Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[govols/cc]

Uuhhhh you've got that burden of proof backwards buddy. I have to prove that vaccines don't cause autism? No, you have to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I can't prove a negative, but I can state that there's no statistical signficance (or underlying science) that indicates vaccines could cause autism.

Yes (hopefully) most of us here agree smoking causes cancer, but Philip Morris and co. argue that we should not regulate tobacco because of the scientific uncertainty. Again, scientific uncertainty is not equivalent to real doubt. If we all adhered to denialists' impossible expectations of science we'd never get past the cogito.

A few things we can do something about. You devote your time & life to something we can't & nobody gives a damn about anyway.

 

[Obsessed]

http://o.dailycaller.com/all/2014-0...te-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda#1

This is good solid science right here guys.

 

[BartW]

Leave it to ignorant souls like yourselves to deny global warming. It fits in nicely with your other beliefs, such as believing that the earth is only 6000 years old, Jesus is real, and that capitalism is good for poor people with no money.

I must also take issue with this post. While it’s true that there are a significant number of fundamentalist Christians out there who deny evolution because of their literalist interpretation of the bible and also deny global warming because of their dominionist interpretation of the bible, the sweeping generalization that it’s all the same brand of idiocy is incorrect.

For example, the most significant factor in predicting climate denial isn’t religion or even conspiratorial thinking, but a rigid libertarian worldview. They see climate science and any other science that indicates we may need regulations as an attack on their ideology. Now it’s easy to label all conservatives as religious anti-science hicks, but it’s not true.

This article describes an interesting phenomenon discovered in a 2008 PEW study called the “smart idiot” effect. Among democrats, a higher education correlated with a higher acceptance of climate science. For republicans, however, higher education correlated with a decreased acceptance of climate science. What’s going on here? In short, politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. They're better at convincing themselves that they have legitimate counterarguments. It's an example of motivated reasoning. But really they aren't reasoning – they’re rationalizing.

Another thing to keep in mind is that science denialism isn’t exclusive to the political right. True, conservatives are more likely to deny evolution and global warming (also the holocaust, ozone depletion, acid rain, DDT, and HIV/AIDS). But the far left contains more anti-GMO whackos, animal rights extremists, alt. medicine hippies, 9/11 truthers, vaccine deniers, and opponents of nuclear energy. I mean we’ve got organizations like Greenpeace burning GMO crop fields and PETA bombing university laboratories. Which is worse? I suppose that's a matter of perspective. Here are two reponses to my linked article from opposite ends of the political spectrum:

There's No Such Thing As the Liberal War on Science
Is Leftist Science-Denial The Most Dangerous Kind?

The way science can get twisted by the political arena on its way to the average citizen is unfortunate, but there exists a scientific consensus on each of the aforementioned ‘controversial issues’ independent of politics.

Regarding your last statement, as a libertarian myself I side with the pro-capitalists. However, I recognize that we do need some regulations because there are instances where free markets fail. Ideals are only ideals and don’t always work out how you’d like in the real world. I also recognize that Faux News and the GOP grossly misrepresent the poverty issue. And the “trickle-down” effect doesn’t work if you outsource all your blue-collar jobs. I guess what I’m trying to say is, American politics are whack. If we’re going to progress as a society everyone needs to take off their red/blue tinted glasses.

 

[BartW]

Geez Bart why do you need to post under this alt account? Also why bring religious beliefs into the conversation? Running out of ammo so you have to bring in a non-related topic to compensate?

Harhar. I'm not Judge Holden but religion is relevant to the conversation.

Bump:

Creationists and Climate Skeptics Unite: Watch politicians say there’s no such thing as climate change because of God

Considering some of the recent VN debate about 'student religious freedom' (and my previous discussions of dominionism, anthropism, and conflict thesis) I figured y'all would enjoy this

All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now it protects climate education too.

How did these issues get wrapped up together? On its face, there isn't a clear reason—other than a marriage of convenience—why attacks on evolution and attacks on climate change ought to travel side by side. After all, we know why people deny evolution: Religion, especially the fundamentalist kind. And we know why people deny global warming: Free market ideology and libertarianism. These are not, last I checked, the same thing. (If anything, libertarians may be the most religiously skeptical group on the political right.)

And yet clearly there's a relationship between the two issue stances. If you're in doubt, watch this Climate Desk video of a number of members of Congress citing religion in the context of questioning global warming.

