Exactly. What are the problems you have with global warming models?
That no one here seems able to briefly, concisely describe them.
Well, it hasn't been "proven", that's just not how it works.
Well if it's going to result in dramatic political action, many people, not just me, believe it needs to be proven.
There is a strong, practically undeniable correlation between human activity and global warming.
Practically undeniable? Not good enough. If your answer to that is forceable political action to do what "needs to be done", what do you think of the possibility of forceable action to counter it? The U.S. had a bloody interior battle from 1860 to 1865. Do you think something similar could happen again?
Well, this hypothetical person is mistaking weather for climate. Weather is what happens over the short term, like days or weeks. Climate is what happens over longer periods of time, like decades or centuries. That the climate is warming (over decades) is a FACT. That fact can be measured and documented; there is no denying that the climate is warming. The CAUSE of the change is what we need models for and is what is debated. If you really feel there is problems with models that suggest human caused global warming, why don't you present the arguments that support your feelings.
That is being done, by others with much more time and knowledge than me. There seems to be evidence that they are, at least partially, being silenced and downplayed by special political interests who seek to profit from global warming policies.
Where do you get your information from? Gore's net worth is reportedly $200 million, far less than your supposed $1 billion. Most of that appears to come from the sale of a network he had ownership in and was sold to Al-Jezeera and his options in Apple stock. It doesn't appear that trading carbon credits made him any where near a $billion.
Environment - The Telegraph
One thing you have to consider in what the "public is willing to pay for" is what costs are being externalized. For instance, if you pay $5 for a tee shirt it is because workers in India are being exploited in the making of that shirt. Were all involved in the production of the tee shirt receiving a fair and equitable compensation, the same tee shirt would cost more like $25. Hows that for what the "public is willing to pay for?" ... exploitation of human labor! How much do you think oil and coal would actually cost if the industry paid for all the environmental damage they do?
It already costs plenty more than it should because of environmentalist profiteering. If all the liberal do-gooders had their way regarding "exploitation of human labor", many in the U.S. wouldn't be able to afford t-shirts at all. There are a lot of U.S. workers, who aren't on the public dole, who work very hard and don't have much to show for it. And they don't always work for "the rich".
Especially when coupled with corruption and political power. Our founding fathers were determined to prevent the new government of the US from exerting that type of control. Contrary to what some may imagine, our founding fathers were not trying to establish a Christian nation, nor were they trying to establish a nation free from religion. They wanted to ensure that this nation would not become a country dominated by any particular religion, such as they had left in England.
I agree. But what is really different from domination by the rituals of religion compared to the domination of special interest science?
Tradition is over rated. We need to live in the day.
Some in the U.S. political left, (as we see in messages 138 and 140 above, for instance) try to re-write history to favor their political views. Others say that history is irrelevant - that it needs to be ignored. At least the latter is much more honest.
™ Version 4.2