" That is because they DONT debate, they screech their ideas and expect you to react"
Just ignore those people. There have been people screeching and trying to get a reaction all my life. I completely ignore them.

I'm missing something. I'm saying the current evidence is human activities are changing the climate and the changes will cost other people. I'm saying science is always open to new evidence, but right now that's how it looks. Claims that it's not happening are based on wishful thinking. So governments respond by taxing activities commensurate with the mess they make. Before you know it, innovative people will find ways to avoid making the mess or to clean up the mess.

"the left keeps using science as a false justification to inflict more looting on us"
Their doing that does not affect reality. A year ago I came upon Naomi Klein's book, This Changes Everything. She argues just what you say "the left" argues. If she's "the left", she's a perfect example of what you say. Her incorrect arguments for socialism do not affect the reality of global warming.

Didn’t you mean, global warming? Oh right, they changed that.
The purposely deceptive term, “climate change”, which is being used for one of the biggest money grabs and violatiors of individual rights in history, is very Progressive. Who would possibly argue that for the last million years the climate has been stable?
It is insanely Progressive. Like cancer is Progressive.

Ohhh so "change" is good...nice argument...

I would think that climate change would be hailed as...um, progressive.

Notice though, a lot of "deniers" have questions how, in the midst of previous cycles that had very high CO2 levels, were the plants growing like monsters and everywhere in abundance? Nope, did not fit the narrative, so it was conveniently ignored.

I suggest you read Marc Morano's Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. There has been no warming for 20 years now, no increase in storm intensity or frequency, no record breaking hottest years in the last 3 years, no reduction of polar ice, no threat to polar bear babies, and the concept that CO2 is even a player as a greenhouse gas compared to basic moisture is ludicrous.

How can this be in the face of such "overwhelming consensus"? To help understand this, I'd like to include a fine essay by John Hunt, MD of Casey Research:


Why Do I Fail to Believe the Climate Scientists?

By John Hunt, MD

Libertarians have a powerful bullsh*t detector. Libertarians ascribe to philosophies based in part on their internal consistency, which is a key component of what Doug Casey calls “soundness.”

Set against the backdrop of a sound and rational philosophy, BS sticks out.

When it comes to climate science, my BS sensor alarm goes off like a klaxon. Is it my disdain for newspeak, since they manipulatively changed the term from global warming to climate change? Or is it something more substantial that keeps triggering my alarm?

I admit that I am not a climate scientist. In this case, that may be a strength, as I’ll explain below. First, here are my biases: Like most, I appreciate a clean, healthy environment. I value human life above that of bees and trees. I consider nature to be amoral: Nature doesn’t care about you or your family, nor does it know right from wrong. And of course, I oppose initiation of force and fraud against my fellow man. I am dismayed when people try to deny their biases.

I learned the scientific method as an academic scientist (medical researcher). Now as a writer, I am an observer. And here is what I discovered by being at the nexus of science and observation: climate science, like many fields, is rife with self-reinforcing layers of bias. My distrust of climate science isn’t because I ignore facts, nor because I disrespect the scientific method, nor because I’m in psychological denial or brainwashed by oil companies. To the contrary, my skepticism arises because I’m aware of the weaknesses of the academic process that creates the climate scientist and the research he produces.
What leads a person to become a climate scientist? How might the selection process for entry and success in the profession create problematic bias?

1. It is reasonable to consider that children raised in “climate-conscious” families are more likely to become interested in the environment than their peers. This is the first step in the multiple distillation process. They’re more likely to undertake a science fair project about climate change. Given today’s politics and popular culture, climate change projects are more likely to win awards at middle school science fairs, overseen by mostly progressive teachers who are concerned about climate change. The winner—encouraged by the attention his victory gets—gains heightened interest in the climate. In high school, encouraged by his teachers, he writes climate papers. He’s more likely than most to pursue environmental science in college.

2. College professors encourage the most dedicated students in the introductory environmental studies class to pursue climate science as a major. Others—who are uninterested or skeptical—may never again see the inside of a climate science classroom after the semester ends. The distillation toward purity continues.

3. As undergraduates pursue their master’s degrees, the crop of future climate scientists is further winnowed and distilled. Those who don't align with their professors’ views are less successful at getting into a PhD program. Later, success within PhD programs relies on abiding by one’s dissertation committee’s wishes, and progressing in ideological alignment with them. It’s a priesthood that demands orthodoxy; heretics aren’t welcome. Toe the line is the mantra here. Toe the politically correct line so as to get the PhD as fast as possible and start making money.

