Now we know who pays our trolls

[ORH_wxman]

Any personal predictions?

(perhaps over on the ice extent thread)

No not yet...probably in April or May I'll make one. Once MYI data comes out and the LR outlook for summer is a little clearer but I will not claim to have any skill in this forecast.

[TerryM]

Hey I'm just putting it into perspective...I wasn't the one who claimed they would leave the board if the extent dropped below 5.0 mil sq km next year...Friv did. I'm a big proponent of natural variation...and arctic sea ice has seen that to an extreme. Not just recent years even if they were lower than any other year recently....we were starting from a high point.

I'll never be one to say we don't influence it, but to claim it as the bigger proof of AGW INHO is garbage....you'd have to prove that moves in sea ice extent were much less prior to satellite data which we really cannot.

Simply not true.

[ORH_wxman]

Simply not true.

How do you figure that? We just came out of the LIA. Ice has been melting in the arctic for years....countless recounts from the last century-plus.

[TerryM]

How do you figure that? We just came out of the LIA. Ice has been melting in the arctic for years....countless recounts from the last century-plus.

Frankly I fear you - A friend of mine no longer is capable of posting on this board and I have no wish to meet his fate.

Ask another to pose your question on an appropriate thread and i will respond.

[ORH_wxman]

Frankly I fear you - A friend of mine no longer is capable of posting on this board and I have no wish to meet his fate.

Ask another to pose your question on an appropriate thread and i will respond.

Will do...answer me in the Arctic sea ice thread.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't know how many of the current things we can attribute to coming out a cooler period.

This is quite the upward swing in changes.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't know how many of the current things we can attribute to coming out a cooler period.

This is quite the upward swing in changes.

A few questions:

1. What do you think of the significant flat to cooling trend between 1945 and 1975? And why did this occur while GHGs were increasing more rapidly than ever before?

2. What do you think of starting this time graph at the start of one of the coldest known periods in the last 2000 years? (it is accepted that the 1500-1850 period was the coldest several hundred year period in the last 2000 years).

3. Why was sea ice allegedly decreasing from the 1940s to the 1970s according to people like TerryM who told me that "he was scared of me" when I said we might be starting from a "high point" in sea measurements during satellite data?

[The_Global_Warmer]

A few questions:

1. What do you think of the significant flat to cooling trend between 1945 and 1975? And why did this occur while GHGs were increasing more rapidly than ever before?

2. What do you think of starting this time graph at the start of one of the coldest known periods in the last 2000 years? (it is accepted that the 1500-1850 period was the coldest several hundred year period in the last 2000 years).

3. Why was sea ice allegedly decreasing from the 1940s to the 1970s according to people like TerryM who told me that "he was scared of me" when I said we might be starting from a "high point" in sea measurements during satellite data?

1. Maybe Aresols and Nuclear Weapons. We also had a very strong AMO for a large part of that period.

GHG's were still doing things like adding OHC to the oceans at that time. We are far beyond that now. That would have to be dispelled to cool back, at that time the oceans haven't consumed as much heat either

The PDO was highly negative for this as well and at least C02 post 1976 has been going up at a much faster rate than the previous 30 years. 1976 Co2 was 330ppm, its 2012 and it's gonna push 397pm this year.

2. I don't think any of that is relavent to what is happening now. The Arctic is inversely going vs the AMO, PDO, ENSO, and solar. Something is changing rapidly to cause rapid changes. I don't know what else is going to come the next 10 yeasr and stop the atmosphere, water and land to keep warming.

3. We are starting from a high point going back to the 70s, which was a low point at that time based on all we know anytime in the last few centuries. I have no idea why he said that. I just can see forcings pushing the arctic opposite of the global cooling trend. In the past the arctic didn't have rapid solar insolation feedbacks or the ice albedo feedback allowing so much heat into the system that locally can overcome global factors it seems for years, maybe it will pass it right up. It's hard to say, but it's easy to watch happen.

