also PH changes seasonally and current historical measurements are not evenly spaced throughout the year to come to any conclusions with reliability.

Air pollution has nothing to do with CO2, if you think so, you are on the wrong track.

The 2 last ones are scaremongering and conjecture.

So again, my question remains.

Why is a solution needed?

Is it settled or its not settled? I'm confused.

Settled when it suits you, but not settled when it doesn't?

Its settled on the basics, like CO2 traps IR and causes "some" rising"?
But not settled as to how much? And if this is bad in any way...?

You are a scaremonger and intellectually dishonest. You will rationalize anything that confirms your bias. You are so full of it, its staggering.

You believe your own lies, or the lies of others, I'm not sure which is worst.

The IPCC is not credible and has not been credible EVER. The studies that use, most of the time are. However they cherry pick those that suit them and the reports are written, not by experts, but recent graduates, civil servants and sometimes people who just have no credentials worth mentioning whatsoever. People need to stop equating the IPCC and those who write the reports with the actual scientists publishing papers. THEY ARENT THE SAME.

The Stern Review is a hit piece and a bad one. So full of bad information its completely worthless. Its claims dont even fit with the IPCC reports in many cases.

Its easy to sit smug and morally supperior, as youd like to think you are on the "righteous" side of things and have 97% of scientists behind you. But you side keeps talking agaisnt media and the politicians, when that is ALL you guys have. PR, spin doctoring, politics and the main stream media.

The science is NOT on your side, unless its manipulated or cherry picked.

I'm done with you. You have fallen into the cool aid bucket.

Now I see why you are scared.

The Stern review was a PR piece and based on so many bad assumptions, that not even the IPCC propose.

The climate science is not settled. For you or anyone to say that, just shows how much you do not care about the science but the ideology. Climate science is complicated, those who try to reduce it to simple facts that will mean catastrophe are the politicians, the media and the UN civil servants.

"proof" is a strong word... you are right. But for now, we dont even have anything close to evidence showing a "probable" catastrophic outcome.

We most definitely need to tread very carefully before making these kinds of decisions.

Also, the Stern Review was written with assumptions that have been adjusted substantially in several recent peer reviewed papers. Namely climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. 4c is more than double the current estimates.

ok... so conjecture once again.

When we have proof that it will be costly
When we have proof that trillions of dollars thrown at this problem will make a "noticeable" difference

Then we can sacrifice today's poor for the earths future.

Until then, sacrificing the living, is not acceptable.

Why would we lower emissions if its not a problem?
And non problems aren't costly... I don't see what you are trying to say.