4. But who hires a PhD in a subject that doesn’t lead to a commercial product? Usually, it’s a university. So he needs to pursue funding. The newly minted PhD starts applying for grants—mostly from government agencies or his own university. He creates a project designed to prove something that he believes is likely to be true, and certainly wants to be true. For instance, CO2 causes the death of baby polar bears. He writes a grant application that will be reviewed by committees populated with scientists who make their living from government-funded studies of climate change. The wise new post-doc or assistant professor therefore designs a research project carefully to align with the views of the committee. If he fails to craft his project to appeal to the reviewers on the committee, he won't get funded. He might wash out from academia.

5. Through this academic distillation, the most orthodox climate research projects get the funding. Funding allows the now-successful young academic to buttress his hypothesis and the beliefs of the grant committee that channeled funding to him. Never underestimate how research studies in any field are designed to accomplish the affirmation of the desired outcome, as opposed to examining the truth of a hypothesis. Confirmation bias is a poison within most every field. Also, the pressured academic will find ways to justify picking and choosing data consistent with his hypothesis, and even dispensing inconsistent data, perhaps convincing himself that something went wrong with the measurement system. If his project (done well or done poorly) appears to prove his hypothesis, he then publishes a paper. If the project fails to show that CO2 hurts polar bear babies, it’s unlikely that the young scientist will write a manuscript about it.
6. Even if a particularly ethical scientist goes through the effort to write a paper that fails to support climate change concerns, it will be harder to get it published. Peer reviewers will be more critical, because it doesn’t reinforce their worldview. But it will likely be rejected by the editor before going to peer review. Then, the author would have to go through the considerable effort of resubmitting the manuscript elsewhere or respond to the reviewers’ critiques by doing more studies.

And it just isn't worth it, because publishing such a paper could only hurt his career, marking him as a rogue, dissident, or traitor. So, the young academic understandably sticks the rejected manuscript and its data in a desk drawer. This process of selective manuscript writing, editorial bias, peer-review bias, and selective resubmission, are four important reinforcing biases that further distill the scientific liquor. Because of these, it is highly unlikely we will ever see a published article concluding that CO2 doesn’t adversely affect polar bear babies.

7. Publication of manuscripts (which are mostly going to be orthodox) is important for the success of a young academic. It’s a cycle. Grants fund research. Research enables publication. Publication enables more grants. This is the academic hamster wheel of the successful climate scientist. A negative paper could throw a monkey wrench in the cycle. That’s dangerous for a young PhD. So the remaining few young academics foolish enough to get an unorthodox or negative manuscript published are more likely to wash out of the field and become TV weathermen or journalists.

8. To top it all off, it’s well known that even pro-orthodoxy climate research papers will only get attention from the lay press and mainstream media if it is REALLY BAD NEWS. If it bleeds, it leads. So we hear of the unprecedented increases in category 5 hurricanes, deadly forest fires in California, or more floods in New Orleans—all “caused by climate change” (a statement made with zero substantiation). As for reporting on a paper saying that sea levels aren’t going to rise 200 feet? What self-disrespecting mainstream click-baiting “journalist” would waste time taking such a story to their editor?

The process of nurturing and selecting the climate scientist starts in kindergarten, progresses through high school and college, then to grant funding, manuscript preparation, and publication, and is then only seen through the lens of the media’s selective presentation. The many reinforcing layers of bias create a distillate of pure concentrated climate orthodoxy for the world to imbibe.

We are told that 97% of climate scientists agree with their own scientific consensus. That’s a misleading statement, as that figure actually refers to 97% of climate scientists actively publishing in scientific journals, and we know how unlikely it is for a climate skeptic to join the field or to get published. It’s amazing that even 3% sneak through. For this reason and others, consensus ranks alongside expert opinion in its uselessness for the identification of truth. It should be no more surprising that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists accept the climate change orthodoxy than that 97% of seminary graduates would believe in their religion.

Agnostics rarely go to seminary. Likewise, the neutral and unbiased rarely become climate scientists or remain in the field.
Climate is an important issue. We need to get our heads around it in an intellectually honest way. In my view, the climate science community has not done that, and is incapable of doing it.

So does global warming present a problem for us? With the climate science community doing the science, how could I possibly know?

And what about the people who are so sure they do know? They’re basing their belief on their ingestion of a highly distilled product, selectively obtained by the systematic elimination of unorthodoxy. For this to occur requires no conspiracy. It happens whenever people maintain an unsound, internally conflicting ideology—because they can’t recognize BS through their distorted lens.

Regards,

John Hunt, MD

Why? Because 290 million years ago fungi developed the ability to digest lignin. Until then during the Carboniferous Period, there was no organism existing that could break down the lignin after a few organisms had developed the means to break down cellulose. Lignin is a tougher nut to crack. Today see how long an old tree survives what with the existence of bacteria in termites and animal guts and the fungi that digest cellulose and lignin. https://phys.org/news/2018-02-fungi-n...