Using the Bible to Resist Climate Action: A Supercut

Indeed, recent research suggests that Christian "end times" believers are less likely to see a need for action on global warming.

Don't worry, I have infinite ammo

 

[Grand Vol]

Harhar. I'm not Judge Holden but religion is relevant to the conversation.

No, religion has zero relevance to the topic of climate change.

Stop lumping all the people that happen to be religious into the same pile.

 

[BartW]

No, religion has zero relevance to the topic of climate change.

Stop lumping all the people that happen to be religious into the same pile.

Did you read any of the rest of my last two posts?

I must also take issue with this post. While it’s true that there are a significant number of fundamentalist Christians out there who deny evolution because of their literalist interpretation of the bible and also deny global warming because of their dominionist interpretation of the bible, the sweeping generalization that it’s all the same brand of idiocy is incorrect.

Creationists and Climate Skeptics Unite: Watch politicians say there’s no such thing as climate change because of God

Considering some of the recent VN debate about 'student religious freedom' (and my previous discussions of dominionism, anthropism, and conflict thesis) I figured y'all would enjoy this

All across the country—most recently, in the state of Texas—local battles over the teaching of evolution are taking on a new complexion. More and more, it isn't just evolution under attack, it's also the teaching of climate science. The National Center for Science Education, the leading group defending the teaching of evolution across the country, has even broadened its portfolio: Now it protects climate education too.

How did these issues get wrapped up together? On its face, there isn't a clear reason—other than a marriage of convenience—why attacks on evolution and attacks on climate change ought to travel side by side. After all, we know why people deny evolution: Religion, especially the fundamentalist kind. And we know why people deny global warming: Free market ideology and libertarianism. These are not, last I checked, the same thing. (If anything, libertarians may be the most religiously skeptical group on the political right.)

And yet clearly there's a relationship between the two issue stances. If you're in doubt, watch this Climate Desk video of a number of members of Congress citing religion in the context of questioning global warming.

Using the Bible to Resist Climate Action: A Supercut

Indeed, recent research suggests that Christian "end times" believers are less likely to see a need for action on global warming.

Even people in this thread have cited god as the reason climate change can't be real. Religion isn't the only issue, but it's relevant.

 

[Grand Vol]

Did you read any of the rest of my last two posts?

Even people in this thread have cited god as the reason climate change can't be real. Religion isn't the only issue, but it's relevant.

So I'm skeptical of climate change. Or at least believe it is being exaggerated quite a bit.

Does that make me a raving religious lunatic in that same brand of lunacy as well?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Uuhhhh you've got that burden of proof backwards buddy. I have to prove that vaccines don't cause autism? No, you have to prove that vaccines do cause autism. I can't prove a negative, but I can state that there's no statistical signficance (or underlying science) that indicates vaccines could cause autism.

Yes (hopefully) most of us here agree smoking causes cancer, but Philip Morris and co. argue that we should not regulate tobacco because of the scientific uncertainty. Again, scientific uncertainty is not equivalent to real doubt. If we all adhered to denialists' impossible expectations of science we'd never get past the cogito.

So now you say there is no statistically significant data that indicates vaccines can cause autism. That's what you should have said in the first place. I am glad you finally realize where you screwed up. We cannot say cancer CAUSES cancer. The best we can say is smoking might cause cancer. I am glad you finally got the point.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

So I'm skeptical of climate change. Or at least believe it is being exaggerated quite a bit.

Does that make me a raving religious lunatic in that same brand of lunacy as well?

According to Bart? Yes. It makes you a conspiracy theorist who engages in scientific denialism. You are not allowed to be a skeptic because the scientific community says so.

 

[Grand Vol]

According to Bart? Yes. It makes you a conspiracy theorist who engages in scientific denialism. You are not allowed to be a skeptic because the scientific community Bart says so.

fixed

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

fixed

My bad. Good catch

 

[Danl]

So now you say there is no statistically significant data that indicates vaccines can cause autism. That's what you should have said in the first place. I am glad you finally realize where you screwed up. We cannot say cancer CAUSES cancer. The best we can say is smoking might cause cancer. I am glad you finally got the point.

You sure about that?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You sure about that?

Yes.

 

[Danl]

Yes.

You don't think that cancer causes more cancer?

 

[BartW]

So I'm skeptical of climate change. Or at least believe it is being exaggerated quite a bit.

Does that make me a raving religious lunatic in that same brand of lunacy as well?

