Since we can't escape ideological views and discussions...?

Hank

- overpopulation is a problem (would change to that "the current population's consumption is unsustainable")

- resources are running out (would change to "natural resources are limited")

- nature must be protected by restricting human access and development to large areas (would change to "nature requires humans to manage/mitigate the environment and human interactions" )

- government must be large and use many regulations and subsidize new technology (would change to "government needs to be efficient and ensure considerations of a wide range of social, economic and environmental concerns, and assist in the implementation of new technology that benefits humanity")

- capitalism and/or corporate greed is the root cause of many ills like pollution and poverty (would change to "greed and self interests are major issues with society, and are in part responsible for current pollution and poverty issues")

Harry

- small government for basic common needs like defense, infrastructure and security (would change to "government only for national security concerns" ... however this is unrealistic, as "governments" form in at all different levels of a community, i.e. you can't have a community without a "government". So it would have to be every man for themselves then?)

- private property ownership essential (Hank and Harry both would agree on this principle)

- population and resources will work out naturally (can't change, but a little bit of a fatalistic approach to take in life isn't it? "Oh look those poor starving Africans ... well once they die off we'll have enough food for everyone else")

- the free market system is best for allowing new technology like alternative energy to develop as demand increases (well I guess the issue here is that the market isn't a "free" market at the moment. Traditional energy resources have had billions invested into from governments over the years, and still are funded considerably more than alternative energy ... remember Harry wants government to control infrastructure, which includes power. So it isn't a free market. Probably a better comment would be "economics should dictate energy consumption and suppliers without any government subsidies for any energy providers")

In Australia Harry would be more likely to want a big government than Hank (or the reason for Hank wanting a "bigger" government is because of people like Harry, that is self centred individuals not concerned about the people outside of their house). Also in Australia you would find that Hank and Harry may have different ideas on a "free" market. Many of the right wing (nationalistic) parties in Australia are against a "free" market because of the negative effects it has had on our national manufacturing and produce. So you'd probably find that Hank and Harry might both agree with government subsidising alternative energy (especially if Australian owned and made), or at least giving such industries similar funding to traditional energy (many of the nationalistic parties also focus on individuals not being done over by the big companies, e.g. power stations, so they may also support initiatives that allow individuals produce their own energy ... especially in remote communities).

Overall I think you have over generalised, and in the post you really have NOT escaped what you wanted too. I suggest that you also post this in the political section as it is irrelevant to climate change.

Ahhh, Hank & Harry, what next I wonder

O.K. I'll play

Hanks points

- overpopulation is a problem

(there is solid evidence for this as a problem get out of your first would bubble and visit the third world)

- resources are running out

(from food to metals to oil, again there is little doubt we are)

- nature must be protected by restricting human access and development to large areas

(since you say both sides support this whats your point)

- government must be large and use many regulations and subsidize new technology

(What has this to do with climate change, you seem to be try to draw in right wing ideology rather than facts related to the issue)

- capitalism and/or corporate greed is the root cause of many ills like pollution and poverty

(Industrial accidents due to lack of spending on safety or using third world countries to escape legal obligations are things linked to corporate greed, pollution and poverty.

Mercury levels in the oceans, Bhopal- India, Mines in Asia and South America, until revolution oil wells in Arabia and Chemical dumping and spills in the U.S. and other countries, massive oil spills that cost locals billions in lost jobs and livelihoods in Alaska and the Gulf, how much can one 'Harry' try to ignore

Then we have Harry's list

- small government for basic common needs like defense, infrastructure and security

(as above 1776 was a long time ago)

- private property ownership essential

And is freely available in any western country, but there are certainly limits, you can't for instance decide you want to build a house in the middle of Yellow stone

- population and resources will work out naturally

(in terms of food resources that would be how need out weighing availability and people simply dying, and deniers (sorry Harry's) have the cheek to try and draw euthanasia into this that's interesting.

(in terms of rare metals that make our computers, phones and technology work how would that be resolved, fairies, pixie dust?)

- the free market system is best for allowing new technology like alternative energy to develop as demand increases.

Now your being funny, Free market as we have it now with the world trading, simply isn't working, the old system was certainly not great but. If you want some home grown effects of the political and economic giant GW Bush was, look at the empty houses in Chicago you can buy for a dollar, the unemployment because corporations have moved operations to China or the third world, because workers there consider 1/10th of what us workers are paid a dramatic improvement.

