This is the issue that DDJ and I always disagreed on. My argument was that we don't have enough data to know whether the models are statistically valid (in terms of prediction validity). His argument is that we didn't have time to wait due to the well-supported theory fo the relationship between CO2 and AGW.

Generally, if people want to believe that the model can predict what is going to be the "average state of affairs" in 2030, we want some proof that it works. How do the models look if only data from pre-1992 are used? Do they accurately capture the observed patterns we see today?

The latest exchange:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/apr/26/climate...

In the Climate Casino: An Exchange
Roger W. Cohen, William Happer, and Richard Lindzen, reply by William D. Nordhaus

Regarding Professor Nordhaus’s fifth point that there is no evidence that money is at issue, we simply note that funding for climate science has expanded by a factor of 15 since the early 1990s, and that most of this funding would disappear with the absence of alarm. Climate alarmism has expanded into a hundred-billion-dollar industry far broader than just research. Economists are usually sensitive to the incentive structure, so it is curious that the overwhelming incentives to promote climate alarm are not a consideration to Professor Nordhaus. There are no remotely comparable incentives to the contrary position provided by the industries that he claims would be harmed by the policies he advocates.

It's always about the money. Always, always, always, always. Gore is already filthy rich off of this and what sort of deranged science nerd with questionable morals wouldn't want to snatch a piece of that $100 billion-per-year pie?

What correct science doesn't come with good funding grants?

If funding bodies are giving money out to projects on global warming, then of course there are going to be more people entering that field. But funding bodies don't tend to be that free with the cash until something is reasonably backed up or someone can justify their research probably will lead to results.

...or there's a lot of power to be gained.

...or there's a lot of power to be gained.

It's always about the money. Always, always, always, always.

Gore is already filthy rich off of this and what sort of deranged science nerd with questionable morals wouldn't want to snatch a piece of that $100 billion-per-year pie?

There are no remotely comparable incentives to the contrary position provided by the industries that he claims would be harmed by the policies he advocates.

I think there are a few other possibilities.

This is the way I always look at it.

What happens if Global Warming deniers win and we do nothing and they end up right?

The cover of Pink Floyd's album Animals provides the answer to your question.

Which was my point. Even if they are right about global warming it does not change that the things they want to do kill the environment, keep us dependent on foreign oil, keep energy prices high etc etc. Even if Global Warming ends up being a crock(which I don't believe)it doesn't change the fact that 80% of the stuff scientists want us to do to prevent global warming should be done anyways.

Scaremongering about a beneficial gas that is necessary for life on this planet is not helpful.

Wow. You really don't understand what conservatives think on this issue at all. Throwing good money after bad is exactly what conservatives want to avoid with this issue. Scaremongering about a beneficial gas that is necessary for life on this planet is not helpful. No one wants to "kill the environment" or "keep us dependent on foreign oil." The ones trying to "keep energy prices high" are the people like Barack Obama who says that prices will "necessarily skyrocket" or his Energy Secretary Steven Chu who wants us to have gas prices as high as Europe. The greenist movement has brought us the boondoggle that is ethanol. We've pissed money away on failed companies like Solyndra. We can't buy affordable lightbulbs anymore. All of these are sacrifices on the altar of global warming which have done us no tangible good.

Throwing good money after bad is exactly what conservatives want to avoid with this issue. Scaremongering about a beneficial gas that is necessary for life on this planet is not helpful.

There is so much POLLUTION from our dependency on oil and coal that freshwater fish in this country in ALL tested streams and rivers have dangerous-to-humans levels of mercury:

"If you have a family member that's out there fishing in a stream, beware"

Doing something about these currently...TODAY (not some hypothetical future)...dangerous-to-humans pollution levels would be 'throwing good money after bad' to you?

No, the problem is that I understand too well what conservatives feel about this issue. People like yourself are happy to not just twist logic, but be so far gone that you do not even recognize you are twisting logic anymore. That you can take something like Stephen Chus comments and take it to mean they WANT oil prices to spike and are attempting to make it a reality says it all. You are not a reasonable enough person to recognize comments like that are basically just saying that the average American will not care about things like green energy until they are FORCED to care about it. This is how America works, we dont care about infrastructure till bridges fall and we dont care about toxic rivers till they catch on fire. And even when stuff like that happens the second its not in the media or actively happening, we stop caring.

This is why above I was not talking about convincing people like you or most conservatives. Your minds are made up and 100% of scientists in agreement would not change your mind. Government will always spend too much, the environment will be fine till a river can be set on fire and climate change will be false until you yourself are seeing temperatures that are unlivable. There is no hope for you. The moderates though, the average American...maybe instead of having European style gas prices to convince them we need alternative energies, we could actually give them some scientific arguments other then Florida will be under water and the temperature will be unlivable. Point out things that are happening NOW and more importantly point out that things like getting off foreign oil is smart regardless of global warming. YOU cant be convinced, but many can.

O and you gave the perfect example of this. Only a small twinge minority like yourself are griping about things like light-bulbs or see it as uneconomical. The rest of the nation took it in stride and were smart enough to recognize that spending $3 on a light-bulb that lasts 10 years is more economical and intelligent thing to do then spend $0.50 on one once or more a year. We won that war with math, science and common sense. Yes we did not win over people like yourself, but again your party leaders are rabble rabble rabbling, so you must continue to do so till they tell you to stop

There is so much POLLUTION from our dependency on oil and coal that freshwater fish in this country in ALL tested streams and rivers have dangerous-to-humans levels of mercury:

"If you have a family member that's out there fishing in a stream, beware"

Doing something about these currently...TODAY (not some hypothetical future)...dangerous-to-humans pollution levels would be 'throwing good money after bad' to you?

Nope, you really don't get conservatives at all. I'll not try to not you off your high horse though. Have a nice day.

Wow. You had me worried until I actually read the article you linked to. Nice cherry picking.

What 'cherry picking'? They tested 300 streams and rivers throughout the country, and ALL showed significant mercury pollution levels in the fish?

EDIT: unless you are complaining about the difference between freshwater fish, which would be effected by air pollution within our country - and ocean fish, which wouldn't be. I mean, OBVIOUSLY the ocean fish will have less than the freshwater fish if the problem is *here*, but that's some kind of 'cherry picking' to you?