[ORH_wxman]

1. Maybe Aresols and Nuclear Weapons. We also had a very strong AMO for a large part of that period.

GHG's were still doing things like adding OHC to the oceans at that time. We are far beyond that now. That would have to be dispelled to cool back, at that time the oceans haven't consumed as much heat either

The PDO was highly negative for this as well and at least C02 post 1976 has been going up at a much faster rate than the previous 30 years. 1976 Co2 was 330ppm, its 2012 and it's gonna push 397pm this year.

2. I don't think any of that is relavent to what is happening now. The Arctic is inversely going vs the AMO, PDO, ENSO, and solar. Something is changing rapidly to cause rapid changes. I don't know what else is going to come the next 10 yeasr and stop the atmosphere, water and land to keep warming.

3. We are starting from a high point going back to the 70s, which was a low point at that time based on all we know anytime in the last few centuries. I have no idea why he said that. I just can see forcings pushing the arctic opposite of the global cooling trend. In the past the arctic didn't have rapid solar insolation feedbacks or the ice albedo feedback allowing so much heat into the system that locally can overcome global factors it seems for years, maybe it will pass it right up. It's hard to say, but it's easy to watch happen.

1. Completely false....look at OHC charts: OHC actually fell during this time...why?

2. How is starting form the coldest period irrelevant? You never explained that...you just said it didn';t matter currently...yet you compare current conditions to years like before 1900? Why do you compare them to that period if it is irrelevant?

3. So you admit that we started from a high point in the 1970s on satellite ice measurements. That makes trends from then a bit dubious don't you think? Everything else you say is pure theory and you assume it will continue.

[The_Global_Warmer]

1. Completely false....look at OHC charts: OHC actually fell during this time...why?

2. How is starting form the coldest period irrelevant? You never explained that...you just said it didn';t matter currently...yet you compare current conditions to years like before 1900? Why do you compare them to that period if it is irrelevant?

3. So you admit that we started from a high point in the 1970s on satellite ice measurements. That makes trends from then a bit dubious don't you think? Everything else you say is pure theory and you assume it will continue.

1.

That is not much of a fall, that is stretching something that isn't really their. From the mid 60s OHC slightly dropped until the early 70s where it would rise, slow the rise but not fall, and then explode upwards, where it's sitting today.

The AMO plummeted at the same time. Enso was favorable. I don't really get what you want. OHC was hardly going down, it went down hardly nothing compared to it's explosion upwards.

The arctic temps and global temps seem to reflect the variations pretty well. That is until the continuoius of GHGs being dumped by the gigaton into the atmosphere which centers on the arctic builds up and up and up and we see two major albedos change course called ice and snow that help this locallized warming.

2. I don't care where you start, arctic temps are higher than they have ever been on any of these records we have and they are rapidly still going up, the in place feedbacks are still pumping out tons of heat. I am focused on that, not trying to think maybe a -PDO, ENSO, -AMO will change it. The heat trapping and heat invading from abledo changes is dominating the scene up there attm. What will intervene and change the course of these events? These Natural Variations can not seen to be overcoming what is taking place up there. SO lets start from the 1920s or 1930s up there and its still blowing by that now.

3. Actually the Sat recrod started in the early to mid 60s when sea ice extents were generally above 8.0 mil km2. Not the low 7.0s like the dual microwave sateitte ERA. I am sure we can reconstruct with all of the legit data out there the 1920s-1950s on here, probably come to the idea that the ice was never below 8.0 mil km2. So I do not agree.

[ORH_wxman]

1. The graph you posted shows a significant decrease in OHC in the 1960s and a general flat lining between the 1940s (not shown when OHC was higher as you will see from other graphs) and the 1970s...why does it show that despite increasing GHGs?

2. You just said you "Don't care where I start"...why not? You are comparing arctic temps to an era when they were colder...why don't you care where you start? Don't you want to compare them to historical averages? Do you only want to compare arctic temps to a period when they were obviously colder than the last 2,000 years?