It depends on the motivation for your rejection of science. Are you dominionist? Are you a free market fundamentalist? Do you believe in other conspiracy theories? Maybe you’re just an example of the “smart idiot” described a few posts back? Maybe you are none of these, but simply misinformed. I haven’t seen you post in this thread enough to make that judgment.

 

[BartW]

So now you say there is no statistically significant data that indicates vaccines can cause autism. That's what you should have said in the first place. I am glad you finally realize where you screwed up. We cannot say cancer CAUSES cancer. The best we can say is smoking might cause cancer. I am glad you finally got the point.

You’ve retreated from

Smoking causes cancer. Now we don't understand everything about cancer but we do know smoking causes cancer.

to

We cannot say cancer[smoking?] CAUSES cancer. The best we can say is smoking might cause cancer.

Earlier you unequivocally stated

Vaccines can be a cause of autism.

I don’t think you quite understand the whole scientific uncertainty thing, but go ahead, declare victory (always a good exit strategy). Just please don’t propagate the myth that vaccines cause autism.

 

[Grand Vol]

It depends on the motivation for your rejection of science. Are you dominionist? Are you a free market fundamentalist? Do you believe in other conspiracy theories? Maybe you’re just an example of the “smart idiot” described a few posts back? Maybe you are none of these, but simply misinformed. I haven’t seen you post in this thread enough to make that judgment.

As you are so fond of saying...

"I posted it a while back."

However, being that you are forgetful in your labeling of people, I will remind you that I believe climate change is being way, way, way over exaggerated especially since it's such a hot political topic. I think the science still needs further research and, as I have continued to state, all sides should be heard as well as put forward.

Now you get to call me a conspiracy theorist because I believe some of the science has been suppressed. And you'll go on to show my how "climategate" was all a fantasy and was taken entirely out of context. However, the mere fact alone that some of the science was not included is what we call in the cop business a "clue." In order to make educated decisions on potential climate change actions, we have to have ALL the information on the table and not just that which happens to be politically popular at the time.

And I'll restate my original opinion that I believe the climate is changing. And I believe humans have a hand in that. But whether we are the predominate factor in this remains to be seen. And just because you can pull up a dozen articles showing mankind of the primary reason doesn't mean that it's true. Trying to model conditions over several million years and base predictions on the future is not a trivial task unless all the information is taken into account. And furthermore, I don't want to hear just the doom and gloom of the future. I know there is always a worst and best case scenario for every prediction, but why do I get the funny feeling we tend to always get the worst case told to us? To me, it seems that climate change scientists continue to overstate the effects and just aren't telling the entire story here. Coming from the same people that told us by the year 2020 we'd have to be wearing 5,000,000 SPF sunblock because of the global warming and lack of ozone, you can see why I might think they playing the Chicken Little card a little too often when it comes to the "science."

So until the science behind climate change becomes un-politicized, all voices are heard and all predictions are put forward in a politically neutral environment I remain skeptical of the science that's put out. And I know you won't agree with this, but the fact that is a highly volatile political topic should be the warning flare that something just isn't right. Politicians only start standing on principles like this when there is something to gain. And whether that happens to be financial in nature through "campaign contributions" from the fossil fuel industry or continuing to stay in office through a voting block doesn't matter. Power and money are the ultimate motives here and you can't tell me there isn't a single politician out there that gives a damn one way or the other when it comes to climate change science unless it benefits them.

So unbiased and complete science and predictions are needed before anyone, and I mean EVERYONE can make a decision one way or the other.

And instead of labeling anyone who doesn't agree with your position on the matter with a disparaging term, perhaps you could be objective about it and look at it from both sides of the equation as I have done and continue to do.

 

[BartW]

As you are so fond of saying...

"I posted it a while back."

However, being that you are forgetful in your labeling of people, I will remind you that I believe climate change is being way, way, way over exaggerated especially since it's such a hot political topic. I think the science still needs further research and, as I have continued to state, all sides should be heard as well as put forward.

Now you get to call me a conspiracy theorist because I believe some of the science has been suppressed. And you'll go on to show my how "climategate" was all a fantasy and was taken entirely out of context. However, the mere fact alone that some of the science was not included is what we call in the cop business a "clue." In order to make educated decisions on potential climate change actions, we have to have ALL the information on the table and not just that which happens to be politically popular at the time.

There has existed a scientific consensus for years. What further research do you require? What new evidence could possibly convince you?

