Shared publicly  - 
US debate about the C(-limate) word mean missing out on new technologies where Europe and China are innovating in alternatives to oil
+Murray J Brown shared this with the following excerpt from the article, which is worth the read:

Republican Meteorologist to Mitt Romney: My Top Ten Reasons for Republicans to Accept Reality on the Climate »

As a Republican business owner, entrepreneur, meteorologist and father of two upbeat, optimistic boys, I may not fit the stereotype of a "global warming alarmist." … I'm disillusioned, because some in my party are pro-science-denial, and on the wrong side of history. The word "conservative" no longer applies to the environment. The GOP's new energy platform shows this, in a stunning departure from 2008. … America has been blessed with a rich supply of natural resources and innovative technologies to wean ourselves off foreign crude. But our fossil fuel frenzy is impacting the weather floating above our heads. Denying that it's raining doesn't keep you from getting wet, and climate change has gone from theory to reality - while our side fiddles away like Nero.
This is what happens when one industry comes to rule a country.

According to the World Economic Forum, America's global competitiveness fell from 1st to 7th place since 2007. Should we just accept that most breakthrough energy technologies are originating in China and Europe, where there is no more "debate" about climate trends? Why is America still questioning the science? For political entertainment?
Azzedine Bouleghlimat's profile photoPaul Duggan's profile photoJoseph Parker PMP's profile photoMax Huijgen's profile photo
Any time I hear someone say "But it's just a theory!" I know that someone really doesn't understand what "theory" or "science" mean.
Here we go again.  I would take the climate science seriously if it wasn't so political and the contradictions we taken seriously instead of calling people who disagree, including scientist, deniers.  The human cause global warming supporters currently look like religious fanatics to me. Thats a big part of the problem because there are a lot of people like me. 
But +Joe Parker why would people keep arguing like it´s religion if  it keeps the US out of an important new industry?
Well +Alizée Rait there is an economic war on solar panes going on between China and Europe.
+Max Huijgen I haven't the slightest but it still happens.  Don't get me wrong, I am for efficiency and innovation but I want it done through the introduction of control mechanisms and I want all data examined.  I prefer not to be called a denier because I question, I want answers. When ever I try to have a civil discussion about climate issues I get the religious speech.  To me that isnt an answer its diversion. If we are serious about alternative energies we need to take a look at our current resources as a bridge to achieving those goals not telling everyone that they are going to help set the "sky on fire" or "kill polar bears" if they drive their SUV.  Thats like saying, if I am not good and do what you say I will go to Hell and Burn for eternity. Moreover, as a part of my MBA I studied solar power as a resouce and economically, I don't care who is producing it, it isnt ready as a replacement for oil.  It is best used to supplement if its priced so ordinary people can purchase it. Dont get me wrong again, I want to get off of oil, but I want to do it right and not be coerced by some left-wing climate religious fanatic.

Forgive my apparent attitude. I have tried to work with certain scientist and activist, to only be frustrated by them.
+Joe Parker I should mention that my enormous SUV gets about 300 MPDPB (Miles Per Dead Polar Bear). ;-)

Finding a dead polar bear station is kind of a pain however.
+Max Huijgen You are the future of the Republican party. I don't think it will get vary far without science. 
And why would Europe and China be capable of developing new technology if there was no science +Steven Mandzik 
What I argue is that even if you don´t believe (very silly word, but alas) in global warming there still is that market.
Strangely, I don't think energy has anything to do with global warming. Fukujima was a disaster. Living next to a dirty plant sucks. You don't need the world heating up to dislike either. 
No +Paul Duggan I said specifically that they don't like me because I question the science with respect to science that is in opposition. If the science is as definitive as we are told then I should be able to have a civil conversation with someone that believes it and share perspective and ideas. Instead I am given a sermon on how bad humans are and how I should be damned because I dare question their climate religion. 
+Joe Parker It's when the science is definitive that the sermons begin.  If the science was iffy they'd discuss it.
+Paul Duggan part of the problem is that the science isn't definitive. We are being forced to believe it is and when that's challenged we are heretics. What ever happened to question everything. Don't get me wrong, I want energy innovation and realize that fossil fuel must be minimized as an energy resource. Now if we agree on that issue I am still attacked because I still question the science. Not because it's wrong but because there is credible science in opposition. Understand what I am saying. It's not enough to agree on the need for new power sources for our society, but we must also agree on the reason. Moreover, we must agree to submit ourselves to absolutely absurd forms of control in the name of the climate religion that has proven to be more damaging, like carbon credits and personal carbon cards. If it hadn't become so political perhaps the differences would be minimal and compromise would be the goal. Instead we are told to lower our standard of living, send more resources to a central command and control system, shut up and accept the reasons and don't question, and don't have an opinion. Then we are told we are the problem and lied to about current alternative efficiencies and what other countries are fictitiously innovating. I am usually very patient and accept all points of view in an effort to learn about others. I can't learn anything from people that are closed minded and assume their conscience believe is superior. 
97 - 98% of published scientific expert in the field argue that it is definative, but you know better?
+Paul Duggan I respect your belief in the science and I believe in the possibility of the science and of course I don't know better. However, I am not a fool. I do know that it is impossible to state that 97-98% of credible scientist find the current models definitive. Suffice it to say, I believe in the idea of alternative fuels but I don't want the current methods of control nor do I want the manipulation. That tells me something is wrong. There is a saying "the first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie". 
Don't twist my words I stated "published". And I don't have to prove it, William Anderegg, James Prall. Jacob Harold & Stephen Schneider did in their research paper "Expert credibility in climate change." Thousands of climate scientists most of who make no money from alternate energy sources are lying idlists trying to manipulate who to do what? There's a lot more money to be made, short term, manipulating people who trust their hunches not the science to remain skeptical.
What is the weight of Presidential powers, in a free market economy ?
Looking at "Environmen"t from a UK perspective, I recall that in the UK in Victorian times, the Environment was often the Victim of the economy !
What is the sense of holding onto a a belief (as thats what I call it) because a few percent of scientists are critical. 
if you were to do this with everything we would lose all science as a basis for decision making.
 In the UK, the Universities, are under increasing pressur,e to become more commercial, and as is often said, whoever pays the piper, calls the tune !.  As such the opinions may be commercially slanted ?.
And you know no "published" experts that call the research into question? I don't care if anyone believes the science, like I said it may be real. My problem isn't as much the science as the theology created by it and the use of it to create control mechanisms.
+Joe Parker No one denies that there are papers that cast doubt on the theory, the problem +Paul Duggan has (I think) is that you keep bringing them up without any specific examples. Scientists may well rebuff or ridicule you if you just stand in front of them and shout that their consensus is wrong, but if you provide evidence to back up your claim then they some will listen. And they will go, and repeat and expand your observations and spread the word (or find you are wrong). This is how paradigm shifts happen in science.