3. Do you think arctic sea ice was at a max in the 1970s? Obviously you don't...Do you think it was greater in 1850? Do you think it was greater in 1640? What year do you think was the greatest arctic sea ice max in the last 1,000 years?

[bluewave]

I don't know how many of the current things we can attribute to coming out a cooler period.

This is quite the upward swing in changes.

I think that the weakness of the IPCC projections is that they don't do very well with how man's influence

on the climate interacts with the natural cycles and ocean heat. The more information that is incorporated

into the models, the better the climate change forecasts will become.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00070.1

[dabize]

I think that the weakness of the IPCC projections is that they don't do very well with how man's influence

on the climate interacts with the natural cycles and ocean heat. The more information that is incorporated

into the models, the better the climate change forecasts will become.

http://journals.amet...MS-D-11-00070.1

Completely agreed.

Moreover, it is tempting to assume that because IPCC (a proxy for "the models") vastly under predicted the recent volume loss of sea ice, we will lose all summer sea ice in the very near future, possibly as early as the summer of 2015 (remember that thread?).

For policymakers, such an assumption probably has merit - but as scientists, we should recognize that we are left with very little predictive skill, and should await events and observe them carefully.

[dabize]

I don't care where you start, arctic temps are higher than they have ever been on any of these records we have and they are rapidly still going up, the in place feedbacks are still pumping out tons of heat. I am focused on that, not trying to think maybe a -PDO, ENSO, -AMO will change it. The heat trapping and heat invading from abledo changes is dominating the scene up there attm. What will intervene and change the course of these events?

I think that this point epitomizes the problem we (and everyone else) are having with serious conversations about AGW.

Because of the intense politicization of AGW by wingnuts and Oil interests (hat tip to the actual topic of this thread), those of us who are worried about AGW effects are trying to wear 2 different hats when looking at these data. We feel we have to look at them not only purely as scientists passively observing a phenomenon, but also as informed citizens with a civic duty to oppose the systematic greed-driven distortion of public policy by quasi-criminal elements, since nobody else is doing it. We also want to protect our kids.

The atmosphere breeds distrust everywhere, since the insistence of "warmists" on dragging the larger context of inevitable AGW into every thread irritates those who want to act strictly as observers. However, some who pretend to be observers (not all) are actually "denier" trolls, and most of us "alarmists" (especially those of us who are professional scientists) are perfectly aware of the complexity of climatic phenomena.

This makes having a straight conversation about climatic phenomena (that are well understood on a large scale, but poorly understood in detail) about as easy as solving the Arab Israeli conflict.

[cheetah440]

I think that this point epitomizes the problem we (and everyone else) are having with serious conversations about AGW.

Because of the intense politicization of AGW by wingnuts and Oil interests (hat tip to the actual topic of this thread), those of us who are worried about AGW effects are trying to wear 2 different hats when looking at these data. We feel we have to look at them not only purely as scientists passively observing a phenomenon, but also as informed citizens with a civic duty to oppose the systematic greed-driven distortion of public policy by quasi-criminal elements, since nobody else is doing it. We also want to protect our kids.

The atmosphere breeds distrust everywhere, since the insistence of "warmists" on dragging the larger context of inevitable AGW into every thread irritates those who want to act strictly as observers. However, some who pretend to be observers (not all) are actually "denier" trolls, and most of us "alarmists" (especially those of us who are professional scientists) are perfectly aware of the complexity of climatic phenomena.

This makes having a straight conversation about climatic phenomena (that are well understood on a large scale, but poorly understood in detail) about as easy as solving the Arab Israeli conflict.

LOL. This is simply priceless.

[Tropopause_Fold]

I think that this point epitomizes the problem we (and everyone else) are having with serious conversations about AGW.

Because of the intense politicization of AGW by wingnuts and Oil interests (hat tip to the actual topic of this thread), those of us who are worried about AGW effects are trying to wear 2 different hats when looking at these data. We feel we have to look at them not only purely as scientists passively observing a phenomenon, but also as informed citizens with a civic duty to oppose the systematic greed-driven distortion of public policy by quasi-criminal elements, since nobody else is doing it. We also want to protect our kids.