There was no data suppressed in ‘climategate’. All peer-reviewed literature is considered by the IPCC. The anti-AGW (mis)information is published via blogs, op-eds, and congressional testimony -- not peer-reviewed journals. It’s clear that the goal is not to propose an alternative theory that is explanatory and useful, but to create controversy and doubt where it does not exist. This is, in fact, the exact same strategy used in the tobacco carcinogenicity denial campaign. Not only that, but the same organizations and even some of the exact same actors are involved. How’s that for a clue Sherlock?

And I'll restate my original opinion that I believe the climate is changing. And I believe humans have a hand in that. But whether we are the predominate factor in this remains to be seen. And just because you can pull up a dozen articles showing mankind of the primary reason doesn't mean that it's true. Trying to model conditions over several million years and base predictions on the future is not a trivial task unless all the information is taken into account. And furthermore, I don't want to hear just the doom and gloom of the future. I know there is always a worst and best case scenario for every prediction, but why do I get the funny feeling we tend to always get the worst case told to us? To me, it seems that climate change scientists continue to overstate the effects and just aren't telling the entire story here. Coming from the same people that told us by the year 2020 we'd have to be wearing 5,000,000 SPF sunblock because of the global warming and lack of ozone, you can see why I might think they playing the Chicken Little card a little too often when it comes to the "science."

I have yet to see specific examples of such ridiculous anecdotal gloom and doom predictions from scientific literature. The projections made by the IPCC are conservative precisely because they don’t want to come off as alarmist. For example, arctic sea ice decline and sea level rise are occurring faster than even the maximum range of IPCC projections. While there is high chance of moderate to severe impacts, there is a smaller but nonetheless concerning possibility that the consequences will be far worse than the consensus prediction. The longer we wait the more Earth will warm, the less options we’ll have to mitigate it, and the more expensive it will be. I’m not being alarmist; it’s simple risk management.

So until the science behind climate change becomes un-politicized, all voices are heard and all predictions are put forward in a politically neutral environment I remain skeptical of the science that's put out. And I know you won't agree with this, but the fact that is a highly volatile political topic should be the warning flare that something just isn't right. Politicians only start standing on principles like this when there is something to gain. And whether that happens to be financial in nature through "campaign contributions" from the fossil fuel industry or continuing to stay in office through a voting block doesn't matter. Power and money are the ultimate motives here and you can't tell me there isn't a single politician out there that gives a damn one way or the other when it comes to climate change science unless it benefits them.

So unbiased and complete science and predictions are needed before anyone, and I mean EVERYONE can make a decision one way or the other.

And instead of labeling anyone who doesn't agree with your position on the matter with a disparaging term, perhaps you could be objective about it and look at it from both sides of the equation as I have done and continue to do.

Your desire to operate in an objective depoliticized environment is noble. I share that sentiment. Like I discuss above in post #2828 (yes I realize I say this a lot, but the same debunked talking points get recycled a lot and people rarely address the specific content of my posts), there is science denialism on both sides of the isle. Likewise there are scientists on both sides of the isle. The idea that someone could get virtually the entire scientific community to collude in order to support one political agenda is outrageous. I was discussing this with my father (UT's physics department head) the other day, and he remarked that it's nearly impossible to tell even a handful of scientists what to do. Science is not a liberal conspiracy. It's just not. Any paper with repeatable methods, good data, and logical conclusions will get published, regardless of political implications or the author or editors' political leanings. If you want the objective depoliticized facts, look at the scientific literature.

 

[Grand Vol]

There has existed a scientific consensus for years. What further research do you require? What new evidence could possibly convince you?

There was no data suppressed in ‘climategate’. All peer-reviewed literature is considered by the IPCC. The anti-AGW (mis)information is published via blogs, op-eds, and congressional testimony -- not peer-reviewed journals. It’s clear that the goal is not to propose an alternative theory that is explanatory and useful, but to create controversy and doubt where it does not exist. This is, in fact, the exact same strategy used in the tobacco carcinogenicity denial campaign. Not only that, but the same organizations and even some of the exact same actors are involved. How’s that for a clue Sherlock?

So you are telling me that 100% for certain, bet your baby sister's virginity positive there are no contrary opinions on climate change and the cause thereof? And none of the scientists have ever said "it's not as bad as we let on" kind of things?

You only see what you want to see. This "honest exchange of ideas and dialog" still contained ideas that were not in line with the mainstream ideas. Which were not scheduled to be included with the brief. So yes, that's a clue Watson.

