@Rupester
"The level of blatant ignorance, people who can't / won't think for themselves, or even try to understand basic science."
I agree, Rupester. Before the enlightenment, social policy was set by authority from interpretations of the word of God. Then rationality and deduction came along, and we demanded that theories require evidence before use them as the justification for policy.
"Lets start with the simple facts: CO2 absorbs infra-red. More CO2 => more heat aborbed and the temperature goes up. CO2 levels have gone up 50% and are accelerating, so heat will go up more."
The facts pertain to a hypothesis, which is an interesting one. But there is no indication that that recent rapid rises in CO2 have *caused* the predicted effects: the CO2 and temperatures are out of phase. Your challenge is to demonstrate proof that human agency has significant effects on climate that cannot be explained by variance in natural phenomena. (The key here is significant). Correlation does not equal causation, however, and unless your hypothesis can find this evidence to support it, then it's as useful or worthless as any other hypothesis.
For example, I challenge you to disprove *my* hypothesis that the cosmos is turtles all the way down. Can you prove me wrong? But then it's incumbent on the person advancing the hypothesis to provide compelling evidence. Anecdotes ("I think I saw a turtle…" will not do. Nor will computer models that produce turtle shapes.
Without this evidence, you're navigating entirely using Belief.
"I do not have a scientific model to prove my house will burn down this year but I still pay buildings insurance"
Well, this shows you haven't been entirely convinced by anecdotal evidence or computer models - or perhaps you've taken a close look at the IPCC's summary of scientific understanding and discovered that scientific knowledge of natural forcing factors is officially classed as "LOW". In other words, much more research needs to be done.
But in saying "maybe, maybe not, don't matter" then trying to justify that position, you're getting confused. Taking out insurance is a rational response to a quantifiable risk.
The rational response here is a) find out whether there is a problem b) whether we need to do anything about it and c) dependant on a) and b, then weigh the costs and benefits of both mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Agreed? You've simply flown from a) to c) using Belief as your guide, to gloss over the missing logic. Presumably because you find the End-Times myth making compelling.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