The atmosphere breeds distrust everywhere, since the insistence of "warmists" on dragging the larger context of inevitable AGW into every thread irritates those who want to act strictly as observers. However, some who pretend to be observers (not all) are actually "denier" trolls, and most of us "alarmists" (especially those of us who are professional scientists) are perfectly aware of the complexity of climatic phenomena.

This makes having a straight conversation about climatic phenomena (that are well understood on a large scale, but poorly understood in detail) about as easy as solving the Arab Israeli conflict.

protect our kids? really? seriously?

here's what i do to protect my kids...and i bet it's not a whole lot different than what most folks do: i put up bumpers on my kitchen table so they don't whack their foreheads, i put child safety locks on the toilet so my 1-yr old doesn't reach his hand in there, i put annoying child safety locks on my kitchen cabinets so they can't get at the household cleaners, i lock my doors and windows so no one can break into my home, i put smoke/CO detectors in the house, i put gates on the stairs so they can't fall down them, i make sure they are properly vaccinated, i try to get them to eat healthy foods and get exercise, i teach them not to walk into the road and to avoid talking to strangers, i take them for well visits and get them meds when they are sick, i make sure they are safely strapped into their car seats, i pay my mortgage so they have a safe place to live, i put away money every week to save for college...just a short list of things i do to protect my kids...things i can control.

here's what i worry about...here's a few things that keep me up at night: i worry about things like cancer, i worry about child predators, house fires and car accidents. i worry about my kids choking, drowning or getting lost in the woods

here's what i don't care about...here's a couple of things that just don't worry me when discussing my childrens' well-being: i'm not too concerned about arctic ice melt or inches of sea level rise. i'm not worried about a longer growing season or about shrinking himalayan glaciers. i don't worry about animal migration patterns and i don't fret much about bear populations.

you think it's about "wingnuts and oil interests". it's not that at all - at least not for me. for me...it's that i just don't care. it doesn't matter enough. the amount of proverbial crap that could hit the fan in the next 50, 100, 1000 years is mind-boggling. and the reality is climate change is a drop in the bucket of concern.

[ORH_wxman]

I think that this point epitomizes the problem we (and everyone else) are having with serious conversations about AGW.

Because of the intense politicization of AGW by wingnuts and Oil interests (hat tip to the actual topic of this thread), those of us who are worried about AGW effects are trying to wear 2 different hats when looking at these data. We feel we have to look at them not only purely as scientists passively observing a phenomenon, but also as informed citizens with a civic duty to oppose the systematic greed-driven distortion of public policy by quasi-criminal elements, since nobody else is doing it. We also want to protect our kids.

The atmosphere breeds distrust everywhere, since the insistence of "warmists" on dragging the larger context of inevitable AGW into every thread irritates those who want to act strictly as observers. However, some who pretend to be observers (not all) are actually "denier" trolls, and most of us "alarmists" (especially those of us who are professional scientists) are perfectly aware of the complexity of climatic phenomena.

This makes having a straight conversation about climatic phenomena (that are well understood on a large scale, but poorly understood in detail) about as easy as solving the Arab Israeli conflict.

Its also a difference of opinion of complete guilt and "woe is me" versus actual stuff we can control....there is melting "in the pipeline" because of the warming that has happened since the LIA...many CAGW proponents try to pin that nearly 100% on our backs while many other people sit and ask how much of that was really out of our control anyway because warming was inevitible when you are coming out ofthe coldest couple hundred year period in the last couple thousand years.

See there is a difference between believing in GW and even AGW versus CAGW....this is why I posed those questions to friv last night on starting points. You can rant all you want about how the arctic sea ice has been less than we've seen it but when when you do not have a healthy long term record for gauging variability, then you are left with a lot of speculation which is what most of CAGW theory is based off of.

[TerryM]

LOL. This is simply priceless.

Are you denying that oil interests have been politicizing this issue?

