New York Post uses University of Louisiana :-)

[Ragin4U]

Turb-I'm not sure of the context of that quote. If he meant it to be a comment on focusing so narrowly that we miss the bigger picture, I agree. How do you take it?
Two of my favorite quotes from Einstein are "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size." Also that God does not play dice with the universe. I really like reading his viewpoints on religion and the interface of science and religion.

J1m--You are still stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as climate science or climate scientists but thats just incorrect. It takes many fields of science to understand a complex set of interdependent processes. Just as a paleontology requires many subsets of knowledge and expertise. Or meteorology. Or astronomy. None of it is done in isolation.
You think that politicians make a scientific conclusions and then force scientists to go along with it? Is that what you mean by this statement? --"They have supported conclusions being made by governments, political groups and the massively ignorant unscientific public leaders."--
I do not advocate for cutting off the head with the possible tumor nor do I advocate for turning of the coal, gas and oil spigots. I DO advocate for limiting my exposure to things that may cause a tumor or make it worse. I DO advocate for making rationale decisions about our energy future because if we F it up, there arent any redos. My future is pretty much decided. I'm concerned for the planet that my kids and grandkids will see in their old age.

[Ragin4U]

I am unsure what the potential catastrophe is if we move towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

[Just1More]

Turb-I'm not sure of the context of that quote. If he meant it to be a comment on focusing so narrowly that we miss the bigger picture, I agree. How do you take it?
Two of my favorite quotes from Einstein are "Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size." Also that God does not play dice with the universe. I really like reading his viewpoints on religion and the interface of science and religion.

J1m--You are still stuck on the idea that there is no such thing as climate science or climate scientists but thats just incorrect. It takes many fields of science to understand a complex set of interdependent processes. Just as a paleontology requires many subsets of knowledge and expertise. Or meteorology. Or astronomy. None of it is done in isolation.
You think that politicians make a scientific conclusions and then force scientists to go along with it? Is that what you mean by this statement? --"They have supported conclusions being made by governments, political groups and the massively ignorant unscientific public leaders."--
I do not advocate for cutting off the head with the possible tumor nor do I advocate for turning of the coal, gas and oil spigots. I DO advocate for limiting my exposure to things that may cause a tumor or make it worse. I DO advocate for making rationale decisions about our energy future because if we F it up, there arent any redos. My future is pretty much decided. I'm concerned for the planet that my kids and grandkids will see in their old age.

Quit attributing something to me that I did not say. I never said there isn't "climate science". I said that there are very few climate scientists. Being that the science of climate is the combination of wide disparate fields of science makes it inherently complex. Understand? There are always fields working together, but in the case of climate science... it not only requires tremendous fields of cooperation... studying and determining many of the components at work is beyond our current reach. The challenge of proving cause and effect, quantifying consequences, and calculating probabilities is hugely difficult. Non scientific people are demanding answers with the predisposed judgement that we're running out of time and the cost quench is imminent and enormous. The science and math just are not all there. I've looked for it... and what you find is contributions from way too many disconnected sources. And many non science people are interpreting science findings incorrectly intentionally to satisfy their agenda. We all know there's something to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It's the multitude of other questions that get rapidly glossed over and removed.

Again, you keep loading up on the consequence (unsubstantiated) that we're heading for a catastrophe without acknowledging that rapid removal of US hydrocarbon fuels has massive consequences. They don't appear as dire... but they are. The answers to climate consequences by hydrocarbon fuels must be far more exact before acting against them. Plus the silly notion there are "green fuel" alternatives that still allow our economy and national/world defense to thrive is preposterous.

[Just1More]

I am unsure what the potential catastrophe is if we move towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Unilateral lowering the use of abundant fossil fuel resources by the US, while other developing economies build up their industrial mite, world trade capability, and military size and strength, will have irreversible consequences. To pretend otherwise is foolish. I have far more proof that man can and will destabilize the little remaining stability of this world than anyone has proof of imminent climate catastrophe caused by man made greenhouse gases. To ignore that fact while we tinker with world energy balances is foolish. We need to get this right. Hasty decisions have consequences too.

[Ragin4U]

We import 25% of the oil we use domestically, how does lowering that % hurt the US strategically, militarily and economically? Maybe I'm dense but it seems pretty straight forward that if we can power our country on LA crude, 'Merican sunshine and Freedom wind, we would be in good shape globally.

[Ragin4U]

As far as the science et al, I hope you are right and most of the scientific community is wrong. I certainly appreciate the discourse.
Maybe we can meet up in 20 years and see where we are. I'll pick up a couple of bottles that should be fantastic by then.

[CajunRed]

This is TOTALLY out of hand.

http://www.providencejournal.com/opi...rve-punishment

[Just1More]

We import 25% of the oil we use domestically, how does lowering that % hurt the US strategically, militarily and economically? Maybe I'm dense but it seems pretty straight forward that if we can power our country on LA crude, 'Merican sunshine and Freedom wind, we would be in good shape globally.

We can become energy independent, via a completely different strategy, that would not include reductions in fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas production. Man made climate change by the greenhouse gas effect, if as catastrophic as touted, is a sufficient argument, without adding the energy independence argument. We need to get the climate science right.

Understand, I would love a world of clean energy and chemistry. Our goal should be to use resources wisely and not destroy the planet. This isn't the first time planetary destruction was placed on a disparate group of scientists, and some really odd conclusions were drawn. When there are consequences with either direction the conclusions lead you, you do not give premature answers. And that is what has happened.

[Just1More]

As far as the science et al, I hope you are right and most of the scientific community is wrong. I certainly appreciate the discourse.
Maybe we can meet up in 20 years and see where we are. I'll pick up a couple of bottles that should be fantastic by then.

I've enjoyed the discourse as well. I am not saying the scientific community is "wrong". I'm saying the definitive conclusions being drawn are premature. I'm saying the science of climate is complex, and the divisions of expertise do not lend to a single group of scientists called "climate scientists" giving the kind of definitive arguments I've heard. Even this notion that 97% of the scientists agree. Agree on what? How is the question framed to "all of the scientists involved"? 97% of that 97% of scientists are single subject experts contributing to the climate science studies.

The ignorant people in all of this are not those that demand better answers. It's those that defer to "the scientists have said... so therefore X must be true". There are 20 substantial questions surrounding this monumental subject. I have no appreciation for the vague short answers being given to the public... and acted upon by politicians. I do blame science for failing to prevent premature conclusions and actions being taken. And the fact that I've heard a scientist state that "there are no consequences to reducing the carbon footprint... only benefits... and massive consequences if we do not... and the US needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil... it matters not if we are wrong about the severity of manmade climate change and greenhouse gases... it just isn't good... let's do something about it." That is pretty bothersome to me to hear that kind of non scientific opinion out of a scientist.

PS You better just go ahead and crack those bottles of wine and live like there's no tomorrow. Science has also concluded that even curbing manmade greenhouse gases at this point it useless... we are doomed.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Whenever a scientist disagrees with the conclusions and offers different ones the global warming group says who sponsors his research instead of what is wrong with his research and conclusion. Surely if his conclusions and research are defective they should challenge that.

To say government sponsored research is devoid of bias is ludicrous. You don't get government money long to find everything is OK.

I do not know the answer but if my home was on fire I would call 911 and get a water hose. Our government is fine with our house getting help from the local fire department, but the burning condo across the alley creating a danger to all can be handled with a water hose.

The US and Europe have to cut back, get taxed, but third world and China the biggest industrial power in the world can go hog wild full throttle. Does that sound like the world believes the oceans are getting ready to boil out the co2 and turn us into Venus?