As he said at the end, and which tells us why they have clung to the made up model - grants! Follow the money, especially where politics and science meet. There has to be money to be made, else Hillary would not have threatened to make criminal any challenge to the global warming theory. Science has always been about discovering an explanation, with the idea, onre information could change what was before fact. A lot of people have become rich over global warming, while tax payers footed the bill to make green industries survive.

I dont care what the climate does in 50 years. I will be dead long before that, and whoever lives then can deal with it. They have 50 years to move away from the shorelines and tornado prone areas.

I wish they would give back all our money they spent on that failed model too!

Interesting you cite the example of Einstein...Nazism also has all the earmarks of a cult...if not a religion.

Doom, apparently endures. No matter how many doom dates have passed with no consequence, no matter how many times some heretofore uncounted upon natural event or chemical that's been there all along,, forestalling "The End" it seems we just aren't happy unless a certain segment of humanity can predict the end of the world.But if you have ever watched the Discovery channel you'll begin to realize that the odds against the Earth's continued existence keeps rising every minute of time passing until odds-makers might as well go back to bed.The fact that the earth has been destroyed several times, and each time comes back smelling like a rose is phenomenal. It appears as if, through no power of its own, Earth is indestructible or who ever is playing dice with the universe" * isn't always paying attention ---.. *Albert Einstein I often think that the Universe is unnecessarily big. But then I start to think about what the odds will have to be for the Universe to produce intelligent life all on its own. All of a sudden, those vast numbers of space and time begin to make a bit more sense. I think that we are beginning to understand that there is a solution to every problem in the Universe and like the Universe itself, If given enough time and space we can solve them all.
. .

Right! Real science is also not ideological. Science isn’t about denying, actively ignoring or shutting down those who want question compiled results or have evidence that contradicts the consensus. Although their was the case of where some theories of Einstein’s (of Jewish decent) were outright rejected since it could have polluted the purity of “German science.”

It is a religion....the more facts you present, the greater the adherents cling to it.

I believe that you are correct. The source of Nitrogen is interesting but irrelevant to the topic of global warming. There is abundant historical (inc prehistorical, as you point out) evidence that the Earth cycles through warm and ice ages irrespective of the number of human campfires burning.

Jan

Seriously? I mean during the early Carboniferous Period, the temperatures were warmer, and there was a significantly more Carbon Dioxide in the air than today. And yet, it is because of this period of geological history that we get a vast majority of our coal beds and fossilized tree debris. Why? Because it was the age of forests when plants had plenty of food, warmth, and water to grow.

Oh, wait! Geology doesn't play into the "Man Made" Climate Change models, thinking, or politics. Whoops, my bad.

Looks to me that it would NOT throw the whole climate change theory "into the dump" but would, instead, explain why all the models have been over-projecting the warming... which might just make the theory cohesive and therefore bolster its credibility. I really don't know... but that's what it seems to suggest to me--that this new discovery has a huge effect on how science will be taught because it destroys the "nitrogen is from the atmosphere" narrative, but that it has the added bonus of making the planet able to withstand more carbon dioxide... not ANY amount of carbon dioxide, but more than previously thought. So... from the "fixes the projections" perspective, the analogy would be "we're at a level 8 and thought earth could only process a level 3; new discovery reveals earth can actually withstand a level 6, so we're still in trouble but it's not quite as imminent as we thought."

Again, I don't know, but that's what the study suggests to me...

Independent UK news story: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...

Study itself: http://science.sciencemag.org/content...

Not sure why people think this is so revolutionary. Almost all fertilizers have a substantial nitrogen component in them so we've known plants can absorb nitrogen from the soil for a long time. We've been aware of nitrogen revitalization from microbes and certain plants in crop rotations as well for decades. That these haven't been incorporated into any models until this study seems a calculated omission rather than a new revelation.

With the article, that video alone slaps down a lot of econazi guano for propaganda.

If liars can not enforce their lie then it becomes irrelevant in the face of reality. When they can enforce their beliefs by changing the lives of others then others always suffer or die.

That should have been, “These facts CAN’T be ignored or NOT taken into account.

CG, "I have not heard a clear plan about what to do about it" That is because they DONT debate, they screech their ideas and expect you to react and immediately do what they want (give them your guns, celebrate whatever crazy ass sexual unions they want, allow illegals to move in and give them every right and no responsibility, and always, "save the damn children". NO.

CG, Really? "There's no serious debate that the evidence shows it's happening and is hastened by human activities' well then why the hell is Oregon still trying to ram 1.5 billion in Cap and Trade down our throats to "save the world from climate change"? Do not be so naive....