The problem in the global warming debate is that the paradigm shift already happened decades ago, and the sceptics are trying to make it go in reverse. But this is hard, because they are not providing a new theory with evidence to back it up, but are arguing that all of the evidence that convinced practically the whole scientific community is wrong somehow.

How many places really doubt the existence of climate change? It baffles me, since as long as I can remember it seemed to be an accepted fact in Britain. The arguement was always over what, or whether we even should, do about it.
+Azzedine Bouleghlimat my personal skepticism is irrelevant. I have been listening to various forms of the global warming concept since I was a kid in the early 70's. To me, human caused global warming does not make since but since I am not an expert, my opinion is not credible. What is credible, as i have stated, is the absurd policies that are developing because of human caused warming. The difference is how we do it. The left-extreme who worship human caused warming ideology isn't concerned about controlled reduction, they want to FORCE their ideas on how we should live and work on all of us. Look at the debate in the San Francisco Bay area., city politicians want to force the use of vehicle tracking devices on personal vehicles to charge the driver by the mile. We are constantly be manipulated by reports on how great other countries have pushed past us on solar and wind. As an engineer, i know thats false, since i am interested in supplementing my power use, i study the technology and its still inefficient. In fact the only panels that come close is a hybrid panel system originally developed in Japan.

I hate the argument and manipulation. The science may ultimately be correct but its political connection calls it into question.

Keep in mind, I want to explore and use alternate resources, but I cant agree that we need to be controlled by those that consider their connection to this debate as consciously superior. Moreover, the advances we have made have been overshadowed by this debate. Car efficiency has greatly improved, consumer electronics have become greatly more efficient and helps make individuals more efficient. admittedly this was stimulated by the science related to global warming.
+Joe Parker Never said that either.  The analysis of papers published on this topic show that 97 - 98% of scientist publishing peer reviewed papers on this topic say climate change is real and is happening.  This I made clear.  This means that there are a small number of papers that dispute that claim.  As there should be.  Science isn't perfect and it's best when there are people questioning it.  However, there is a clear scientific consensus right now and we should act on it, not hope that the small number turn out to be right.  The policy debate should no longer be "is there a scientific consensus" but "what is the best thing to do about it".  There are some good ideas and some dumb ideas, but the policy debate is derailed but the "it's not happening" people. 
+Paul Duggan you have made credible points and I appreciate the discussion. It is more than i have had in some time on this subject. Suffice it to say, i agree that something should be done. From my point of view not necessarily to mitigate the risk of human caused global warming but because humans should always be looking to improve through innovation and efficiency. This can only be done if people are given good choices that help improve their quality of life. In the end, we may disagree on global warming, but does it matter if we look to the same improvements on human interaction with our environment. Does it matter that we disagree when we both believe in the need to one day "feasibly" replace fossil resources? I am only concerned about responsible transition through the preservation of choice.
I hate the term "human caused global warming".  If it's real it doesn't matter if it's natural or human caused.  Last time we had a cyclone warning here nobody asked if it was natural or human caused before making preparations for it.
If the debate excluded the human component there would be no debate. I automatically assumed that human activity was the primary focus of climate science research. 
No, the results of climate change is the primary reason for research.  If it will be a disaster movie in 10 years, or take 1,000 for any significant change.  That's important.  Human activity just tells us the source.  If they discovered that underground caves were releasing CO2 and there was no human impact, they'll still want to know what danger we are in.
Ok now I am confused. according to science daily, national wildlife federation, national geographic, Al Gore, and just about every report I have read on the subject, humans are the cause of global warming. Now correct me, are you saying you disagree?
No, I'm saying that the cause is less important than the solution.  So people have been muddying the waters by saying that there's no proof that humans are the cause.  Who cares what the cause is?  Let's fix the problem.
+Ben Thomas That can be true... but it isn't always true.  For example, for a long time governments have been paying for studies and wanting them to say there was no climate change, but the studies still came out saying the opposite to what they were being paid to say.  So, at least some of these studies haven't been contaminated by who paid for it.
If the cause is out of our control, how can we fix it? By your own example, if there is a natural CO2 pocket somewhere that may have a negative affect on the climate, how should we fix it, it's a natural occurrence. 
There are ways.  Planting trees is an obvious one.  Reducing human production would be helpful in slowing it, not stopping it.
Just because something is natural, doesn't mean we can't do something about it.
The question is, if its natural should we or can we do something about it? 
If it's natural or man-caused the question is "can we do something about it?"
If it's natural or man-caused we should do something about it - no question.
Add a comment...