Where should one look (climate)

[_Droopy]

You have perhaps 18 months, maybe two years, before the entire vacuous, ideology driven rent-seeking fraud collapses.

At least, you'd better hope that's the case, because the real danger, and catastrophic danger at that, is not and never could be anthropogenic global warming, but the proposed solutions to it.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[_Tarski]

You have perhaps 18 months, maybe two years, before the entire vacuous, ideology driven rent-seeking fraud collapses.

At least, you'd better hope that's the case, because the real danger, and catastrophic danger at that, is not and never could be anthropogenic global warming, but the proposed solutions to it.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Didn't you claim it already collapsed? Over, caput.

Anyway, see you back here in 18 months.

In 18 months, more evidence will have been published and measured, the consensus among climate scientists will increase from 95% to 99% (or whatever--it will increase). Of course, given the misinformation campaign coming from the right, I am not optimistic about public opinion. Just look at creationism in America.
And, if evidence swings the other way, I will follow it and change my mind without the slightest embarrassment. I follow the thrust of evidence as it stands and adjust if and when it changes...but not before. If it turns out that the earth is flat after all, so be it. But I won't take any "I told you so" from a flat earther because as of now, they haven't got evidence on their side and they would still have been idiots. Same with the GW deniers. If they are somehow right, it will have only been dumb luck.
Of course, I fully expect the evidence for AGW to hold up...ditto for the shape of the earth.

By the way, as long as we are making predictions, I will predict that in 2 years time a majority of Americans and a large plurality of republicans will be supportive of same sex marriage. Of course, even when public opinion aligns with the ethical, the moral and the rational, it is seldom because of morality and reason. Most people just aren't that thoughtful or rational and the politicians will act according to expediency.
Just look how attitudes (or at least the rhetorical tone) in the GOP changed toward immigration almost overnight. LOL

By the way, you need to get your peeps in shape because I keep hearing conservative pundits arguing about whether GW is real and not just AGW. You guys need to get on the same page on that one.

[_Res Ipsa]

I've been hearing about the final death knell of AGW for more than a decade. It's like the second coming being just around the corner.....

[_MeDotOrg]

The problem is that the implications go far beyond science.

What if mankind is significantly contributing to global warming with carbon emissions?

It is a global problem. It cannot be solved by one country alone. It will take global cooperation.

It is a problem that flies in the face of free-market capitalism. Corporate earnings reports do not give bonus points for implementing technologies that will benefit us in the future. If operating costs are lowered by using coal or oil TODAY, then that is what 'the market decides'.

Implicit in the idea that mankind may be contributing to global warming is the concept of limits. There is a finite amount of air, earth and water. As mankind's numbers increase, each person's individual contribution to pollution will become more significant. Implicit in accepting this is the idea of interdependence

To put it bluntly, these concepts would not find a good home in an Ayn Rand Novel. The very idea of mankind contributing significantly to Global Climate Change is an anathema to many people not just because of the science, but the implications that science makes about our future behavior.