I have yet to see specific examples of such ridiculous anecdotal gloom and doom predictions from scientific literature. The projections made by the IPCC are conservative precisely because they don’t want to come off as alarmist. For example, arctic sea ice decline and sea level rise are occurring faster than even the maximum range of IPCC projections. While there is high chance of moderate to severe impacts, there is a smaller but nonetheless concerning possibility that the consequences will be far worse than the consensus prediction. The longer we wait the more Earth will warm, the less options we’ll have to mitigate it, and the more expensive it will be. I’m not being alarmist; it’s simple risk management.

Oh come on now, seriously? Environmental groups have been screaming about this for years. Maybe it's just because they are the ones getting all the press in the matter, but you cannot sit there and say there is not an over exaggeration of the impact of climate change.

Your desire to operate in an objective depoliticized environment is noble. I share that sentiment. Like I discuss above in post #2828 (yes I realize I say this a lot, but the same debunked talking points get recycled a lot and people rarely address the specific content of my posts), there is science denialism on both sides of the isle. Likewise there are scientists on both sides of the isle. The idea that someone could get virtually the entire scientific community to collude in order to support one political agenda is outrageous. I was discussing this with my father (UT's physics department head) the other day, and he remarked that it's nearly impossible to tell even a handful of scientists what to do. Science is not a liberal conspiracy. It's just not. Any paper with repeatable methods, good data, and logical conclusions will get published, regardless of political implications or the author or editors' political leanings. If you want the objective depoliticized facts, look at the scientific literature.

It has nothing to do with the scientist's political affiliation, but rather those in power and who they happen to listen to. For crying out loud, the President's own Science Adviser has a background in earth sciences and was (is?) a proponent of population control. So you don't think he has some pretty skewed views on the matter and probably ignores data that could be relevant when talking about cap and trade and other environmental regulations with the President? I know you cannot be that naive to think he's going to be giving contrary opinions to those in power and who's votes they want to court.

So again, when politics is taken out of this and the public is duly informed of ALL the science and dialog behind it in a non-partisan fashion, perhaps we can make an informed decision. And I mean all the science to include those starving researchers in backwater places that don't get grants because they don't toe the line. I want to see best case, worst case and likely cause. And only then would I make a decision one way or the other.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You don't think that cancer causes more cancer?

I am sorry about that. I totally screwed that sentence up. :loco:

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

You’ve retreated from


to


Earlier you unequivocally stated


I don’t think you quite understand the whole scientific uncertainty thing, but go ahead, declare victory (always a good exit strategy). Just please don’t propagate the myth that vaccines cause autism.

I have never propagated anything. I have always said there are possibilities. You can use circular logic all you want. First you said definitively that vaccines do not cause autism. Then you said that there is no absolute certainty in science. Then you said there is no statistically significant data to say vaccines cause autism. So you don't even understand your own words. I am not claiming any kind of victory because it's just too sad.

For a person who claims to be enamored with science you cannot even understand the concepts of possibilities. If there are no absolute certainties in science, as you have stated, then that leaves the chance for possibilities. Knowledge is your friend. This is getting tiresome anyway. Back to global warming, I think the climate is a cyclical thing that we do not have a full grasp on. I mean the government wants to regulate cow farts for crying out loud. I think much more research needs to be done before anything definitive can be stated.

 

[BartW]

I have never propagated anything[FALSE: you suggested vaccines cause autism]. I have always said there are possibilities. You can use circular logic all you want. First you said definitively that vaccines do not cause autism. Then you said that there is no absolute certainty in science. Then you said there is no statistically significant data to say vaccines cause autism. So you don't even understand your own words. I am not claiming any kind of victory because it's just too sad.

For a person who claims to be enamored with science you cannot even understand the concepts of possibilities. If there are no absolute certainties in science, as you have stated, then that leaves the chance for possibilities. Knowledge is your friend. This is getting tiresome anyway. Back to global warming, I think the climate is a cyclical thing that we do not have a full grasp on. I mean the government wants to regulate cow farts for crying out loud. I think much more research needs to be done before anything definitive can be stated.

So does smoking cause cancer, yes or no? Should we warn people about the health risks of smoking, yes or no? Should we be scaring people away from vaccines, yes or no? You still don't understand that scientific uncertainty doesn't equate to actual doubt.

There's a possibility green jelly beans cause acne. There's a possibility seat belts cause cancer. There's a possibility that world leaders are actually an alien-hominid hybrid race known as reptilians. There's a possibility you live in the matrix.

