Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. The premise of the Oregon Petition is signed largely by dentists, surgeons, engineers and others who cannot actually support the conclusions the Oregon Petition puts forth. Thus, I ask you to tell me why the Oregon Petition felt compelled to seek out the signatures of non-experts and then imply that the petition was comprised of climate science experts. Please address that. I have provided you with a list of the signers, and in general, when you google their names, the expectation is that if they were experts, published papers on climate science would appear as results. But that does not occur. Furthermore, please address Frederick Seitz's involvement, given his history.

Learn about the Oregon Petition, the background of its signers, the deception as to the credentials of the signers, its connection with Frederick Seitz, it's masquerade through its look as a document published by a particular scientific organization, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition

There are plenty more dissections of the petition if you feel so inclined to question the sources of your skepticism.

Then clearly he should not be, if he chooses to affiliate himself with organizations such as the Heartland Institute. And that would be because the Heartland Institute promotes the Oregon Petition, is funded by Exxon Mobil, and puts out a publication entitled 'Environment and Climate News', when in fact its editor has zero credentials in those fields.

So, yes, I do know the source of your skepticism. It's in part the words of Richard Lindzen, as acknowledged by you just now, and apparently with you not realizing that he is an associate of the very firms and documents that I've been claiming are the source of your skepticism.

Did you know that the Heartland Institute likes to trot out the Oregon Petition as an important document which purportedly disputes climate change?

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

My above post about the Oregon Petition stands. You really do need to factor it in.

It is in fact quite funny. The Oregon Petition actually proves that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that climate change data is sound and solid.

Because if the science wasn't sound, then there would be an equal amount of credible scientific data arguing against climate change, and the dubious Oregon Petition either wouldn't have been necessary at all, or would've contained signatures of actual published climate change scientists with data against climate change instead of signatures of dentists, engineers, surgeons, etc.

You need to understand the source of your skepticism.

Let's assume that you might not be fully able to parse the science (which is probably true for most of us). An alternative and equally viable method to strengthen your view of climate science data is to look closely at the best arguments that big money can produce against climate change. And those arguments lack credibility when examined closer.

I'm strongly suggesting that you take a hard look at the Oregon Petition. Look at its methods and credibility. Question why it was created, given the means with which it was created.

Take a hard investigative look at Frederick Seitz, the Oregon Petition and the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. They are the prime sources for creating skepticism regarding climate science. Look hard at their methods, their credentials, their funding sources, and their motivations.

Their methods are deceptive. I've explained this.

Their credentials are typically self appointed economic theorists.

Their funding sources are always Big Oil.

Their motivations are zero regulations and property rights (libertarians).

The information is all there.

But he doesn't trust the IPCC, probably because of the email scandal, which in my opinion, was the result of a few scientists being frustrated by all the brownlash propaganda, and thus feeling a need to bolster data to fight the Big Oil propaganda.

Who's discouraging you? You have the IPCC and scientific journals - both of which have been suggested in the last ten minutes. That sounds like encouragement to me.

There is a publication - it is called 'Nature': http://www.nature.com/

There is another publication - it is called 'Science': http://www.sciencemag.org/

There is a third publication - it is called Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/

The first two are in fact not media. They are the mechanism of science, which is peer reviewed research. The third is not mainstream media, but rather scientific reporting by scientists for the layman. Those are my sources.

bitcoinbitcoin113,

You might want to investigate the source of skepticism regarding AGW, and the methods used to create such skepticism. Skepticism is good if it isn't tainted by deceptive practices and motivated and funded by Big Oil.

To begin, investigate Frederick Seitz, and learn about his role in both obfuscating the truth about cigarettes, and later, Global Warming. First he was hired by RJ Renynolds, and later, Exxon Mobil. He's a classic example of being bought by money. He was behind the dubious and worthless Oregon Petition. If you wish to learn about the credentials of the Oregon Petition signers, google their names. I can assure you that you will not find any associated credentials related to research regarding climate change with the signers' names.

You may not know it, but you are a victim of these deceitful tactics. These methods produce propaganda, which ultimately does find its way to your ears, through various channels, often by roundabout means, such by the time you hear it, it's a general buzz in the media which causes you and others to question solid science. It's sad.

After you've investigated Frederick Seitz, read this topic I created to learn more about the absurdly unqualified credentials and methods of those who are largely responsible for the general skepticism of climate change science:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.msg491021

Think hard about the following question: if climate change science is so unsound, then why is it not debated and defeated with solid scientific research and facts, instead of the likes of dubious think tanks funded by Big Oil, petitions signed by dentists, scientists who also coincidentally dispute the harm of tobacco smoke, and charlatans putting out rags (Environment & Climate News) purporting to be environmental experts when in fact their real claim to fame is law and being a defender of property rights?

I know all about punctuated equilibrium. It's irrelevant. The reason why it's irrelevant is because using it as a defense of your arguments is like saying the Chernobyl meltdown is fine because it forces adaptation.

But there's nothing fine about forcing adaptation when it simultaneously causes a near term apocalyptic scenario and is harmful to the current majority of residents of the planet, and is furthermore, unintentionally the result of a single species' activities.

An apocalyptic scenario is indeed beneficial to future surviving species far in the future after the planet regains its productive natural systems. But that doesn't mean it's desirable.

I am right about the biodiversity thing. You are free to wear blinders regarding it if you choose. But I don't know why you would choose to do so unless you think it might hinder your current views. Read some papers on wolves and riparian zones, or water quality programs in the state of New York, or agricultural studies of multi-plant crop productivity, or methods of pollination, etc., etc., etc.

I, and about 7 billion others would benefit if you and others like you would drop this viewpoint. Let's review adaptation:

The rapid rate of heating (100 years) is far too fast for adaptation to occur the way you think of adaptation. Species are being forced to migrate northward in the Northern Hemisphere at the rate of a couple of feet a day due to increased temperatures. As they migrate northward at such astonishing speeds, they run into barriers, such as suburbs, mountains, etc. As a result, they become extinct.

Such mass extinctions reduce the productivity of the biosphere. It has been shown time and again that increased biodiversity, from the microscopic organisms in the soil to wolves which allow riparian environments to flourish (due to herds not grazing near creeks and rivers when wolves are present because of limited escape routes), allow the landscape to be more productive. What does that mean? It means that more biodiversity allows for greater production of food, greater cleansing of the atmosphere, and greater recycling of the elements within the soil. It means a healthier Earth.

Adaptation, like you imagine it, is really massive unprecedented extinction due to a rapid rise in global temperature, and a massive reduction in the natural productivity of our planet.

If that's what you want, keep on tooting your horn like you are.

Your comment, by it's wording, would seem to acknowledge the inadequacy of bitcoin2cash's proposal, and the points I made against it.

It's possible. It's also not worth assuming it's possible.

Lawsuits won't solve these problems, but it must be convenient to tell everyone that it will so you can promote your ideology. Lawsuits aren't solving the problems now.

Bitcoin2cash's rather silly synopsis of how he thinks it all will work is tremendously naive, but that's the whole point a number of individuals around here have been trying to point out to him. He fails to point out that not everyone will sue, nor knows enough to make it work, and he also fails to point out that there is nothing in current society which is preventing said lawsuits, which obviously are not completely solving the problem. Nor does he acknowledge that other regions, territories, states, and whatever need not acknowledge said lawsuits.

If you analyze his proposed solution, you'll see that he in fact doesn't understand (perhaps willfully) the full nature of the problem, and uses his chosen ignorance and starry eyed love affair with libertarianism to try and hammer home the idea that it will all work. It's sad, really, because there are enough dumb people out there to fall for it.