Stet/Delosgatos,

Better, but TRY to tone down the condescension……(I’ll try also. I don’t think that we would be speaking to each other this way if we were face to face in a business meeting). The Internet sometimes leads to informality due to anonymity (which I also have been guilty of).

Sort of busy today…..not a dodge, just other pressing issues……..

Stet,

One quick comment:

Suggesting policy decisions based on science is some sort of taboo best left to non-scientists doesn’t seem quite right. I’m not a 4 Star General or International Diplomat but I definitely have opinions regarding the “War on Terrorism”. I’m certain that every person reading this post would have an opinion on that topic. Following your line of reasoning, the United States should take the exact advice of Petraeous and the Joint Chiefs, (or George W. Bush) without question. What you are asking is to follow blindly, without question.

I DO NOT WANT TO GET OFF TOPIC. I AM SIMPLY MAKING AN ANOLOGY AND COULDN”T THINK OF A BETTER EXAMPLE.

I’m not shouting, I’m just trying to emphasize my point.

You're still not connecting the dots.

Suggesting policy decisions based on science is some sort of taboo best left to non-scientists doesn’t seem quite right.

I think what you're trying to say is "suggesting policy decisions based on science have to exclude non-scientists." Which is not what I'm saying. Not at all.

Let's try it one more time.

Discussions of what should be done, personally and governmentally, about the human-caused climate change that scientists agree is taking place is absolutely something that everyone has to be part of.

But in 2008, denying the climate change is taking place is a matter of fact, not opinion. And either a mistake or a lie. It's that simple.

The parallel you try to draw to the Iraq/Afghanistan war is absolutely bogus:

I’m not a 4 Star General or International Diplomat but I definitely have opinions regarding the “War on Terrorism”. I’m certain that every person reading this post would have an opinion on that topic. Following your line of reasoning, the United States should take the exact advice of Petraeous and the Joint Chiefs, (or George W. Bush) without question. What you are asking is to follow blindly, without question.

No. On your analogy, the military parallel to your arguments on climate change would be "Al Qaeda the Taliban and terrorism don't really exist at all, despite what the so-called experts say, so there is no need to even talk about military force."

Again: it's your absolute right, which I totally support, to advocate whatever you like as a response to human caused climate change. But denying it's taking place? Sorry. You're either wrong or lying. I think you're wrong, but if you want to admit lying, I'll accept that too.

Brute: "Suggesting policy decisions based on science is some sort of taboo best left to non-scientists doesn’t seem quite right. I’m not a 4 Star General or International Diplomat but I definitely have opinions regarding the “War on Terrorism”. I’m certain that every person reading this post would have an opinion on that topic. Following your line of reasoning, the United States should take the exact advice of Petraeous and the Joint Chiefs, (or George W. Bush) without question. What you are asking is to follow blindly, without question."

Following your line of reasoning, the United States should always take the advice of all people equally, regardless of their expertise. Science just doesn't work that way, and for good reason: people who, for example, have a scientific education in climate science ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT with respect to global warming theory, which is a VERY COMPLEX SCIENTIFIC ISSUE. It takes years of scientific education to really understand the science of this issue - sorry, but you are not going to be able to pick that understanding up by reading, for example, Wall Street Journal OpEds.

And you Brute are simply not educated - and don't know what you are talking about - on this scientific issue. Your pronouncements in this thread demonstrate as much, such as your assertion that the difference between weather and climate is a "distinction without a difference." That is simply patently untrue, and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of global warming theory understands this.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, BRUTE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF GLOBAL WARMING.

Brute: "I’m not shouting, I’m just trying to emphasize my point."

Meggadittos.

So, Brute, let me see if I'm following this right. After creating an account soley to comment on this article, you attempted to discredit the author of the article, cut 'n pasted an entire AP article on psychology of the AGW believer (which, as I pointed out, you did because you were losing the fight with the real research behind climate studies), cut 'n pasted alarming early 70s eco rants, failed to understand the difference between climate and weather, were soundly and repeatedly called out for mis-construing, mis-interpreting, or simply not understanding the data you actually quoted-- and now all the sudden you want to play nice?

Now you want encourage people to TRY, for the love of the children TRY to cut down on the condescension.

Yeah, you're the voice of reason and restraint in all this.

There are at least two ideological differences that cloud the issue of global warming.

The first has to do with economics, and opposes two static "mind sets", one socialist and the other free market capitalist. This is a distortion: it is a mathematical theorem that neoclassical economics is compatible with a broad spectrum of economic institutions, of which free market capitalism is only one. In general, there is an enormous variety of markets possible; the socialism/free-market dichotomy is a mathematically ignorant caricature.

The second has to do with ideological attitudes towards global warming, some identified with pro-science attitudes, and others aligned against science. Freeman Dyson goes into this in his June 12th 2008 review in the New York Review of Books. See especially the first section on the results of Keeling on atmospheric C02 concentration, and Dyson's review of "A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies" by economist William Nordhaus. Gore's policy would be only two trillion dollars worse than doing nothing, which would cost 23 trillion dollars in environmental damage by $2100. The British proposal (which Nordhaus calls "Stern") would impoverish millions of Chinese. However, there are carbon tax proposals that would make sense (a net gain of 3 trillion dollars), and if Dyson's prediction comes true that at least by 2050, biotechnology will help create "genetically engineered carbon-eating trees," that would very significantly change prospects on global warming.