Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[waldo]

as you posed the earlier like question to me, I'll simply repeat the same answer I offered you... this time I'll be a bit more direct in targeting you as one of the purposeful denying individual miscreants.

So what if I'm a "denyer." By your tone, you think it is a grievous sin. I feel your wrath....and I quake in my boots.

Besides, you make such an ignorant assumption! I admit to climate change....but I don't believe that it is solely man-made.

solely man-made? Who believes that? Certainly not climate scientists... that's certainly not a part of the consensus scientific opinion. You've simply offered another glaring expression of your lack of even the most basic climate change science understandings. And yes, you deny the overwhelming causal anthropogenic evidence.

an easy thread search shows exactly what you did... purposely did. You were the first to drop a rather benign reference to Gore in this thread, attributing what you characterized as a disparity between personal commitment and profile. Of course, someone took your bait and you immediately jumped into the fray. Gore is an easy target, particularly for those on the periphery, those you can't actually argue the real issues... or the science.

What....is his name taboo? You consider it blasphemous to utter his revered name?

Jumped into the fray? Surely you misunderstood. Will you go back and see how it transpired between Wily and me.

Do you consider a debate, a fray? Anyway, heated arguments are part of a mature debate....it's immature personal attacks and childish trantrums that are not. Who usually throws the first personal insults and character assasination towards fellow-posters on this thread? From what I see....they come from you....and of course, Wily.

Excuse me, but who made himself an easy target? Sheeskabob, another "blame-anyone-but-the-one-responsible" attitude and mentality!

I did exactly that... went back and saw your purposeful manipulation. You offered just enough leading verbiage (bait) in your initial post to clearly show your intent. You obviously revel in the minutia and inconsequential and thought to railroad this thread, despite the repeated attempts by others to keep it on theme. If you really need to get your Gore-on, perhaps you could take it to another of the many available climate change related threads.

Along the way you also managed to be the first to politicize the thread with your raised concerns about the Opposition parties/leaders attacking Conservatives/Harper - nice touch.

As for Harper....I thought I was just correcting Wily when he blurted out his irrational fears for a PM - which I assumed he meant Harper - over his religion.

Gee, by your insensible and irrational argument....I say you are a clone to Wily as far as not understanding what you are arguing about.

It is weasel-like the way Wily and you seem to distort or translate the flow of events. That, or you got such short attention span!

no - since you clearly have nothing of substance to add to this thread, you simply continued to pollute it with yet another tangential attempt to throw the thread of intent/message. There are many other thread outlets for you to foist your reverence towards Fearless Leader... you could genuinely show the debate maturity you self-proclaim and quit attempting to trash it with your efforts.

as a more pointed follow-up to your questioning, I'll simply re-quote the most astute reply MLW member 'dre' offered you... one you weren't inclined to respond to:

I DONT expect them to do their share.

I expect them to dig in their heals, and do everything they possibly can to stop any measures that might help, and any measures that threaten the status quo.

I expect them to tout economic "sky is falling" doomsday scenarios, and claim that developing new energy alternatives will destroy the economy and result in us all living like people in the Congo, or Zahir. I expect them to herald studies funded by the FF industry that conveniently conclude theres no reason to do anything but increase the use of oil and coal.

Far from expecting these people to "do their share" I fully expect that we will have to drag them KICKING AND SCREAMING into the future.

Why do I have to respond??? What's there to respond to? That's her suggestion....her opinion. That's how she envision it.

So she say we drag those kicking and screaming into the future...Maybe I agree with her, considering we've already dragged people kicking and screaming in our everyday policies and law, what's so new about that?

All you need are powerful lobbyists these days and there ya go....everybody gets dragged kicking and screaming.

as I said, it was another MLW member's very astute commentary in response to your question - I could give a rats patooey as to whether you respond to it or not; however, I certainly have no reservations in pointing out that you didn't... and I surmise you didn't because, as it clearly shows now, you're one of those the commentary targets - and you felt it's pointed barb.

on a more personal note, you've clearly shown your hand... should you be inclined to engage in the real discussions surrounding climate change, you should expect to, in keeping with your religulous bent, 'reap what you sow'.

You got the theophobia too???

You and Wily seem to equate GW/Gore to religion/God. In keeping with your distorted reasoning, I knew I was right....like the extremist religious people that you fear, you are a GW/Gore-worshipping fanatic!

well... despite your MLW religulous posting bent, I wasn't inclined to overtly claim you as a part of the extremist religious camp... thanks for coming out and self-identifying. I've expressed my thoughts on Gore a few times in the past - as I did in this thread... a past prolific communicator who holds no real significance today. You however, in keeping with your religulous self, shouldn't be demonizing - or are you harbouring false gods?

