[QUOTE=davar55;259331]Ignoring my political proof (that the motives of the AGWers disprove their scientific claims)[/QUOTE]If something is scientifically proven, it doesn't matter what anyone's politics are. That's why I keep asking for scientific evidence.

[quote](and you admit they're only claims, not fact),[/quote]There's no "admission" involved -- the difference here is only in our usage of the words "claim" and "fact". I think I'm being more careful in my uses than you are -- or will you admit that your hoax and political conspiracy ideas are only claims, not fact?

AGW is about as well-established according to the accumulated factual evidence, by now, as some other hypotheses that are commonly considered scientific fact. It's certainly more supported by evidence than the conspiracy and hoax theories of anti-AGWers. (For example, you have not cited even one piece of factual evidence that disproves AGW. I have cited many that support the AGW hypothesis.)

OTOH, it must be remembered that for science (unlike religion, for instance), any established idea is always subject to change [U]if[/U] there's enough contrary factual evidence. Not allegations, not suspicions, not fears, not suppositions, not politics, but -- evidence.

Gravity is commonly considered to be a fact, but if one speaks according to the strictest science, our current theory of gravity is strongly supported by evidence (strong enough to be considered "fact" in everyday use), but there is always a possibility that some contrary evidence could be discovered.

That's basically what happened when Newton's theory of gravity was replaced by the relativistic theory. But note that only the new [I]evidence[/I] made possible by the improvements in instrumentation since the late 19th century was what overturned (or modified) Newton's theory -- not politics, not conspiracy theory, but [I]evidence[/I].

Do you consider the theory of special relativity to be sufficiently well-established so as to be eligible to be [I]informally[/I] referred-to as "fact" in everyday life? (When cathode-ray tubes were still used in TVs and monitors, their designs had to take into consideration the relativistic aspects of high-speed electron motion in order to produce the best picture. I think the design engineers of that time probably considered special relativity to be a "fact" as far as practical uses in their everyday lives.)

[QUOTE=davar55;259331]Ignoring my political proof (that the motives of the AGWers disprove
their scientific claims) (and you admit they're only claims, not fact),
is only possible if the societal changes suggested are indeed an agenda.

The politics of the suggesters must be considered seriously.

Always.

Your guarantee that you can refute any anti-agw site a priori
is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
By your reasoning, the following conclusion is proven:

GWB and co had a political reason to permit the attacks of 9/11/01 to happen. It greatly increased their power, and distracted the public from questions about whether contracts awarded to Harken Energy, on which GWB sat on the board of directors, were in fact bribes from the Saudis.
Therefore, they should be executed for treason for ensuring that the attacks did happen.

This is not science; a scientist is asking you for evidence that does not depend on political biases. Really good scientists ask for ways to remove political biases from measurements. We have a number of repeated and rather alarming measurements, many from before "global warming" or "nuclear winter" were used as phrases, but, since no proverbial bricks have flown past your head, you deny the significance. I have land next to Chernobyl for sale, cheap, that you should be very interested in for your next vacation home. It's sunny, too. All the problems are invisible; don't worry about the two-headed frogs, they won't hurt you.

The situation is amazingly similar to those just before both space shuttles exploded, both Columbia and Challenger, with scientists clearly concerned about the specific danger that destroyed the shuttle, managers denying it, and denying the resources to investigate further because it would interfere with NASA's schedule, public image, or private image.

[QUOTE=davar55;259331]
The politics of the suggesters must be considered seriously.

Always.[/QUOTE]Yes, I always seriously consider your political motives each and every time I compose a reply to you in this thread.

You have shown that you have strong political motives to keep repeating political propaganda that the Koch brothers and their allies have fed to you and millions of other conservatives.

[quote]Yes, I always seriously consider your political motives each and every time I compose a reply to you in this thread.

You have shown that you have strong political motives to keep repeating political propaganda that the Koch brothers and their allies have fed to you and millions of other conservatives.[/quote]

(1) I'm not in any way a conservative.

(2) I formed my own views independently.

(3) My political motive re AGW is simply to avoid the implementation
of anti-individual anti-freedom controls in the name of a non-issue.

[QUOTE=davar55;259749](1) I'm not in any way a conservative.

(2) I formed my own views independently.