W, as president, employed Frank Luntz to study peoples reaction to certain phrases, and to come up with ways to frame the Global Warming issue so that it would be more palatable. The name for doing something like that is propaganda.

That's pretty political.

Al Gore, the former vice-president, in response, presented a documentary film that expressed the viewpoint of mainstream science.

That's pretty political

What on earth could you find in the post that is laughable?

[TerryM]

protect our kids? really? seriously?

here's what i do to protect my kids...and i bet it's not a whole lot different than what most folks do: i put up bumpers on my kitchen table so they don't whack their foreheads, i put child safety locks on the toilet so my 1-yr old doesn't reach his hand in there, i put annoying child safety locks on my kitchen cabinets so they can't get at the household cleaners, i lock my doors and windows so no one can break into my home, i put smoke/CO detectors in the house, i put gates on the stairs so they can't fall down them, i make sure they are properly vaccinated, i try to get them to eat healthy foods and get exercise, i teach them not to walk into the road and to avoid talking to strangers, i take them for well visits and get them meds when they are sick, i make sure they are safely strapped into their car seats, i pay my mortgage so they have a safe place to live, i put away money every week to save for college...just a short list of things i do to protect my kids...things i can control.

here's what i worry about...here's a few things that keep me up at night: i worry about things like cancer, i worry about child predators, house fires and car accidents. i worry about my kids choking, drowning or getting lost in the woods

here's what i don't care about...here's a couple of things that just don't worry me when discussing my childrens' well-being: i'm not too concerned about arctic ice melt or inches of sea level rise. i'm not worried about a longer growing season or about shrinking himalayan glaciers. i don't worry about animal migration patterns and i don't fret much about bear populations.

you think it's about "wingnuts and oil interests". it's not that at all - at least not for me. for me...it's that i just don't care. it doesn't matter enough. the amount of proverbial crap that could hit the fan in the next 50, 100, 1000 years is mind-boggling. and the reality is climate change is a drop in the bucket of concern.

Ignorance can truly be blissful.

This is one of the responses that Luntz, the Heartland Institute and other paid shills were attempting to achieve. They have been earning their petro dollars.

[Tropopause_Fold]

Ignorance can truly be blissful.

This is one of the responses that Luntz, the Heartland Institute and other paid shills were attempting to achieve. They have been earning their petro dollars.

ignorant? nah, i'm perfectly well informed.

[TerryM]

ignorant? nah, i'm perfectly well informed.

Good for you.

Had your well informed self noted that this thread is about how Trolls are paid to spew anti-science?

I, even though I slip from time to time, would appreciate an attempt at staying on thread.

Your posting gave us a fine example of how effective the disinformation campaign has been.

Thanks

[Tropopause_Fold]

Good for you.

Had your well informed self noted that this thread is about how Trolls are paid to spew anti-science?

I, even though I slip from time to time, would appreciate an attempt at staying on thread.

Your posting gave us a fine example of how effective the disinformation campaign has been.

Thanks

well it's on-topic in the sense that my point of view has nothing to do with a "disinformation campaign"

for me, it's not oil-interests. it's not a political issue. and i'm not a "wingnut."

[Ginx snewx]

protect our kids? really? seriously?

here's what i do to protect my kids...and i bet it's not a whole lot different than what most folks do: i put up bumpers on my kitchen table so they don't whack their foreheads, i put child safety locks on the toilet so my 1-yr old doesn't reach his hand in there, i put annoying child safety locks on my kitchen cabinets so they can't get at the household cleaners, i lock my doors and windows so no one can break into my home, i put smoke/CO detectors in the house, i put gates on the stairs so they can't fall down them, i make sure they are properly vaccinated, i try to get them to eat healthy foods and get exercise, i teach them not to walk into the road and to avoid talking to strangers, i take them for well visits and get them meds when they are sick, i make sure they are safely strapped into their car seats, i pay my mortgage so they have a safe place to live, i put away money every week to save for college...just a short list of things i do to protect my kids...things i can control.