[waldo]

in keeping with the OP thread intent... a need for continued focused education on the effects of AGW climate change, particularly targeted towards schools. To that end, an example, as relayed on tonight's CBC National => a collaborative undertaking between the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, that will see an education resource package distributed to 12,000 middle and secondary schools across Canada, highlighting the implications of regional and local impacts of climate change.

a principal component of that education resource package is what's called the, 'Degrees of Change' diagram (a comprehensive illustration of expected climate impacts published for Canada)... of course, an interactive version of the map can be found on the Royal Canadian Geographical Society website - here. Certainly, it's an isolation 'Canadian only view', that must be combined with an overall curriculum that also encompasses a global perspective on the effects of climate change.

Typical chicken little nonsense that has zero supporting evidence. There was also no attempt mention any postive consquences of GW. In fact, there is a good chance that GW will be a net benefit for Canada. It is really sad that school kids are going to exposed to such a biased piece of propoganda.

strange you don't see/read the direct references to the perceived benefits to climate change mentioned... that they are underwhelmed by the negatives is simply a matter... of the related science based understandings. Clearly, you have difficulty with the science and efforts to communicate fact based science effects of AGW climate change within Canadian schools. Did you get to the part where it's highlighted 130 scientists contributed to and supported the collaborative efforts between the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?

[TimG]

strange you don't see/read the direct references to the perceived benefits to climate change mentioned.

Their colourful bar chart has nothing but harms.

Did you get to the part where it's highlighted 130 scientists contributed to and supported the collaborative efforts between the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?

Did you get the part where term 'scientist' does not confer infallibility or even credibility? Scientists can claim what they want but what matters is the evidence the present to back up their opinions. In most cases all they have are unverifiable computer models which do not count as evidence.

That said, the report would be much more palatable if it came with a disclaimer: all claims are hypotheses based on the current understanding of climate. Some or all of these claims may turn out to be completely wrong.

Edited October 6, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

strange you don't see/read the direct references to the perceived benefits to climate change mentioned... that they are underwhelmed by the negatives is simply a matter... of the related science based understandings. Clearly, you have difficulty with the science and efforts to communicate fact based science effects of AGW climate change within Canadian schools.

Their colourful bar chart has nothing but harms.

look closer... as I said, you must be missing the benefits underwhelming reference/significance.

Did you get to the part where it's highlighted 130 scientists contributed to and supported the collaborative efforts between the Royal Canadian Geographical Society and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?

Did you get the part where term 'scientist' does not confer infallibility or even credibility? Scientists can claim what they want but what matters is the evidence the present to back up their opinions. In most cases all they have are unverifiable computer models which do not count as evidence.

***group think, squawk... group think, squawk***

That said, the report would be much more palatable if it came with a disclaimer: all claims are hypotheses based on the current understanding of climate. Some or all of these claims may turn out to be completely wrong.

ya, ya - Canadian school children are being assimilated into the scientific group think borg... clever bastardos!

[bloodyminded]

ya, ya - Canadian school children are being assimilated into the scientific group think borg... clever bastardos!

[TimG]

ya, ya - Canadian school children are being assimilated into the scientific group think borg

I guess it is better than the UK were they get blown up if they don't show enough enthusiasm for the AGW social engineers...

[jbg]

you're as left leaning as Francisco Franco...

Hardly.

If I were Canadian I'd be an NDP supporter most likely.

[jbg]

making any headway on your described research and intention to advise... vis-a-vis your mindless obsession that presumes to attribute global cooling and global warming to a natural 30 year cyclical climatic event?

More cyber-bullying?

[jbg]

So what if I'm a "denyer." By your tone, you think it is a grievous sin. I feel your wrath....and I quake in my boots.

To people like him, probably being a Jew-hater, being a climate denyer is worse than being a Holocaust denyer. While I am against Holocaust-denial laws, I am quite offended at the use of a parallel term when it comes to climate. Edited October 6, 2010 by jbg

[wyly]

Jumped into the fray? Surely you misunderstood. Will you go back and see how it transpired between Wily and me.

Do you consider a debate, a fray? Anyway, heated arguments are part of a mature debate....it's immature personal attacks and childish trantrums that are not. Who usually throws the first personal insults and character assasination towards fellow-posters on this thread? From what I see....they come from you....and of course, Wily.

still lying bitty...who resorted to name calling first, who called me a bigot? a theophob? that was you wasn't it bitty...all I did was point out your dishonesty which you confirm with every additional post...

As for Harper....I thought I was just correcting Wily when he blurted out his irrational fears for a PM - which I assumed he meant Harper - over his religion.

Gee, by your insensible and irrational argument....I say you are a clone to Wily as far as not understanding what you are arguing about.

It is weasel-like the way Wily and you seem to distort or translate the flow of events. That, or you got such short attention span!

more lies bitty...I never brought Harpers name into the debate...you did...

