Why I dislike the AGW cult

You’re just grabbing at straws trying to stay in a conversation that’s well beyond your understanding. You support a group that is so ignorant, they can’t even make a budget that follows their preconceived notion of false economics. The ignorance of today’s conservatives is exemplified at so many levels, they’re left to making crappola up about what other people think. The planet will always survive global warming. It’s such a false argument. What AGW is doing, is exacerbating problems we already have that negatively affect our species. Overall, the earth, insects and reptiles may do just fine.

 

Yes the planet will survive your worst case scenarios but your children won't so again why are you having them?

 

You need to sound believable in your assertions. You stated the earth might not survive if AGW was real, now you’re “assuming” just one generation of offspring will not either if AGW is real. Wow.
No wonder Trump won the key states that controlled his electoral fate. They’re populated by the most ill informed voters in existence.....about everything. AGW is a Chinese plot ?

 

You really need to look up the meaning of the word “ cult”. If the dictionary listed examples of cults, the Republican Party and Faux News would be prime examples.

 

I never said that but why would you bring children into a world you believe is on the cusp of catastrophe from man made global warming. Just can't answer can you.

 

Actually I have given the definition of cult in here more than once and will be glad to do do again for you to read and equates to the AGW cult.

"great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work "

Your great devotion to AGW scientist.
Your great devotion to the idea man is warming the planet
The movement would be you and all the rest of the cult that pushes this work called the AGW hypothesis.

 

You’re being uninformed again. Science IS NOT A PERSON. it’s not an object an idea, movement or work.
It’s a methodology that YOU depend upon every time you use the phone, drive your car, eat safe food and live thirty more years. No one person makes science.

You’re now talking like a cult member of the biggest author of lies, Trump and the GOP.

 

A cult tries to get you to believe in what they believe in and force you to live by their beliefs and that's exactly what the AGW cult does. Us non-believers don't have any desire to force you to not believe we just want you to leave us alone. Us non believers don't want to force you to live like we do but you do anyway which is kind of interesting.

 

Cults are also usually fronted by very charismatic folks who dazzle their average followers. If you haven't seen Leo DiCaprio jet setting around the globe preaching, you aren't paying attention.

 

I think a lot of them are wrong; probably even most of them. But, I don't really pay much attention to alarmists so I don't really know what doomsday scenarios are floating around.

 

But you'll happily force the next generation to live in a damaged world or at least in a world in which is harder for humans to thrive?

 

I made some wording changes.

Your great devotion to bloggers.
Your great devotion to the idea that there is grand conspiracy to pull off the biggest hoax in human history.
The movement would be you and all the rest of the cult that pushes this work called science denial.

The difference between mine and yours is that mine is a belief based on observation and facts while yours is a belief based on faith, misinformation, inconsistencies, or even outright fraud.

 

Kind of like James Delingpole or Steve Goddard (err...I mean Tony Heller)?

 

If i don't believe that will happen how am I doing that exactly?

 

Wrong on all counts. My lack of belief in your hypothesis is your lack of evidence to prove it and believe me I'm an easy target for this because I do believe man is ****ing up the world in countless ways but so far I'm far from convinced that our C02 contribution is one of them. In fact I'd go so far as to say in all the ways we are degrading the planet that is the most benign thing we are doing and the very last thing to get worked up about.

 

Not believing in something won't stop it from happening.

 

Yeah dig a little deeper. 90 percent of scientists agree global warming is a real and immediate threat. But dig a little deeper. It’s established science that greenhouse gases eventually cause a shifting climate that could radically alter our ecosystem but dig a little deeper. In fact just keep digging until you find someone willing to say what you want to hear. Problem solved, global warming is a fake leftist conspiracy to take our guns.

Wait no that’s the other leftist conspiracy
Oh well whatever.

 

Your lack of belief is then based on choosing a dearth of evidence over an abundance of evidence. It also requires you to reject a theory that is useful without replacing it with something more useful. In other words, you are arguing that it is better to have no theory at all then to have a theory that is useful if that theory cannot also be perfect.

 

True but if I don't believe in something you can't accuse me of condemning the next generation to suffer its results. That's what you true believers do when you believe but have children anyway.

 

How is thinking the earths climate will do what it will do and man's C02 contribution will not have any real effect on that not having a theory?

 

It's a theory. It's just not a very useful theory because it makes predictions that are often at odds with observations. I guess I should amend my statement though. You are rejecting a theory that is useful and replacing it with one that is less useful. This would be like rejecting General Relatively in favor of Newtonian Mechanics. NM is useful just like a natural-only theory is useful, but GR is even more useful just like a natural+anthroprogenic theory is even more useful.

Remember, AGW is built on top of the idea that natural processes effect the climate. It does not nullify any of that. What it does is refine out understanding of the climate to include other processes above and beyond just the natural ones. Natural only theories are special cases in which the anthroprogenic effect is determined to be zero like would be the case in the preindustrial eras. It's the same with GR. GR did not nullify NM. What it did was refine our understanding of the universe above and beyond what classical mechanics could do. GR reduces to NM under a specific set of circumstances exactly the same way AGW reduces to natural-only under a specific set of circumstances.

 

Turning a blind eye to something does not absolve anyone of culpability simply because they say "I choose not to believe".

 

Few if any argue with the fact that C02 may have some effect on the climate. Our argument is with the cult fanatics that claim our C02 is the driving factor and overwhelming natural causes and we better make dramatic changes fast or we are at serious peril. Not that any of you guys make these changes yourself but that's your story.

 

Turning a blind eye to something you consider false dogma is appropriate behavior.

 

I wonder if there is a compromise to all of this. Maybe those that invest money now to mitigate the warming earn future credit that can be passed on to their heirs under the estate inheritance framework. The future value of those credits would be based on how well observations matched predictions at the time the credit was originated. Those that want to participate sacrifice wealth now to have more in the future. Those that choose not to participate sacrifice wealth in the future so that they can have more now. If the science is right it would be a program to transfer wealth from those that don't believe to those that do and vice versa. Or more precisely the program can be constructed so that if the science isn't right non-believes only see a positive outcome. If the science is right the non-believers see a negative outcome proportional to the harm they've caused. All of the up-front risk would be on the believers and only the believers. But, their reward for accepting this risk is compensation in the future. Win-Win?