Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Of course.

I already know that - that's my point.

Not necessarily true. There's a growing number who are questioning the reliability and accuracy of the climate models used to make the predictions.

Problem is that the models are not fine grained enough to be accurate or dependable. Even the IPCC has acknowledged this in their most recent report.

 

There are SOLID reasons to believe that if we don't do better now, the feed back loops that are kicking in and the highly likely increase in solar irradiance that is due will make curbing Earth's rising temperature essentially impossible.

For example, as tundra melts it loses reflectivity and starts emitting methane due to decay. That is a double whammy, as methane is far worse as a greenhouse gas than is CO2. We focus on CO2 because so much of the emissions of CO2 are under human control, not because it's the worst gas.

That's not the only feedback loop that will make slowing Earth's temperature rise harder in the future than it is today, meaning that ignoring climate change today is an especially major mistake.

The fact that a growing percent of the population is listening to science on this is certainly encouraging. Whether they think it is 5 years or 15 years is really rather stupid to worry about. In any rational analysis, it is a NOW issue.

 

I see that you have missed the point.

 

Sorry, no. That diagram is accurate.

 

Cite your claims.

Everybody wants models to be more accurate.

That doesn't mean they aren't accurately indicating that Earth's temp is rising due to human activity.

 

No, it's more that I blew it out of the water with real world examples.

 

I didn't say it wasn't accurate.

I pointed out that it absolutely IS incomplete. And, I pointed out how it is incomplete, multiple times in the last few hours of posts.

Reread my post and notice what I actually said. You don't have to apologize.

 

Except that economists aren't scientists. As I said, you missed the point.

 

Alarmists or deniers/?


How about neither ........ as it is probably somewhere in the middle. ( Climate realists )

 

LOL, I'm sure you think so.

[/QUOTE]

 

Economics absolutely is a science. It's just not one of the hard sciences.

And that means that economics should be MORE susceptible to the kind of affect that Myrdal mentioned, as there is less of a system of hypothesis and verification.

 

Exactly backwards. The thinking of economists is intimately tied to the policy prescriptions they favor; in a real sense economics is politics by another name.

 

It seems that you are now appealing to a conspiracy theory, or at least an economist is.

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

 

And, that would make it FAR MORE susceptible to the effect he identified.

However, economics is actually an important field of study, not an excuse machine for partisan politicians.

 

Try tying that back to the issue somehow.

 

People who rely on the data are going to be most correct, not "alarmists" or "deniers" per se. The real problem is the politicization of climate change, and the problem even more fundamental than that one is that politicization in America today means holding one of two completely opposing worldviews as shaped and defined by influencers in the media, both online and traditional, as well as politicians themselves.

The end result is that the unwashed masses are constantly fighting each other while ignoring those who put them in this situation like a bucket full of crabs. And while this goes on, the climate continues to change due to human input and we continue the slow march towards "greener" energy to eventually slow or stop that process.

 

No. Now you're not just missing the point, you're ignoring it. The phenomenon affects scientists not because of their engagement with the broader world, but because of their insulation from it.

 

You're the one who claimed a conspiracy theory.

 

So you don't think the 12 years till doomsday is "CRAP" after all.

 

Between economics and science it is science that is connected.

With science, there are actual methods of verification!! It's possible to find out who is right rather than simply noting that you're in the Chicago school of economics, so you better listen up.

Your guy was an economist. I don't see you quoting anything from your guy concerning applying his ideas to science.

 

Scientists are indicating that it will become harder and harder to get warming under control.

And, that makes total sense, given data from the entire world of climatology.

As I CLEARLY pointed out, I don't know if there is something significant about 12 years.

 

I pointed out that your ideas can only be based on a conspiracy theory.

 

Well let me know when the SCIENCE (PBUH) delivers the answer to that question on golden tablets.

 

Also a sociologist and political scientist, and it is as a sociologist that I quote him. Now you're just making a denial argument.

 

Another of your serial errors.