here's what i worry about...here's a few things that keep me up at night: i worry about things like cancer, i worry about child predators, house fires and car accidents. i worry about my kids choking, drowning or getting lost in the woods

here's what i don't care about...here's a couple of things that just don't worry me when discussing my childrens' well-being: i'm not too concerned about arctic ice melt or inches of sea level rise. i'm not worried about a longer growing season or about shrinking himalayan glaciers. i don't worry about animal migration patterns and i don't fret much about bear populations.

you think it's about "wingnuts and oil interests". it's not that at all - at least not for me. for me...it's that i just don't care. it doesn't matter enough. the amount of proverbial crap that could hit the fan in the next 50, 100, 1000 years is mind-boggling. and the reality is climate change is a drop in the bucket of concern.

Fantastic post can I borrow this?

[Tropopause_Fold]

Fantastic post can I borrow this?

sure.

[SVT450R]

protect our kids? really? seriously?

here's what i do to protect my kids...and i bet it's not a whole lot different than what most folks do: i put up bumpers on my kitchen table so they don't whack their foreheads, i put child safety locks on the toilet so my 1-yr old doesn't reach his hand in there, i put annoying child safety locks on my kitchen cabinets so they can't get at the household cleaners, i lock my doors and windows so no one can break into my home, i put smoke/CO detectors in the house, i put gates on the stairs so they can't fall down them, i make sure they are properly vaccinated, i try to get them to eat healthy foods and get exercise, i teach them not to walk into the road and to avoid talking to strangers, i take them for well visits and get them meds when they are sick, i make sure they are safely strapped into their car seats, i pay my mortgage so they have a safe place to live, i put away money every week to save for college...just a short list of things i do to protect my kids...things i can control.

here's what i worry about...here's a few things that keep me up at night: i worry about things like cancer, i worry about child predators, house fires and car accidents. i worry about my kids choking, drowning or getting lost in the woods

here's what i don't care about...here's a couple of things that just don't worry me when discussing my childrens' well-being: i'm not too concerned about arctic ice melt or inches of sea level rise. i'm not worried about a longer growing season or about shrinking himalayan glaciers. i don't worry about animal migration patterns and i don't fret much about bear populations.

you think it's about "wingnuts and oil interests". it's not that at all - at least not for me. for me...it's that i just don't care. it doesn't matter enough. the amount of proverbial crap that could hit the fan in the next 50, 100, 1000 years is mind-boggling. and the reality is climate change is a drop in the bucket of concern.

Very well said.

[Ginx snewx]

sure.

I was reading this thread yesterday and thought along the lines pretty much of what you just posted. Great post , really great.

[WeatherRusty]

LOL. This is simply priceless.

The study of climate change is a science. The denial machine is political. Nothing you say can change that.

[bobbutts]

Good for you.

Had your well informed self noted that this thread is about how Trolls are paid to spew anti-science?

I, even though I slip from time to time, would appreciate an attempt at staying on thread.

Your posting gave us a fine example of how effective the disinformation campaign has been.

Thanks

To paraphrase how I read it, he doesn't care because he has many prioritized concerns, and this one doesn't make the cut. You can't seem to accept that at face value, you can't force people to care, and their lack of caring isn't necessarily due to their ignorance. Your black and white views on things and the responses that follow seem far more derailing.

[dabize]

protect our kids? really? seriously?

here's what i do to protect my kids...and i bet it's not a whole lot different than what most folks do: i put up bumpers on my kitchen table so they don't whack their foreheads, i put child safety locks on the toilet so my 1-yr old doesn't reach his hand in there, i put annoying child safety locks on my kitchen cabinets so they can't get at the household cleaners, i lock my doors and windows so no one can break into my home, i put smoke/CO detectors in the house, i put gates on the stairs so they can't fall down them, i make sure they are properly vaccinated, i try to get them to eat healthy foods and get exercise, i teach them not to walk into the road and to avoid talking to strangers, i take them for well visits and get them meds when they are sick, i make sure they are safely strapped into their car seats, i pay my mortgage so they have a safe place to live, i put away money every week to save for college...just a short list of things i do to protect my kids...things i can control.

