There is a good book out by Alan Moran which details and chronicles the climate scheme, btw.

I am not sure that is just an opinion. I'm prepared to believe it might also be fact.

Perhaps it is best to decide whether there is a science in question. Is it a science to study averages of something such as local weather patterns and call it 'climate science' or is it just an application of probability theory as is quantum mechanics which deals with ensembles of particles and pretending that the probabilities apply to single particles. With weather, one can take average temperatures, etc, locally and then average the the averages together and pretend to have an over all climate for the Earth, but all one has is fun playing with numbers and nothing definite about reality.
As for homeopathy, it should have been thrown on the pseudoscience pile long ago. It takes little thought to believe that when a medicine is diluted at 30C that one has one molecule of medicine to 100^30 molecules of solvent or in other words no chance of medicine in, say, a sample of a few cc dose. Also there is absolutely no evidence that the solvent has somehow remembered that some medicine has been diluted in it. Of course, some lucky person might get a molecule of the medicine in a dose. Nothing but a placebo.

I so pissed off at all these Climate Change freaks all they can do is create a lot of verbal noise and try to force the rest of the world to do their bidding. It's amazing how these people along with the progressives are losing their minds over this theoretical scenario.
I have done my own green thing even though I'm not in the climate change camp. I have solar panels on my roof, I just purchased a used Nissan Leaf (which a leased vehicle) and yes the battery pack is slightly depleted (9 out 12). I did purchase an extended warranty which covers the battery pack. The vehicle is a blast to drive around town. Plus, My wife and I keep adding trees to our property (we do get our hands dirty).
That's my recommendation to the Climate Change freaks stop talking and personally do something ie, solar panels, buy electric cars, & plant trees, instead of browbeating everyone else.

I'll be travelling next week. I sent you my info in a PM msg about BitCoin a few months ago. If you send a msg to that e-mail some time we can meet in Johnson Creek or something.

I'll be in Milwaukee all next week.

"you are basing decisions on an assumption, that you refuse to accept challenge to internally or externally."
What does this mean? What is the assumption? What is internal or external challenge?

Maybe you cannot explain it in this forum. If you ever are in my area maybe we could go to dinner. Maybe I would get it of a sudden in person. Thanks for trying.

Because you are basing decisions on an assumption, that you refuse to accept challenge to internally or externally. This is dogmatic, not logical.

I don't get "strong political positions." I also don't get why accepting a theory is not an objective position.

There's probably a book on this. It's not a question that can be answered while standing on one foot.

Your use of "accept" and "believe" are insignificantly different. Neither is consistent with objectivity.

I stand by specifically what I said.

"I do try to skim actual papers."
If your semi-outsider perspective allows you to propose a hypothesis no one thought of that turns out to be true, esp something that up-ends our understanding of climatology, that would be great.

"it will be generally beneficial."
I know even less about this than climate science, but I thought the evidence was overwhelming it will be a net cost, unless we were heading toward a glacial maximum on the cycle of glaciation/deglaciation. I would be shocked to learn I misunderstood this basic fact. This is so far outside my area though. I would probably struggle to understand even the abstracts of papers in this field.

"Just say, "I believe", and"
We must be completely talking past each other. Above on this thread I specifically said belief isn't part of science. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I've also said repeatedly that the political ramifications of scientific finding are another matter. Even when I say the opposite, you say I'm talking about belief and politics.

Well, I do try to skim actual papers. I have looked at the data from the Vostok ice core (which incidentally reflects the warming period that I'm told was only in the Northern Hemisphere.

You keep confidently stating there is a problem when even the IPCC projects a wide variety of projected increases (which are not tracking with reality). The news generally only covers the most extreme possibilities -- because it's not very interesting to say there will be minor warming and it will be generally beneficial.

I recently saw an article promoting what the sea level would be if all the ice melted -- even though no serious theory projects that.

