I can only assume that this kind of comment, sarcastically and incorrectly attributing intentions to me and others, is an attempt to annoy people. I don't see the purpose. If you truly believe that this discussion is a complete waste of time, then surely it's not worth your time to attempt to ridicule it.
I also wanted to address an issue that Alan raised, the incorrect prediction of an ice age that didn't occur. This has come up a few times, both here and in the deleted thread. I have only a vague memory of it, but I remember the entire discussion as a kind of "meme" that hit the airwaves, was debunked, and then largely forgotten. I don't think it serves any purpose to attribute much importance to it as an example of anything, since it was pretty obviously not important. To be sure, the chattering day-time TV "personalities" made have had some fun talking about it for 15 minutes, but using that as an example of "alarm" is beside the point. Using it as an example of scientists "gone bad" is equally without merit. I could list dozens of examples of things scientists got right, but you know them as well as me. Because some people made some bad predictions about a thing 40 years ago is no reason not to believe predictions people make now about something else. Not all predictions that people make now will all turn out to be completely correct either, and so what?
Bob, You posted that people ignored the problems scientists were telling us that New Orleans were facing. And then the flood happened. Therefore we shouldn't ignore the scientists. My point using the examples of the Ice Age and over-population predictions was that before things happen, it's hard to predict which prediction which come out true or false. Scientists have made many mistakes. We can't guarantee that because the scientists were right about New Orleans, they are right about all their other predictions. You seem to agree with that point. So we're really not at odds over it. So I'm just saying that climate change predictions could be wrong or not as bad as predicted or even if happening might not only be the cause of man.
My own feeling is that it is happening and that at least some of the blame is man's. But my main concern is two-fold. One, how much the earth and man and the environment will benefit is not discussed for the most part. Media, governments, industry and scientists are putting their thumbs of the scale of full and complete knowledge. They're playing up the disaster side without giving equal billing to the advantage side. After all, the earth has never been so bountiful in the last 12000 years since the last ice age reversed. While there are danger areas such as higher seas, the advantages of a warmer climate have produced better conditions today and otherwise out weigh the negatives claimed.
Secondly, resources have to be used to make any changes even assuming we can change the climate. No one seems to have come up with a comparison study of how much resources and how they should be spent vs. what advantages if those resources are spent in other areas (ie. cancer research, destruction of malarial mosquitoes, etc.) Anyone who has run a home or business knows that resources are finite. We all sit down and allocate those resources to different things. Better health insurance vs. vacations. vs, types of food, vs eating in restaurants. Etc. We don't seem to be doing that in the climate change discussion, at least in an honest way. To watch rich people get $10,000 government rebates so they can buy a $100,000 Tesla electric car cheaper, for example, does not seem like a fair thing to do especially when you're trying to convince ordinary people driving 7 year old cars needing new tires that they should give more of their money to climate change projects. The whole discussion seems tainted. Many people feel climate change supporters have their hands in their wallets.
Until those issues are fairly addressed, you're going to have "deniers".