here's what i worry about...here's a few things that keep me up at night: i worry about things like cancer, i worry about child predators, house fires and car accidents. i worry about my kids choking, drowning or getting lost in the woods

here's what i don't care about...here's a couple of things that just don't worry me when discussing my childrens' well-being: i'm not too concerned about arctic ice melt or inches of sea level rise. i'm not worried about a longer growing season or about shrinking himalayan glaciers. i don't worry about animal migration patterns and i don't fret much about bear populations.

you think it's about "wingnuts and oil interests". it's not that at all - at least not for me. for me...it's that i just don't care. it doesn't matter enough. the amount of proverbial crap that could hit the fan in the next 50, 100, 1000 years is mind-boggling. and the reality is climate change is a drop in the bucket of concern.

I'll try to keep this civil - thats what I was trying to to with this post in the first place.

If you had read my post carefully, you'd have seen that I acknowledge the existence of legitimate differences of opinion on the details of the subject - its the collision of the scientific problems of AGW with a toxic political context that is generating all the heat.

The wingnuts and politcal interests are a subset, not the whole. I am not accusing you, ORHwxman or anyone else who is less alarmed than I about AGW of being or representing them, or (for that matter) of not caring about your kids. It would be nice if you could return the favor and acknowledge that reasonable people can construct a scenario out of what IS known that is alarming, even if this is not the way that you see it yourself.

What is really unfortunate about this is that whatever our political leanings, our minds tend to give more weight to emotional biases than is ideal when we attempt to analyze something logically. This is just a fact of life - it means that politicization of a subject tends to severely damage the quality of thought devoted to it by EVERYONE.

I became concerned about the possibility of AGW years ago - long before I had any knowledge of even a hint of political baggage attached to climate change, and while I was a Cold Warrior (hardly a classic leftie). It is the larger issue (the relentless increase in CO2) rather than the noise attending weather that bothers me. I like to think that I consequently do not suffer from large scale bias about this. The details are another matter - I'm not even competent to discuss them technically, and would probably biased about it if I was.

No doubt you have your own reasons for feeling the way you do. I don't agree with where they take you, but that's life.

[WeatherRusty]

protect our kids? really? seriously?

here's what i do to protect my kids...and i bet it's not a whole lot different than what most folks do: i put up bumpers on my kitchen table so they don't whack their foreheads, i put child safety locks on the toilet so my 1-yr old doesn't reach his hand in there, i put annoying child safety locks on my kitchen cabinets so they can't get at the household cleaners, i lock my doors and windows so no one can break into my home, i put smoke/CO detectors in the house, i put gates on the stairs so they can't fall down them, i make sure they are properly vaccinated, i try to get them to eat healthy foods and get exercise, i teach them not to walk into the road and to avoid talking to strangers, i take them for well visits and get them meds when they are sick, i make sure they are safely strapped into their car seats, i pay my mortgage so they have a safe place to live, i put away money every week to save for college...just a short list of things i do to protect my kids...things i can control.

here's what i worry about...here's a few things that keep me up at night: i worry about things like cancer, i worry about child predators, house fires and car accidents. i worry about my kids choking, drowning or getting lost in the woods

here's what i don't care about...here's a couple of things that just don't worry me when discussing my childrens' well-being: i'm not too concerned about arctic ice melt or inches of sea level rise. i'm not worried about a longer growing season or about shrinking himalayan glaciers. i don't worry about animal migration patterns and i don't fret much about bear populations.

you think it's about "wingnuts and oil interests". it's not that at all - at least not for me. for me...it's that i just don't care. it doesn't matter enough. the amount of proverbial crap that could hit the fan in the next 50, 100, 1000 years is mind-boggling. and the reality is climate change is a drop in the bucket of concern.

So you feel no sense of responsibility regarding the potential for depriving future generations of the kind of life you find so comfortable. In the face of growing scientific evidence you just don't give a s**t?