(3) My political motive re AGW is simply to avoid the implementation
of anti-individual anti-freedom controls in the name of a non-issue.[/QUOTE]

(1) Call yourself what you want...your views are aligned with many conservatives..but by saying you aren't a conservative, the label "liar" comes to mind.

(2) That independence doesn't seem to include scientific evidence, is admittedly entirely political, and therefore very difficult to call independent. Where are the measurements?

(3) You call it a nonissue. When there are no bees to pollinate the crops, and there is no food, it will be a nonissue. Just because no bricks fly past your head, doesn't mean its not important. Why don't we start with removing unnecessary chlorine from the municipal water supplies? After all, noone is getting sick from the water....

And if you are worried about anti-individual freedom controls, may I be free to visit your house and shoot you? That's absolute freedom, but no one advocates it for some strange reason, and I can expect to lose my freedom (and possibly my life) if I act on that impulse. Freedom is a balance, and those concerned about global warming are actually just as concerned about it as you...but they have a long-term perspective and don't like the prospect of killing a few billion people because the climate changed and we felt it was too important to show off our wealth driving our large cars around.

[quote](1) Call yourself what you want...your views are aligned with many conservatives..but by saying you aren't a conservative, the label "liar" comes to mind.

(2) That independence doesn't seem to include scientific evidence, is admittedly entirely political, and therefore very difficult to call independent. Where are the measurements?

(3) You call it a nonissue. When there are no bees to pollinate the crops, and there is no food, it will be a nonissue. Just because no bricks fly past your head, doesn't mean its not important. Why don't we start with removing unnecessary chlorine from the municipal water supplies? After all, noone is getting sick from the water....

And if you are worried about anti-individual freedom controls, may I be free to visit your house and shoot you? That's absolute freedom, but no one advocates it for some strange reason, and I can expect to lose my freedom (and possibly my life) if I act on that impulse. Freedom is a balance, and those concerned about global warming are actually just as concerned about it as you...but they have a long-term perspective and don't like the prospect of killing a few billion people because the climate changed and we felt it was too important to show off our wealth driving our large cars around.[/quote]

Labeling other people is a dangerous, foolish game. A non-conservative,
non-liberal, independemt issue-oriented perspective lets one decide one's
views individually, rather than joining a crowd shouting its point of view
on either of opposite sides (when there are only two sides).

In the case of this issue, while numbers (of people on either side from
either political camp) might convince some, they don't convince me.
Non-scientists get their views on this from media and politicos.
The scientists who suggest that the issue is no longer open
(to discussion or disproof) and advocate major social change by us
and the world cannot be taken credibly.

Bees, chlorine, big cars may be some of your beefs, but AGW is
not the problem. I wonder what the AGWers short list of desired
changes would be.

Mellifluous words, all nonsense, none addressing the points you are responding to. Your willful ignorance is showing. Not one word to show that there is an iota of difference in your ideas and those of the koch brothers. YOU used socialist as an epithet, which is certainly typical conservative behavior. And you should stop using things that are made possible by these scientists, whose methods you refuse to learn and whose results you distrust. That especially includes the internet, and refrigeration.

You might begin by explaining to us how food crops will reproduce in the absence of bees.

I think you need to talk to some beekeepers, and try raising a few bees this year.

Otherwise, invisible demons that you don't think threaten you will kill you, unannounced.

And, if you wonder what's on the AGW'ers short list, wonder no more: They want living descendants, for a long time, that aren't miserable and don't have to live in fear or poverty -- that is great-great-great grandchildren, same as you.

[QUOTE=davar55;259749](2) I formed my own views independently.[/QUOTE]... without considering scientific evidence, apparently.

Have you ever gone to any of the sites I've linked to read what they have to say about the scientific evidence?

What scientific evidence did you take into account when forming your views?

If you're so "independent" of the conservatives, why is it that you have not yet stated even one single scientific fact about AGW?

Why have you said nothing -- not one word -- about the list of the "human fingerprints" of AGW that I provided? Did you even read it?

[quote](3) My political motive re AGW is simply to avoid the implementation of anti-individual anti-freedom controls in the name of a non-issue.[/quote]"non-issue"?

What evidence have you ever shown us that AGW is a "non-issue"?

And why do the expressions of your political motive that you have posted so closely parallel the anti-AGW propaganda that the Koch brothers and others have broadcast?

