patrick.net

drB6 says

Simple - then lets just use these three models.

If we do that, then it will appear we have time to solve the problem and don't have to throw as much cash at it as possible, as soon as possible.

mell says

It's not a lie, Gore WAS wrong, and spectacularly so. That is the truth and you need to accept it to have a rational discussion.

"Alternative Facts got in the way of our Modelling. Fuck the Facts, believe the Models."

drB6 says

How do you know that? How can you with a certainty say that in the warming we are observing, there is no component of CO2 influence?

Man makes about 3% of the atmospheric co2.

If we totally eliminated manmade co2 it would make little difference even if you believe co2 warms the earth.

Onvacation says

Man makes about 3% of the atmospheric co2.

Per year or total? And even 3% MIGHT make a difference.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Gore personally benefited from the scare, so he is just as credible as scientists on payroll of oil and gas.

My point is not that Al Gore is a credible authority and we should believe what everything that he says. My point was that the denier side repeatedly brings this line of 'argument' up even though the assertion that Gore was wrong is a lie, and even though the veracity of an Al Gore statement has little bearing on the question at hand. After this has been repeatedly pointed out, the Al Gore was wrong argument persists each time the merry go round does a lap. This is one of many examples of terrible logic and bad facts getting repeated. That is who you are having a conversation with.

I understand. However, it would be better to have an academic, non-emotional discussion and have people who personally very obviously benefit from holding one or another viewpoint not participate. Also, the question always is "what to do". Denier side says that nothing needs to be done, and that is wrong for many reasons even if global warming is insignificant. Giving money to terror-sponsoring Middle Easterners or crazy Chavistas should be enough to develop some other energy sources. As someone pointed out, population control is one way (less E needed), and developing nuclear is another possibility.