You can't have a real free market if one country pays a worker $10 or less for a weeks work and another pays $1000 which is of course why everything from Nike's to Iphone's is made in a third world country, but then we are back to that corporate greed you Harry's seem to deny exists

All of which has little bearing on the evidence for AGW http://climate.nasa.gov/

For which Harry's and Harriet's have no real answer

More Wattsup-Wannabe garbage from Ottawa Mike, joining the thousands of his prior anti-science posts having nothing to do with global warming and little to do with economic reality.

A large part of your "contribution" to the debate seems to consist of redefining terms to your own specification. In the form of your "addressing the science" questions and answers, this tends to occur by your misrepresenting what was actually said or compared.

Congratulations on coming up with a purer form of the rhetorical art with Hank and Harry.

The real problem is that both Hank and Harry have based their beliefs on political platforms formulated by politicians. For example: Capitalism and population stabilization can be mutually beneficial.

Harry proposes that population and resources will work out naturally. How will they? Will increasing human use of natural resources negatively impact many biological creatures by taking those resources away from those creatures? I am aware that the population of a society, naturally, follows the availability of resources. However, with human advancing technology, we have pretty much taken over that as it pertains to many humans. At least in first world countries. What if population continues to grow at the increasing rate it is currently? We produce more crops, more livestock and so on. One of the only finite resources I see is the availability of fresh water. As humans continue to increase in numbers fresh water resources will be stretched. Though I do know of a billboard that produces fresh water by taking moisture from the air.

http://www.daynews.com/latest-news/2013/03/pure-an...

I agree that, in some areas, small government is needed. The market will dictate how many of those areas will progress. However this does not mean that the government can not give the market a push in the right direction. Of course at the same time the market should follow protocols that would not allow that market to take a turn towards putting money and such above health and resource availability. How would you like to breathe in the smog of the most polluted cities in the world on a daily basis? Unfortunately many governments of the world have been putting money and fortune above the environment for too long and continue to do so.

Given what I stated above, I think fitting everyone into those two groups is a mistake. I mean we could also add to Harry's traits that he is intensely religious, believes that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, and so on. But we both know, and this is something you have argued many times while, at the same time, putting forward questions such as the greenhouse effect not existing, that everyone on both sides does not think the same. I am well aware that you aren't as far gone as people like Sagebrush though you do have a tendency, and this is why people treat you in here as they do, to continue allowing them to believe as they believe and even go so far as to put forward questions to make them stands more firm.

Ottawa Mike, you are making two invalid claims to start with. First, one side of the debates is based on the science and not on any ideologies. Second, you then decide for us that the discussions on AGW are rooted in the arbitrary traits that you have assigned to them. Now, what you are really doing is again trying to misdirect the discussions away from the science and towards your own menu driven and severely flawed anti-science arguing points. You do not address the science, EVER, simply because you cannot base your debates on the science. There is nothing in science that supports YOUR ideologically based and seriously flawed talking points. ... Who are you trying to convince, Mike? Only those that are incapable of understanding the science? You already have them in your halls of denialism, Mike. Anyone else that is capable of understanding the science will come to learn that you are just a denial industry puppet that is trying to lead them astay for your own ideological based reasons.

Added**** Let us see how much space Yahoo allows me for a response.

Your questions:

"Heat in the oceans" is a science based question. So I stand corrected that you never ask science based questions. However, you finished it with a question (4.) that leads to your assumption and that we all are suppose to believe to be true. La Nina and El Nino years are too short in duration to be anything more than just noise in the long term trends. In other words, short term climate variations are not an indicator of long term trends. La Nina and El Nino events do not create a plateau in the long term trends , but rather only show noise within the long term trends.

"Temperature trends" you did not ask any questions. You merely made statements about statistical data and try to compare 4 examples using different time frames and over too short of a period for any statistical relevance to be made towards long term trends. You also have different starting points to compare with. Well, with the exception of the 26 year time frame that you then try to compare to other time frames that are too short to be used for any long term trends. Statistically speaking, you can show any short term trend you wish to show by using different short term data points. ... So, where was the science based question here?

