No matter who wins in the general election, climate change deniers will lose.

Yeah, well if taking myself seriously involves not embarrassing myself with inane proclamations, count me in.

Incidentally, looking at that thread, you STILL haven't answered me on the last point where you were "drunk". Ever. Well, that's par for the course.

Really, we have no reason to discuss anything in this thread, to be perfectly honest.

 

To bring it back somewhat to the point, now that the thread is somewhat more...hidden---

http://www.change.org/petitions/obama-please-educate-and-lead-on-climate-change

I think if the grassroots, and the political establishment combine, no one can override the science.

 

Fair enough. Statistical analysis is a big part of economics, but I will be the first to admit I don't know much about the core science behind the studies presented. I never much liked science as a field of study, to be perfectly frank.

Still, if the experts in the field say that people should be worried, economists (of which you can include or exclude me in the bunch, not that it matters) will listen to them. Thus, the political and business advice I am dispensing is based on the recommendation of the science. If you think the science is flawed, then so be it, but I don't see it based on the reasons given in this thread.

 

If this were a question of methodology, I would be amenable to your point of view. However, you and others have argued that there is a political motive at play; in other words, that climate scientists are intentionally distorting results. Based on the motives espoused in this thread, to me, that makes zero sense. If you guys were all about the fact that climate change models might not be the soundest models, I could be on board to apply it as a caveat, but it goes a bit too far when people are claiming it's because climate scientists want fame, money, and glory. To me this makes no sense at all, and I have made quite clear why I think so.

 

You got lumped in with cml750 and Commodore. It happens. It wouldn't surprise me if you did argue that.

All you're saying is that climate change is doubtful because the models are faulty. Right. Well, I'll take the scientific establishment's word over yours. The only reason why I wouldn't is if they were "tainted", but I just went over why that doesn't make sense. If there is such an overpowering consensus, politics will move to that direction, and it starts with economists and finance moving it that way.

If you think climate science is bad science, then what is good science in the field? Having seen economics and how it tries to define models, and how economists are faulted sometimes for bad models makes me sympathize with climate scientists, especially as they are dealing with something with a lot more variables. A lot of good, key insights have come from economics; things that are practical, that have been acted upon, and done much good. Yeah, the model will never be 100% accurate, but when there is such an overriding consensus that something is happening (maybe dissension over the details), I believe there is an impetus for change---and this would be the case even without climate change, given finite resources.

 

My conjuncture of economics and politics moving towards climate change activism is undeniable; Romney's two main advisers are for intervention, and one is the founder of the Pigou Club, which pretty much makes him the kingpin of climate change taxation.

Obama will be a two-term president at this point, so his ideology of 2008 might make a bigger appearance.

No matter who wins in the general election, climate change deniers will lose.