Thanks FFA. I enjoy debate, and learn more from it than most other means. I don't know who CG voted for, but I know he is elusive on such subjects.

If you don't know the basics, and people have studied, do understand them and are willing to discuss them, then it is wholly inappropriate to take strong political positions founded in these basics and argue with people who do and are willing to discuss them. Just say, "I believe", and stop entering into these discussions.

You are entitled to "believe", but it is NOT an Objectivity position.

So in your view, if you do not understand something down to a level of being able to critique a scholarly paper in the field, you cannot accept any of the science? This means we know almost nothing.

No, you are not talking about science. You are stating the word "science" without actually saying any scientific things. In much of today's internet discussions there is no attempt to actually discuss the science other than as some type of polling event. (e.g. 97% of scientists agree...)

This is an objectivist site. You need to state objective facts and theories. If you don't personally know the science behind the conclusions being offered, perhaps you should not be so enthusiastic about supporting them. And if you do know, share.

This is a pretty amazingly capable group of people.

If you've find new evidence, that would be very cool. That by its nature is science.

Your message talks about A) "asserting political action", B) "the movement", C) the popularized perception of climate science in the MSM, D) socialism-like thinking, and then the message conflates them with E) science. I'm talking about E, while you're talking about four other interesting but unrelated things.

So smart he voted for Obama twice and for Hitlery while claiming for the past 4 years how much he supports objectivist philosophy, individual liberty, and free markets.
Don't expect him to understand the evidence you have presented because it doesn't agree with his GW religious belief. He uses just as much rational thought on this issue as he does when voting.

You are a smart guy CG, I am disappointed you won't engage in a discussion of the technical basis, but feel compelled to engage in asserting political action.
If you may recall, I was ambivalent on this subject a few years ago when I joined the Gulch. At one point I argued that the movement had benefit, regardless of being right, in that if enough renewable sources were developed, the Middle East would be choked of funding for terrorism. I argued this with my brother for a while. However, I studied and studied to develop a understanding of the basics. As I have noted several things are absolutely true, but not simplified in the media:
1. Human produced greenhouse gasses can not produce the measured warming by direct means (the affect of the reflected and absorbed radiation in the atmosphere).
2. All models with reasonable correlation to the modern warming (minus the recent plateau) include an arbitrary, hypothetical water vapor positive feedback mechanism to provide for the effect.
These two facts, a knowledgeable climate scientist will acknowledge, perhaps begrudgingly.
3. This information is completely obfuscated in the net media, and the public is almost completely ignorant of it.
4. The behavior of the net public is a lynch mob, labeling alternate views, asserting alternate views are anti-environment. It is almost impossible to discuss this in many situations without hostility, which is absurd, and precisely the type of behavior ignorant people use to avoid exposing their ignorance.

There is nothing good from decisions made in ignorance. This is a feel-good, philanthropic movement just like socialism. It may be correct, but not for any reason presented to date.

For a change, I outrank ffa for cynicism:

There are some who propagate nonsense, not because they get paid which would be
bad enough, but because their peer group admires this flavor-of-the-month group-think.
Anything that shows you are concerned to save the planet gets brownie points, the
main cost is putting aside rationality.
The technical terms are virtue signalling, moral posturing, and what I call (fake) altruism.

To act from self-interest without values by taking bribes is bad.
Acting out of thoughtless altruism is worse.

You don't have to take it back. I'm just looking for the proof because I can't find any logic that a gas can trap heat. Even if it were possible, I can't believe such a small amount of it could change the Earth's temperature. I also don't understand if it did trap heat how the temperature in the mountain elevations could be be cooler. And cold air falls and warm air rises. Again looking for the proof.

Ok, I take it back. I was just trying to give him an inch. I am aware that CO2 absorbs energy in specific areas of the spectrum and I would assume that that prevents at least some from escaping. I'm willing to be told otherwise.

No people rejecting the statement that science says something without actual science.