[QUOTE=davar55;260040]To the second part: I wondered what societal changes to eliminate AGW that these socialists want most. (Socialist an epithet? If you mean as a criticizing label, then you're absolutely correct, that's what I intended and intend).[/QUOTE]In other words, you're attacking the person instead of the AGW science.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;260047]In other words, you're attacking the person instead of the AGW science.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure not all people who believe AGW is a serious threat are socialists.

I'm sure not all socialists are AGWers.

I didn't intend to equate the two.

I was just trying to find out what the biggest changes to the
world's ways of life the advocates for AGW as a threat want
to see made in the lives of everyone.

I would say it's self evident that if someone wants to make
major changes in the economies of nations and the home lives
of individuals on the basis of this evidence, then their political
motives come into serious consideration.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=448jZuA5Y1I"]click[/URL]

[QUOTE=davar55;260050]I was just trying to find out what the biggest changes to the world's ways of life the advocates for AGW as a threat want to see made in the lives of everyone.[/QUOTE]In other words, instead of investigating whether AGW is scientifically sound, you want to investigate the personal characteristics of the people who are "advocates for AGW as a threat".

You have been, and are, conducting an [I]ad hominem[/I] attack.

(BTW, I think I probably qualify as an "advocate for AGW as a threat". Do you want to investigate my political motives?)

[quote]I would say it's self evident that if someone wants to make major changes in the economies of nations and the home lives of individuals on the basis of this evidence, then their political motives come into serious consideration.[/quote]... if one is conducting an [I]ad hominem[/I] attack rather than a scientific investigation of "this evidence".

- -

Suppose a well-qualified meteorologist warns you that a tornado funnel has been sighted and it's headed for where you live. He is a known communist.

Do you disregard the warning about the tornado, thus endangering the children who live with you?

- -

Suppose two equally qualified, independent meteorologists each warn you that a tornado funnel has been sighted and it's headed for where you live. One is a known communist. The other's political views are unknown.

Do you disregard the warning about the tornado, thus endangering the children who live with you?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;260053]In other words, instead of investigating whether AGW is scientifically sound, you want to investigate the personal characteristics of the people who are "advocates for AGW as a threat".

You have been, and are, conducting an [I]ad hominem[/I] attack.

(BTW, I think I probably qualify as an "advocate for AGW as a threat". Do you want to investigate my political motives?)

... if one is conducting an [I]ad hominem[/I] attack rather than a scientific investigation of "this evidence".

- -

Suppose a well-qualified meteorologist warns you that a tornado funnel has been sighted and it's headed for where you live. He is a known communist.

Do you disregard the warning about the tornado, thus endangering the children who live with you?

- -

Suppose two equally qualified, independent meteorologists each warn you that a tornado funnel has been sighted and it's headed for where you live. One is a known communist. The other's political views are unknown.

Do you disregard the warning about the tornado, thus endangering the children who live with you?[/QUOTE]

You used the word investigate, not I.
My suggestion that AGW zealots may have ulterior motives
is obvious to me. And why strawmanize communism?

If your motives are pure, why not just specify: what are the three
most important social changes you would impose on humanity to
solve AGW?

[QUOTE=davar55;260072]If your motives are pure, why not just specify: what are the three most important social changes you would impose on humanity to solve AGW?[/QUOTE](* sigh *)

[U]I already answered that request earlier[/U] in post #879 [U]immediately after you asked[/U], in post #878, [U]for my "short list" of "what changes do you want to make on the rest of us"[/U].

Please c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y re-read the three paragraphs in post #879 that begin with "I [I]wish[/I] ..." and end with "... avoiding self-deception".

(And please don't give me some guff about there being only one item there. You asked for my short list, I gave you my short list, and I don't have anything to add to it now.)

- -

After re-reading those paragraphs, if you still have questions about:

how a good science education is "important", or

how a good science education is a "social change" (answer: I was shoehorning my desired wish into your "social change" stereotype), or

how "I wish ..." is not an odious-enough imposition to satisfy your propaganda-driven stereotype of totalitarian AGWers, or

how a good science education could solve AGW,

or why I wrote "better" then, but "good" now,

feel free to ask for clarification.