Just because you can suggest a "possibility" doesn't mean it deserves serious consideration.

 

[FLVOL_79]

My pool automation system told me it was 48 degrees this morning. Climate change! Global Cooling!!

But the always accurate meterologists said it will be 86 today! Climate change! Global warming!!

I should have listened to Super Geologist Stan Marsh when he preached on about climate change!

 

[FLVOL_79]

So does smoking cause cancer, yes or no? Should we warn people about the health risks of smoking, yes or no? Should we be scaring people away from vaccines, yes or no? You still don't understand that scientific uncertainty doesn't equate to actual doubt.

There's a possibility green jelly beans cause acne. There's a possibility seat belts cause cancer. There's a possibility that world leaders are actually an alien-hominid hybrid race known as reptilians. There's a possibility you live in the matrix.

Just because you can suggest a "possibility" doesn't mean it deserves serious consideration.

Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? No.
Do people who don't smoke get lung cancer? Yes

Stick to studying rocks because you share a common bond with them.

 

[BartW]

So you are telling me that 100% for certain, bet your baby sister's virginity positive there are no contrary opinions on climate change and the cause thereof? And none of the scientists have ever said "it's not as bad as we let on" kind of things?

You only see what you want to see. This "honest exchange of ideas and dialog" still contained ideas that were not in line with the mainstream ideas. Which were not scheduled to be included with the brief. So yes, that's a clue Watson.

There has been a consensus essentially since the Charney report in 1979, and it’s based on research that’s been building since the discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1859. It's not a recent political movement. Scientists were reluctant to give policy advice for decades until they were absolutely beyond a doubt sure. In the 80s we maintained our 'wait and see' approach and continued collecting data, finally setting up the IPCC in 1988 and committing to action under Bush at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Despite that promise to legislate action, we've continued to take a 'wait and see' approach. Well we've waited, we've seen, and global warming is here. 2013 was the 4th hottest year on record and all of the top 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. The consensus is stronger than ever and continues to grow. Not too long ago UC Berkeley professor and renowned skeptic Richard Muller wrote an op-ed in the WSJ reporting that his Koch-funded research surprisngly confirmed what mainstream science has been saying for decades. Of course, he was immediately accused of being a conspirator. Gotta love the self-sealing nature of conspiracy theories.

Global warming is a straightforward heat balance problem. It's simple math and physics. We have spectroscopic proof that the rise in CO2 is causing global warming via the greenhouse effect. We have isotopic proof that the rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion. There is no interpretation of these two basic facts that logically leads to any other conclusion besides the reality of AGW. There is no debate over this among scientists.

What, specifically, from Climategate are you referring to? What brief? What do you think of the GIANT RED FLAG that the same corporate shills spreading Phillip Morris’ BS are now suddenly climate ‘experts’? Why do y'all continue to ignore the glaringly obvious parallels between these industrial denial campaigns?

Oh come on now, seriously? Environmental groups have been screaming about this for years. Maybe it's just because they are the ones getting all the press in the matter, but you cannot sit there and say there is not an over exaggeration of the impact of climate change.

You won’t find the absurd anecdotal gloom and doom predictions in scientific literature, but most scientists do think global warming is worse than we let on. It’s unfortunate that AGW is associated with the environmentalists who have anti-science in their own house (notably regarding GMOs and animal testing).

It has nothing to do with the scientist's political affiliation, but rather those in power and who they happen to listen to. For crying out loud, the President's own Science Adviser has a background in earth sciences and was (is?) a proponent of population control. So you don't think he has some pretty skewed views on the matter and probably ignores data that could be relevant when talking about cap and trade and other environmental regulations with the President? I know you cannot be that naive to think he's going to be giving contrary opinions to those in power and who's votes they want to court.

So again, when politics is taken out of this and the public is duly informed of ALL the science and dialog behind it in a non-partisan fashion, perhaps we can make an informed decision. And I mean all the science to include those starving researchers in backwater places that don't get grants because they don't toe the line. I want to see best case, worst case and likely cause. And only then would I make a decision one way or the other.

What does population control have to do with earth science or global warming? Lots of politicians have funny ideas. For example, carbon tax supporters like Henry M. Paulson Jr. (a former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration), Arthur B. Laffer (senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan), George Schultz (Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State), N Gregory Mankiw (Harvard economist who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign), and Douglas Holtz-Eakin (chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and economic adviser to John McCain’s campaign)

If you want to see the best case, worst case, and most likely scenarios, read AR5.