For that’s all politics or economics is - just a model, just theories that get proven or disproved at the time.

There are countless scientific theories that were disproved over time. Not every contentious one were eventually drawn to worldwide consensus. And even then worldwide consensus items are often self-debunked.

Bear in mind as well, that often scientific funds are granted or given higher priority in direct relation to the public interest level in a topic.

So yeah - our talking about it is quite important.

Why shouldn’t it be.

“So,I cast my lot with the world-wide scientists who have reached a consensus.” — domajot

But there is no “consensus,” and you don’t even have to be a scientist at all to find that out.
http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/03/04/17000-scientists-dissent-no-consensus-on-global-warming/

Dr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and he says “THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING.” If anything, the majority of scientists don’t believe humans are responsible for whatever changes may be occuring.
http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf

Skeptics win debate with believers, & there’s NO CONSENSUS
http://newsbusters.org/node/11461

Come on, people. THINK, d@#* it! THINK!

You have to stop flipping coins to decide which side of an issue to be on, and learn how to think for yourself.

1. The effect of economic decisions can be observed, once they’re put in effect. We can then debate which policy or condition is responsible for which effect.

2. Global warming can not be observed in the same way. Which models of the past are the best predictors of the future is a highly technical field and has been adjusted several times. The ordinary person is not qualified to judge the models. As I certainly am not qualified, I choose to rely on a scientific consensus.
It is in the nature of science that, as scientists keep working at it, the modeling and the predictions will be adjusted several more times. Even without the particulars, the consensus is that the future holds serious dangers and that the time for action is now. I believe that.

3. Over the past decades, I have observed a certain pattern. The first occasion was when the first reports pointing to a health risk in smoking came out. Imnediately, scientific-lookling sceptical reports sprang up, questioning one detail, casting doubt on another. It took years to overcome the negative effects of this pseudo-science. Important health policy decisions were delayed because of this activity.

Not all the effects of doubt are negative. The exercise of debunking pseudo-science can work to toughen the rigor needed to formulate and refine the theory.

This methodology of doubt has been operating consistently. If a local factory is polluting a river, a report will spring up to cast doubt on the scientific data implicating the factory.
Periodically, as with evolution, another scientific theory is put through the same wringer. It’s always the same method of nibbling at details, thus casting a pall of doubt on the theory itself.

4. I can’t personally test either the theory or the propositions of doubters, I can’t know which are examples of deliberate pseudo science and which are genuine scientific inwuiries. So,I cast my lot with the world-wide scientists who have reached a consensus. I leave it to them to deal with those casting doubt again.

5. IMHO, those sceptical about the theory would do well to be equally sceptical about the challengers. I cast my lot with the majority. Naturally, I respect your freedom to think otherwise.

6.. With time, as the science develops and evolves, we will all learn more. In the meantime, we have to choose to etiher act or not act.
——–
This is my best effort at clarity.
If it’s not enough, it’s not enough.

I’m done.

You think I’m wrong. I’ll follow this, and if I’m proven wrong, I’ll change my opinion.

In the meantime, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, but I think it’s a short way out without being able to discuss it. and at the same time short circuiting anyone elses discussion on it.

I still don’t understand what or why you will suddenly classify one thing as below our level of knowledge while engaging in the same converstaion yourself, and not applying apparently any level to other similar topics.

How climate affects the world is indeed a good question and can affect the world from year 1 to year 10. how economics affects the world can be a more foreceful question, affecting the world from month1 to month 50. How politics affects the world can alter the world from day 1 to day 2.

My overall position remains: Science is different from say, politics or art appreciation. Economics is different from both.

Each area involves a different process, a different language and a different formulation for questions and answers.

IMO, the lines of questioning are being blurred. This is different from politicizing the answers or the messengers; that’s a separate issue. For me, the question has to right before we get to the rest of it. I believe the question itself has become political and mirrors very much the evolution debate.

You think I’m wrong. I’ll follow this, and if I’m proven wrong, I’ll change my opinion.

In the meantime, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Basically my reading of it is making me MORE skeptical and I’m disputing what some of you seem to accept, that there is such a firm basis for the CO2 models that all scientists who aren’t tainted have accepted them. That assumption is based on the idea that one side is politicizing while the other is merely exaggerating a bit. The actual situation as I see it is that both sides are highly politicized and the science overall is being corrupted.

I’m sorry a differing slant is so irksome to you.

No, I just don’t see the usefulness of tossing anyone else’s thought process out the window on this one particular subject as saying we’re not climatologist, without applying the same standard to everything.

Politics, economics, et. all. is over most peoples heads, yet we all - including you - comment on it.

In the case of co2 and climatology, it’s way over most bloggers’ and commenters’ heads. I certainly don’t know what proof would be necessary to satisfy a scientific prognosis. It’s not something I can observe or form an impression about. I defer to other scientists to ask the questions and answer them.

I’m sorry a differing slant is so irksome to you.

CS and Interested-

What precisely is the scientific proof you are looking for re co2? It would be a rare surprise to find someone scientificaly qualified to understand the question or evaluate the answer on a blog not geared to that expertise. Maybe you are looking in the wrong places?

Your kidding right? That same standard could be applied to politics, economics, geography, etc. It’s a rare surprise to find any experts talking about any subject we discuss here. Why separate out one particular thing when it questions Scientists that cannot agree amongst themselves?

The scepticism about Gore as the messenger can be understood in political terms, but what is your scientific beef with him? His message is not disputed by scientists, as far as I know.

Other than not practicing what he so much preaches. Scientists do dispute it.

I repeat: neither of us is qualified in the field of climatology. For answers, I defer to those who are.

That, like I said - applies to the entire blogosphere, add in news media to that as well.

Which I have to ask, if such a standard must apply and you take it with a grain of salt - why bother reading and or responding?

Please see the links in my posts on that. They clearly show what’s wrong with the alleged “science” Gore is pimping.

Gore is distorting the science that he presents AND he is leaving out the science that contradicts him.

But WHY is he doing it? Again, see my posts. His free money for Gore scam won’t work if people can’t be sold on his misrepresentations of the little science he does tell us.

If you guys keep debating the “facts” that he presents and ignore the reality that he won’t tell you, of course you are going to come to the wrong conclusions, or at best be confused.