Hey I think improving education in general and in science in particular
is a great goal regardless of the AGW situation. So we can certainly
agree on that. OTOH if most scientists lean one way politically, I'd
still be concerned about the potential biases that might show up in
their work. I mean, some people challenge ideas like the BBT and AGW.

[QUOTE=davar55;260072]My suggestion that AGW zealots may have ulterior motives is obvious to me. And why strawmanize communism?[/QUOTE]I was trying to make the point that you keep judging the people, and not the truth of what they say about the scientific merits of AGW, which is the same mistake you pointed out in the first line of post #891:

"To the first part: attacking the person, not their words per se."

However, my choice of hypotheticals (the communist meteorologist) for illustrating my point was poor. I'll try to come up with a better one.

In your case, you're confusing your dislike of someone's totalitarian proposed solution (even though I've given you multiple examples of nontotalitarian solutions) with doubt about the problem for which the solution was proposed. You're not taking any steps to investigate whether the problem is real (or whether you're mistakenly taking someone's politically-motivated anti-AGW propaganda for truth).

Whether or not a problem is real does not depend on what solutions anyone proposes. Yet you keep making the false deduction in that direction.

Consistent with that is that you've never (not even one single time) shown us any evidence to support your contentions about AGW falsity, whereas I've shown you multiple links (for which you make a flimsy excuse not to follow) to evidence that supports my contentions about AGW.

If you had a proper understanding of AGW (after studying both sides, not just the anti-AGW propaganda), I think you'd see why we need to begin solutions now, but those solutions don't have to be totalitarian.

Here's a summary article about CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions and effects that you may find useful:

"CO2 – Some facts, figures and outcomes"

[URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-Some-facts-figures-outcomes.html[/URL]

I recommend it not because it presents anything new, but because it's a well-written summary. Here are some paragraph headers.

Under "Emissions":

[B]213 countries
[/B][B]52 countries[/B]
[B]120 countries
[/B][B]41 countries
[/B][B]The Big Five
[/B]
Under "Effects":

[B]Sea Level[/B]
[B]Land Erosion[/B]
[B]Fresh Water
[/B][B]Rainfall Changes
[/B][B]Climate Events
[/B][B]Ocean Acidity[/B]
[B]Species Extinction
[/B][B]Human Habitat[/B]

The same skepticalscience.com blog has just finished posting an excellent four-part series titled, "Of Averages and Anomalies". It's about:

how a reasonable temperature record needs to be compiled,

how surface temperature trends are calculated, the importance of using temperature anomalies as the starting point before doing any averaging and why this can make our temperature record more robust,

how the four major surface temperature analysis products (GISTemp, HadCRUT, NOAA [URL="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php"]NCDC[/URL] and [URL="http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html"]JMA[/URL]) [U]are[/U] produced at present,

and refutations of several common anti-AGW arguments based on misconceptions about our global temperature record.

The posts are:

"Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change"
[URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1A.html[/URL]

"Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1B. How the Surface Temperature records are built"
[URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1B.html[/URL]

"Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2A. Why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think"
[URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2A.html[/URL]

"Of Averages & Anomalies - Part 2B. More on why Surface Temperature records are more robust than we think"
[URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_2B.html[/URL]

Anytime you see anti-AGW arguments about the official temperature records, such as "it's impossible to calculate an average global temperature" or "surface temperature stations near parking lots or air conditioners skew the average' or "they dropped the coldest stations to make the trend look hotter" arguments, look to this series of posts for the refutations of those falsities.

skepticalscience.com already had a set of refutations for those arguments, but this series presents a broader coherent explanation of the temperature record that enables one to better see how so many anti-AGW arguments are based on misconception or misunderstanding.

National Geographic has a good "bathtub" graphic at
[URL]http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbon-bath[/URL]

[URL]http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/img/big-idea/carbon-bath.jpg[/URL]