"Beginning of the interglacial" is not really a science question but another attempt at misdirection by you. Should one follow your logic then only a warming of the climate can cause a rise in the CO2 levels. Your logic omits the science and observational evidence that rising CO2 levels will initiate a warming climate and will enhance that any warming that is already taking place. What caused a past warming event is no more scientifically significant than what caused a car accident 50 years ago as to what caused a car accident today. Short of the fact that cars were involved and both of the cars ended up in an accident there is no scientific conclusions that be made beyond this.

"Greenhouse on Venus" is, again, a science based question. But, for what purpose, Mike? Is this just another attempt at misdirection? I believe that it is when you stop to think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas on Venus as it is on Earth and you try to lead others to believe that CO2 is not all that it is cracked up to be. The chemical makeup of Venus's atmosphere is far different than the chemical makeup of Earth's atmosphere and yet CO2 still behaves as a greenhouse gas on both planets. As far as the clouds and atmosphere of Venus goes, again we are talking about two different chemical makeups of the respective atmospheres and the chemical makeup of the clouds on each planet.

Your answers:

"Temperature trends" is basically your acknowledgements to statements made by Climate Realist, the person asking the question. This is true until you begin to make your statement that 16 year trends are subjective as to if they are significant trends in the direction that the climate is going. (The discussion was on the climate) Climate Realist gave you an out when he did not specify long term trends, but you try to misdirect, once again, by suggesting that short term trends are indicative as to what the long term trends will be. How did you do this? By your vain attempts to misdirect by claiming that the scientists were trying to figure what caused the short term trend. Of course they would try to this, Mike. The only way they can try to predict if the short term trend will continue is by trying to discover what caused the short term trend to begin with. Should they discover what caused the short term trend then it is easier to conclude if this will alter what has been the long term trend. ... You can take three consecutive years and look at a short term trend, but this should not be viewed as to what the long term trend will be. Science, Mike, and not your assumptions.

As you said, Hank and Harry are both rational. What they believe about global warming is based on science, not on ideology. So we can escape ideological views and discussions. If either is skeptical, they would want more information, and when they get it, they will not ignore it or accuse scientists of lying. When they hear that global warming stopped 16 years ago, they would actually check such a claim, and would only need to hear that the claim is nonsense once.

Where they would differ would be in their opinions of the solutions; Hank would believe that the government would need to get involved. Harry would not. If anything, in the absence of government taxes, regulations or subsidies, Harry would be the greener of the two. He would be the first to replace his tungsten filament bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs and to replace his compact fluorescent bulbs with LED lights. Harry would not wait for a government program to replace his gas guzzler with a hybrid, or perhaps even an electric car.

Being rational, neither would soil their pants every time the toilets back up at nuclear power plants. Both would like to have solar panels on their houses, but Hank would be the one to wait for a government grant to do so. Also being rational, neither would see the Keystone pipeline as being a setback in the fight against global warming. Though Hank would favor more conditions for the approval of the Keystone pipeline, like Harry, he would see the Keystone pipeline as an opportunity to reduce oil imports and not as an obstacle to clean energy. And being concerned about what wind power could do to bats and Golden Eagles, they would support location of wind turbines away from flight paths of these flying creatures.

From Mister Zedd's response, Mister Zedd is not Harry's real name.

There is no way to put people into divided categories like this.

I am a Conservative.

I believe to saving and restoring the environment. I find it very hard to believe that any person would support destroying the environment although the evidence supports otherwise.

The media likes to portray Harry's as greedy war mongering environment destroying crazy people.

I believe that is true for people on both sides and also not true for people on both sides.

I believe in limiting the influence of government into my everyday life is a good thing.

The free market is the best way the find new technologies nothing encourages investment like the possibility of profit although some of the greatest advances have been made thru government agencies.

United States' National Science Foundation invented the Internet in 1983.

I could probably spend the next month gong back and forth with this but I will say this and get off my soap box.

There is no absolutes in this world we should all try to do the best we can at whatever it is we do and hope that everyone else is doing the same.

If Hank thinks that capitalism is the root cause of many ills, what is Hanks solution to the problems of pollution and poverty? No doubt his solution is Marxism or one its various strains of statism, all of which cause even more pollution and poverty. That makes Hank an unreasonable ignoramus.