[jbg]

still lying bitty...who resorted to name calling first, who called me a bigot? a theophob? that was you wasn't it bitty...all I did was point out your dishonesty which you confirm with every additional post...

more lies bitty...I never brought Harpers name into the debate...you did...

Is this a Grade 4 recess or a serious discussion?

[wyly]

Hardly.

If I were Canadian I'd be an NDP supporter most likely.

american concept of left and right is very different from ours...from your posts at best you're a moderate conservative in canada...

[wyly]

Is this a Grade 4 recess or a serious discussion?

excuse me? ...what hypocrisy, you're the one of the worst here...where have you contributed with a post the addresses the OP?...

[waldo]

ya, ya - Canadian school children are being assimilated into the scientific group think borg... clever bastardos!

I guess it is better than the UK were they get blown up if they don't show enough enthusiasm for the AGW social engineers...

that somewhat relatively obscure UK group (10:10), if it maintains any real presence moving forward, has most certainly gained a lesson on how fast/quick the denial machine moves in... notwithstanding, of course, that some of the most pointed criticism of 10:10's video has been coming from the pro-AGW side, particularly given the fallout related to the mass hysteria reactions coming forward from the denialsphere. They've taken their hits... and I expect they'll move on with lessons learned.

[waldo]

Thus, even assuming AGW is real (it isn't)...

making any headway on your described research and intention to advise... vis-a-vis your mindless obsession that presumes to attribute global cooling and global warming to a natural 30 year cyclical climatic event?

More cyber-bullying?

that victimization card of yours must be wearing a bit thin - hey?

buddy, the premise of the thread, "assumes AGW is real"... particularly given your AGW climate change denial posting history, do you automatically think you'll get a free pass when you flaunt your "it isn't" claim? You best keep your head-up... and your card ready!

[waldo]

To people like him, probably being a Jew-hater, being a climate denyer is worse than being a Holocaust denyer. While I am against Holocaust-denial laws, I am quite offended at the use of a parallel term when it comes to climate.

probably being a Jew-hater? Wow! Thanks for coming out.

you've repeatedly tried to make the same long-tired attempts to conflate the denier label - the debate is long over on that point... no self-respecting climate change denier even attempts to make that association any more. As many have advised you in the past, the term is a long-standing part of the lexicon related to climate change; a term/label that draws clear distinction between deniers and legitimate skeptics. Get over it.

[bush_cheney2004]

... As many have advised you in the past, the term is a long-standing part of the lexicon related to climate change; a term/label that draws clear distinction between deniers and legitimate skeptics. Get over it.

Oh the irony...this is offered even as the "global warming" faithful have hurriedly rebadged their cause as "climate change".

[Michael Hardner]

Oh the irony...this is offered even as the "global warming" faithful have hurriedly rebadged their cause as "climate change".

The rationale for the new term has been explained over and over and over again...

bad argument practice #2 - unearthing old arguments that have been settled

[bush_cheney2004]

The rationale for the new term has been explained over and over and over again...

bad argument practice #2 - unearthing old arguments that have been settled

But that is exactly the point...what is the "deniers" transgression.....warming or change?

Edited October 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[wyly]

The rationale for the new term has been explained over and over and over again...

bad argument practice #2 - unearthing old arguments that have been settled

and the fact that's been officially referred to as Climate Change since 1988 long before most deniers were even aware of the problem...how is something 22 years old classified as new? Edited October 6, 2010 by wyly

[GostHacked]

Is this a Grade 4 recess or a serious discussion?

Recess started back on page 3.

[wyly]

Recess started back on page 3.

well I tried to keep on track to the OP...it drifted away, I tried again a couple pages back but the denier world refuses to stay on topic...there plenty of threads for the denier bent so please go there, this thread was supposed to be about "Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?" Edited October 6, 2010 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

well I tried to keep on track to the OP...it drifted away, I tried again a couple pages back but the denier world refuses to stay on topic...there plenty of threads for the denier bent so please go there, this thread was supposed to be about "Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?"

...and if the response is DO NOTHING, the discussion shifts back to "denier!"

I don't know why we can't accept climate change theory and still refuse to do anything about it without being labeled a "denier".

[Michael Hardner]

...and if the response is DO NOTHING, the discussion shifts back to "denier!"

Not necessarily. I believe that TimG and I discussed "do nothing" as a legitimate approach to the risk, with some provision to contribute to global efforts for adaption if necessary.

I didn't call him a denier (whether or not he is one isn't clear to me yet) and we moved on.

[jbg]

excuse me? ...what hypocrisy, you're the one of the worst here...where have you contributed with a post the addresses the OP?...

Your use of names like "Bitsy" is very Grade 4. And I've contributed constructively to answering the question posed by the OP here:

I'll take this thread's bait.

If AGW is real, what we should do is throw away our money in order to make Maurice Strong richer. Or provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money.

I did. I suggested using the carbon tax to "provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money".

Edited October 6, 2010 by jbg