What's the point in doing scientific research if we ignore the conclusions of scientists?

It makes about as much sense to commission research on climate, and ignore the findings when making policy, as it did to have the State Department prepare detailed and well informed position papers on Iraq in 2000-2001, and then totally ignore the findings in the most incompetently planned military action since Palmerston invaded the Crimea.

When ideology trumps information, the result is disastrous.

A side issue: it is thanks ironically to David that we now have two separate measurements that agree strongly; your link based on content analysis, and his reminding us of the Doran survey by questionnaire response.

And again, I am left puzzled as to whether he is taking the position that AGW is not occurring, or is uncertain, or is occurring to so small an extent that we needn't worry about it, or is occurring and serious but because is a petroleum geologist he knows it's too expensive to deal with. I'm also amused that he refers to Hansen's "ranting" when he quoted (actually misquoted) Hansen in response to one of my own questions earlier.

Edit: Dies the swabb... actually know he is COMPLETELY misrepresenting the link he quotes, or is he just passing on this little titbit of disinformation without actually examining it? I really want to know.

houseoffun5, Evolutionists do not ignore these points, they understand why all these points are either wrong or irrelevant: 1. The rate at which galaxies "wind themselves up" is perfectly consistent with a 13 billion year old universe. 2. The amount of supernova remnants is perfectly consistent with a 13 billion year old universe. 3. The rate of comet "disintigration" is perfectly consistent with a 13 billion year old universe. 4. The amount of mud on the seafloor is perfectly consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth. 5. The amount of sodium in the sea gives an estimate of the ocean's age of about 3 billion years, perfectly consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth. 6. The present rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field has precisely nothing to do with the age of the earth. In fact, the earth's magnetic field is known to have switched polarity multiple times in the earth's past. 7. Strata being tightly bent is explained by tectonics, which requires millions of years for forces to bend these layers. This is entirely consistent with modern scientific theories and a 4.5 billion year old earth. 8. Yes, this is why biological material older than thousands of years is very hard to come by. It is entirely consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth. 9. Fossil radioactivity does not shorten geologic ages at all. 10. Helium in minerals comes from the alpha decay of radioactive elements, whose concentrations yield an age of the earth of 4.5 billion years. 11. Carbon-14 in deep strata is generated by natural sources of radiation. It poses no problem for radiometric dating or any of modern science. 12. Stone age skeletons are abundant, and are entirely consistent with the predicted history of human evolution. 13. The development of agriculture has not a thing to do with the age of anything (other than agriculture), and is not a problem for modern science at all. 14. WRITTEN history is short because written communication was not developed until a few thousand years ago. That doesn't indicate anything about how much history there was before this time. What I see here is a list of 14 phrases, and nothing more. You have made no arguments in favor of creation.

I'm thinking that scientists aren't being competely ignored, and that is what is going to eventually make all this scientific research worthwhile...

Unfortunately, it appears that there is this "wait and see" and "take things as they come" attitude among too many though. This is amazing to me, in light of major flooding, heat waves and forest fires becoming annual events instead of 100 or 1000 year events. Unfortunately, "prevention" is obviously not in the vocabulary of those that should really learn the meaning and value of this word. I think also, too many are fatalistic about the world and the future. They do not think it is possible to prevent the things that scientists are predicting.

So therefore, if we can keep reporting on and acknowledging global warming events, at some point, the theory could be that more and more people, including ones that could make a major difference in the fight against AGW, will join the efforts and step up to the plate, so to speak. You know what they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day." Of course, we also are left to hope that nothing earth shattering will happen before that time.

There are also a lot of things happening on different levels and in different industries and fields of study that would explain why it is taking so long for major steps to be implimented. For example, for centuries, the Dutch have spent a lot of time reclaiming land along their coast from the North Sea. I'm constantly wondering why it appears the opposite is happening in Louisiana. You would think that the U.S. Government, or someone or some corporation(s) with the necessary resources could take a cue from the Dutch and do more to protect the Louisiana coast, like the Dutch have. But no. It appears we are just placing our bets that another Katrina won't hit this area for a long time, so we can leave all the current levees in place at their current rating of being able to defend against another Cat 3 hurricane, which is what they were at when Katrina hit.

A tragedy among many that is just waiting to happen, if you ask me...

I would like to think that somewhere, something that is going to make a major difference is being done, whether it's finding a way to safely nullify excess CO2 in the atmosphere and / or finding a way to the prevent exhaust of vehicles, factories and biological sources from devastating the atmosphere and surface of the earth in the first place.