I'm not echoing anyone else AFAIK, anything I contribute
here in this forum is from head to fingers to keyboard.
If someones else have the same views, consider that a
second voice.

By short list I didn't mean what are you afraid of
losing, but what changes do you want to make on
the rest of us. This is why I won't even consider
discussing the nature or validity of the science
before discussing the intended socio-political
impositions, which are the crux of the issue, if
there is indeed any problem at all.

And FTR, AGW cannot possibly be a threat in the short term,
and if there is a long-term gradual effect going on, it will
become evident long before humanity is in trouble and will
be (I think easily) solvable then. It is not unequivocally
evident now or in the recent past, in fact weather patterns
cycle AYK. And no one bothered to address my personal
POV, namely a little global warming would be good for us.

[QUOTE=davar55;259829]I'm not echoing anyone else AFAIK, anything I contribute here in this forum is from head to fingers to keyboard. If someones else have the same views, consider that a second voice.[/QUOTE]Just exactly where did you first hear that AGW proponents want to impose totalitarian measures? Can you link us to any such evidence?

If you can't show us any evidence for that idea (AGW proponents want to impose totalitarian measures) -- and so far, despite my multiple pleas, you [I]haven't[/I] showed us even one single bit of evidence -- then why do you think you're on the right track, instead of having been fooled by someone's scary, but false, story?

[quote]By short list I didn't mean what are you afraid of losing, but what changes do you want to make on the rest of us.[/quote]I [I]wish[/I] that folks could have a better science education, so that they could understand science as well as I do, so that they could make better-informed decisions about matters involving scientific evidence. I know I've been fortunate to have a very, very good education in science, but I wish everyone else could have as good an understanding as I do.

This would be a great help in preserving individual freedoms, because it would enable each person to better evaluate pseudoscience or propaganda that was being falsely promoted as "scientific", and remove the effectiveness of manipulators who use such things.

The core of science is the realization, as Richard Feynman famously pointed out, that people have a great capacity for self-deception, and science is the best method we have yet developed for avoiding self-deception.

[quote]This is why I won't even consider discussing the nature or validity of the science before discussing the intended socio-political impositions, which are the crux of the issue, if there is indeed any problem at all.[/quote]Look at the structure of your own sentence there!

Your clause "why why I won't even consider discussing the nature or validity of the science before discussing the intended socio-political impositions, which are the crux of the issue" [I]depends[/I] on the conditional clause "if there is indeed any problem at all". So your first step, before discussing the socio-political matters, is to determine whether the problem exists. The way to do that is to consider the evidence for AGW.

1) If AGW exists, the proper way to handle the socio-political matters is to consider the best ways to meet that real problem -- and deciding on which ways are best involves consideration of the scientific evidence about the causes and consequences of AGW.

2) If AGW doesn't exist, then the proper way to handle the socio-political matters is [I]to expose the hoax for what it is by presenting evidence that refutes AGW[/I].

You give the impression that you think 2) is the case -- yet despite my repeated pleas for you to present evidence of the falsity of AGW, you never do so. Why not?

Suppose, in the 1950s, that Soviet communists said milk is good for children. Would that mean that the evidence that milk is good for children was suspicious, on the grounds that the aim of Soviet communists was to "build the superior Soviet citizen", so anything that furthered that goal was necessarily ipso facto politically motivated but scientifically false?

Or would the better course of action be to scientifically verify whether milk was indeed good for children, regardless of the political persuasions of those advocating its use? After all, if milk wasn't actually good for children, then scientific tests and measurements of the cause and effect of milk-drinking versus children's growth, strength and health would fail to confirm the "milk helps" hypothesis.

(Yes, this requires that the scientific tests be independent of political influence that would sway them away from an unbiased result, but you can safely assume [I]that's what I [U]always[/U] mean when I refer to "science"[/I] -- science that is strictly factual, without political influence. If I want to refer to political interference in science, I'll say so explicitly.)

[quote]And FTR, AGW cannot possibly be a threat in the short term,[/quote]If children don't drink milk, and don't get the principal nutrients of milk, such as calcium, from some other source, this wouldn't be a short-term threat (they're not going to fall sick a week after ceasing milk-drinking), but in the long term, their health is threatened by weakness of bones and teeth.

[quote]and if there is a long-term gradual effect going on,[/quote]... such as osteoporosis, in my example ...

