I reserve the term 'alarmist' for those who read more into published science that what the authors write. Those who reject published science without backing it up with their own published science I call a 'denier'. For those who support the published science that CO2 contributes between 9% and 26% to the greenhouse effect, I would use the term 'realist'.
Funny how that paper in another thread, this link: http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/NVAP_March2013.pdf supports what I say about the warming. You know, the one where I say "sensitivity" is the wrong term... The third pdf page makes it obvious that this sensitivity, which I say is more aptly called radiative efficiency, is greater where the amount of water vapor is less. It all has to do with the instantaneous slope as the value changes on a log curve.
Tell me why politicans are not taking this serious? I mean super serious? Such that they construct enormous sea walls to protect the USA. They claim it will get get very warm. Humans need good water to drink. If they were serious, in CA you would see a rush to build a very large reservoir by Auburn, Ca and or desalinization plants to ensure water for people plus water for CA food crops. Why are we fighting over this when the politicians who have the money, simply refuse to spend it on such things?
You say this like politicians are a homogeneous group that all thinks alike. Maybe you should be asking who's trying to do something and who isn't.
And yet papers which have been subjected to peer review say that human activities are sufficient to explain increasing atmospheric water vapor and that feedback from this extra water vapor is making Earth even warmer. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL035333/abstract
Those who started to haven't seen the support they expected. Too many of us voters disagree with the costs vs. payback. - - - Updated - - - Peer review means little in the climate sciences.
There is one significant government entity which isn't beholden to partisan gridlock or public opinion that does believe in anthropogenic global warming and is doing something about it. http://www.livescience.com/38167-national-security-impact-of-warming-climate.html
I run into nuts who in my opinion think contrails cause airplanes. I nod off when hearing something akin to that. I maintain the global governments simply have not bought into we are in trouble over climate. I I am pleased we still are recovering from the ice age and look forward to deserts blooming again with lush plant life.
