[CialisBestPrice]

Well, I don't think Michael Crichton was an idiot.

[AmfitNom]

Well, I don't think Michael Crichton was an idiot.

Indeed, which is why we're so lucky that dinosaur outbreak didn't spread beyond the island..

[xquFzpNw]

I voted yes, but technically I think you can be either an idiot, or ignorant, and it might not be your fault.

[ElisasAUG]

Doesn't everyone already know that global warming is a Canadian plot financed by GS?

[nryFBa9i]

Hudson Bay will make a kick-ass resort area!

Lots of places in Mexico you can't swim if you value your skin (and your life).

[Viafdrear]

I believe that Climate Change is occurring and that man is likely the biggest influence. But how it will impact the planet and what should be done about it is still not 100% known despite what a lot of people think.

I think I 100% agree with this statement.

JM

[Wheldcobchoto]

I think most climate change/global warming deniers are motivated by politics. On the denier side, it's pure political calculus, on the consensus side, it's scientific consensus + some political calculus.

This is not to say that some or many or even most on the denier side have any economic stake in the debate, in fact often they would be better off financially siding with the scientific consensus. Somebody's got to do the physical job of building environmentally efficient infrastructure, mostly the denier movement benefits the current batch of capitalist rulers.

But as long as a certain minimal standard of living is available to the masses quite a bit of our political leanings are determined by pure pride in whatever party they have selected and abstract ideological concerns, rather than personal interest.

[choollaBard]

This is not to say that some or many or even most on the denier side have any economic stake in the debate, in fact often they would be better off financially siding with the scientific consensus. Somebody's got to do the physical job of building environmentally efficient infrastructure, mostly the denier movement benefits the current batch of capitalist rulers.

Exactly. I don't complain when rioters start looting and breaking windows because the working class will benefit from the physical job of installing new windows. Mostly law and order benefits the current batch of capitalist rulers.

[styhorporry]

So basically you acknowledge that something is wrong but as long as it doesn't affect you directly you aren't willing to do anything about it ?

I would say that there are always costs associated with every opportunity. I don't know what the costs are associated with climate change, and I don't know what the costs are associated with various actions to limit/retard/fight climate change.

I don't really think anyone does.

JM
(as an example, killing every human on the planet would definitely limit/retard/fight climate change, but I think almost everyone would agree that this wouldn't be worth while... )

[StoyaFanst]

Not necessarily. Climate change/GW isn't like the evolution controversy, where the choices are between "teach an unpalatable scientific theory" and "teach something more palatable, but which manifestly isn't even science."

More importantly, it's a lot less straightforward. There may well be a scientific consensus on GW, but that consensus rests on an expert interpretation of a massive data set making several assumptions about the effects of this variable and that. Even the experts disagree to some extent on how much change we're facing, or how fast, or what its effects will be. Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.
Er, this is in response to the OP, in case it isn't clear.

Broadly in agreement except for this statement:
Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.
Well, I don't think trusting the expert interpretation is at all necessary, at any rate, for the purpose of public policy. I don't think spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it is necessary until the case has actually been debated before the public. Not every scientist agrees with global warming. It does not do to deride those unsure or unconvinced of being "deniers" or "skeptics", shutting our eyes and ears and ignoring them. This is a scientific debate, not a religious disputation. "Deniers" are not disputing the existence of God; they are arguing that some of the data, or assumptions, or modelling, is in some way incorrect. The unconvinced may be wrong or right but their arguments must be addressed by those who accept the validity of the lgobal warming theorem. Sweeping them aside with the "denier" ad hominem does nothing to assist us in a consideration of the debate; it merely turns it into a religious disputation. If and when this occurs then can the public even begin to understand the issues, or non-issues, in the debate. Only then would I be prepared to make my judgement. (Either that or I will have to pore through the material myself, which should be a challenge--but with so much money on the line, why not?)

[ReginaPerss]

and the majority decision seems to be "yes, we are changing the climate to some extent." Fixed.

[Mboxmaja]

No, he's saying it's impossible to say that it's wrong. Warmer weather could be a good thing. Change isn't always bad.

Tell that to the people whose lands will be destroyed.

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

Tell that to the people whose lands will be destroyed.

Flooding argument? Could be mitigated with a system of levies and dikes. Expensive? Yep, but it is doable.

[Anaedilla]

Flooding argument? Could be mitigated with a system of levies and dikes. Expensive? Yep, but it is doable.

Flooding and desertification.

And also not talking about the Netherlands but Bangladesh, Horn of Africa, Mediterranian, Archipelagos....

I can't in all honesty say that, if there is a chance that our carbon footprint is changing climate more rapidly than before, we shouldn't do anything about it, while at the same time the majority of the damages are done to people who basically don't have a carbon footprint at all.

Besides, it never hurt anybody to increase energy effeciency. In fact, I know from bitter experience that 20% of the energy costs can be avoided by taking simple no regret moves.

[Filling25]

Yes, the thinking that however it is now is what it should always be is just plain silly. Especially if the plan is to spend trillions of dollars to do it.

No, we need to mitigate the acceleration of climate change.

[MaraReenece]

Land is being destroyed.

E=mc^2

[Hankie]

Or like here, where they propose massive rate increases so they can improve the infrastructure so we can best determine how to use less energy. Use less, but pay more.

[Tumarimmicdak]

We do that here and the power companies raise our rates to reflect the decrease in their revenues.

We can do better: the power companies charge the increased CO2 cost to their customers while still being subsidzed for them...


The endless possibilities...

[lopushok]

Pull my finger

[vipBrooriErok]

We can do better: the power companies charge the increased CO2 cost to their customers while still being subsidzed for them...


The endless possibilities...

You joke, but this is exactly the tactic the power companies intend. Most power companies were very vocal in their support for cap and trade. Paricularly if they had the opportunity to leverage any amount of CO2 free generation to sell for additional profit $'s.

Excelon, Entergy, Duke all stood to make out like bandits and lobbied accordingly.