Of course, this is one time I would be thrilled to find out that, in this case, the environmentally correct position I've accepted is wrong and, bite my tongue, like the deniers say, it's just a part of the natural cycle of the earth's climate (yea, if you like becoming a cave man, or mole creature and living with the dinosaurs!) and oh sure, every will be OK. Yea, right...

This is also one time I would really like to do some research to find out that scientific research isn't being ignored and somebody somewhere, other than myself, is concerned and doing something about the current crisis... I wouldn't want to be stuck in the end with everyone saying, "I thought you were doing something about it..." At the very least we can say we tried...

Well because 98% of the scientists used to be sure the earth was flat, and 100% of the living and speaking scientists in Germany in 1938 knew that jews were more like rats than people and needed to be exterminated.

That's why.

Rather than blaming on global warming, we should concern more on Hazardous gas emission (perhaps CO2 is not that much to be blamed), energy worn out (no more gas for you to burn), etc. Talks about sustainability.

Analogy:

One fella say, the Sun rises from the east, set in the west. He had observed it for 10,000 years. But, the probability is still 0 that "the Sun will rise from east and set in west for tomorrow". Probability = 10,000/(unlimited future) = 0. Observation may not always be correct.

Several millenia ago scientist concluded the earth was flat and thats why we question science today. All scientific theories are subject to change because things, matter, "facts" change constantly. If people just took the words of scientist as fact and never thought to question them the world wouldn't be as advanced as it is now.

Now many might think, "today we are more advanced, so what happened mllenia ago is not whats happening now." To that thought I counter with, a millenia from now that generation will be saying the same thing about our current scentific "facts" and conclusions.

So yes people are questioning global warming, its the only way we evolve factually and scientificly.

As Trevor points out, it's only a small population that ignores the scientific evidence.

Those who fail to see the importance of research (basic or applied) are in effect removing themselves from the debate as their lack of knowledge on the subject should not be taken seriously.

Anyways for the free-marketeers (I'm one) who despise the money invested on climate research and the effect on the free market, I suggest they spend a little more time looking at the corn industry.

Consensus means nothing if you don't know what the consensus means. Can CO2 cause warming? Yes. I would answer yes, but you would not call me a warmer by any stretch. Aer there things we should start to do tto reduce our output of CO2? Yes. I would say yes, but you do not think of me as warmer. I have no problem with the research done to show the changes that ahve happened to this point. The computer modeling for future changes has far less scientists involved, is far more difficult and prone to error, has far assumptions which have not in any way ben validated and truthfully has been known to give faulty answers that are either too high or too low in the past.

I do agree that our knowledge is sufficient to make changes towards reducing CO2, as do many scientists. I do not agree with many of the scare-mongering predictions, including the viewpoint that the IPCC is being too conservative, that you yourself have made. How do you go from defending the IPCC estimates as being accurate to calling them too conservative? In fact trevor showed that the IPCC models were good, when they were indeed overestimating the warming and then you say that they are underestimating. Shouldn't you be directing this question to yourself as well?

Back to the point. Scaremongering fails in two ways. First, it is used as a sales pitch, a sale pitch we have all heard a thousand times over. Any time the end of the world is predicted, I look for what they are trying to sell. Right now your politicians are trying to sell a tax with it. A tax during a recession. I'm even fine with taxing CO2 as long as you reduce other taxes and don't try to continually grow the govt, but thats not what you guys are proposing.

Second, everytime you or anyone else has made a scare mongering prediction, including those predictions made 40 years ago that the seas would rise way beyond where they are now, you have been wrong. Even the "greatest scientists" have been wrong. Right now you are suffering and will continue to suffer from your overestimated predicitons of the past. People are not fear for their lives, and rightfully so.

So if you stop overselling and overestimating your case and you start proposing smart solutions like the carbon tax in Canada, with a tax reduction for the people, you will no longer have me nagging at you constantly. Right now, I ahve no reason to be confident that the alternative power options will be sufficient to meet demand. You make it so that it costs to produce CO2 and those who produce less will quickly get a higher market share in combination with a guarantee that the amount of taxes collected for CO2 will have a limit and that Average Joe American will see a decrease in their taxes equivalent to the increase in their bills, then you have a plan that I can support. The idea of letting a carbon tax go as high as the market may take it, given the inefficiency of the govt, is truly something I can not support, nor should anyone else.

lol i thought this question was talking about evolution when i first saw it. i totally agree with your sentiment. even michael shermer, a touted global warming skeptic, changed his mind...4 fvcking years ago!

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2006/06/the-flipping...

and more recently: http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/04/confessions-...

http://www.freedocumentaries.org/teatro.php?filmID...