[quote]it will become evident long before humanity is in trouble[/quote]Yes ... _if_ one does the proper tests and measurements of bone density. But you can't tell by just looking at a kid whether his bones are weakened by lack of calcium. And many ordinary medical tests don't detect this specific problem. Only tests that are intended to detect low-calcium or low bone density will show it.

However, all too often that actual fact is that someone's low bone density is discovered only after they break because of a fall.

[quote]and will be (I think easily) solvable then.[/quote]Do you think that if a 40-year-old adult falls and breaks a hip, and subsequent tests [I]then[/I] show that that person's bones are systematically weak from lack of calcium, that this is "easily solvable"? That somehow doctors can just inject some bone-strengthening substance and have them up and around (without a cast or brace) in just a few days?

In my grandparent's generation, it was very common on my mother's side of the family for old women to fall, break a hip, and be permanently bedridden for the rest of their lives -- because they had a genetic disposition toward not making best use of calcium in their diets. They got enough calcium, but it wasn't being properly deposited in their bones. I recall speaking to both my maternal grandmother and [I]her[/I] mother while they lay in bed with unhealing broken hips.

Nowadays, medicine has means of reversing that -- some drugs enable the body to better use calcium. My mother took one of them, and as a result never ever had a broken bone. But the difference was [I]evidence (based on tests designed to reveal that problem)[/I] and [I][U]preventative action[/U] taken on the basis of evidence[/I].

[quote]It is not unequivocally evident now or in the recent past, in fact weather patterns cycle AYK.[/quote]If you would actually read about AGW, you would discover that it's not that simplistic.

Yes, there are multiple cycles in progress, but climatologists have always taken all the known natural trends into account. There would be no reason to ever ignore any known natural cycle. Indeed, climatologists have often been the ones that discovered previously-unknown natural cycles!

But even when climatologists take all known natural cycles into account, they can't account for the recent temperature rise. By themselves, the sum effect of natural trends would have been a slight cooling over the past sixty years! Only when one takes into account the [I]additional[/I] effect of the manmade greenhouse gases, such as CO[sub]2[/sub] but also some others, can one account for the warming that's recently occurred.

The evidence for all that is explained at the sites whose links I've provided.

Do you want climatologists to [I]ignore[/I] the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? If so, why don't you want those taken into account alongside the natural cycles?

- - - - -

[quote]And no one bothered to address my personal POV, namely a little global warming would be good for us.[/quote]1) You made that complaint before.

2) I [U]DID ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR IDEA IN POST #821[/U]. I provided a link to where you could read a more comprehensive explanation of the effects, both positive [U]and negative[/U], of global warming.

[U]I resent your false accusation that no one has bothered to address your personal POV on that matter.[/U]

Please apologize to me for your false accusation.

The REAL problem is that you refuse to go to read the information!!

That -- your false accusation -- is all-too-typical of your arguments. You're figuratively standing there with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, and complaining that no one has shown or told you anything.

Do you want to start writing truthful statements, or are you so entertained by repeating your false scary story and your false accusations that you refuse all efforts to show or tell you anything contrary?

It's your choice -- remain voluntarily and unnecessarily blind and deaf to the evidence for AGW (and keep making your false accusations) -- or open your eyes and ears to the truth.

Don't try to tell us that you _do_ pay attention to evidence, because [U]your own words have just demonstrated that you ignore our links to evidence[/U].

Why yes, if the soviet scientists promoted milk, I'd be worried for
the kids and would have decreased my milk consumption on principle.

[quote]
Suppose, in the 1950s, that Soviet communists said milk is good for children. Would that mean that the evidence that milk is good for children was suspicious, on the grounds that the aim of Soviet communists was to "build the superior Soviet citizen", so anything that furthered that goal was necessarily ipso facto politically motivated but scientifically false?
[/quote]

Requiring cars to be electric or hybrid rather than letting the free
market rule, putting carbon emission limits into a trading card system,
not allowing oil exploration and drilling in a free market method
(on this one I do think zoning is appropriate), etc, etc.

These are just a few odious totalitarian suggestions I deplore,
and the rest are similar. Green technology is not free technology.

And I stop reading long posts as soon as I hit two wrong or offensive
ideas. If you really still have a point to make, try to be brief.

Also I don't follow url links unless I get thru the whole post
and find a reason to.

But that's just me.