The scientific consensus on eugenics was not *incorrect*, as the utility of genetic testing demonstrates. Eugenics was the only way, before the development of certain vaccinations, to prevent certain diseases from spreading.

People have been fed misinformation as to what eugenics is. They think it has something to do with race, it does not.

The people who are "not buying it" need to come up with actual reasons for not buying it other than simply working backwards from the conclusions they like because those conclusions give them warm fuzzies.

"Someone just needs to add national energy security to the climate change evidence, and that would snag majority support."

I don't know what you're talking about here, as that's the sum total of what any "energy policy" being proferred by the executive departments of Washington typically entails.

"It's annoying."

What's annoying is having to constantly appeal to the lowest common denominator because everybody thinks they're equally qualified to be experts on everything.

I'm with you Tendmote, I think.
I don't think any right minded person disagrees with the drive to fuel efficiency, solar power, recycling etc... but there's a lot of people who distrust the use of "climate-change/global warming" to drive it.

Draugnar says: "No, my position is that humans have an impact but there is a debate about how much. How can you have a college degree and not be able to read? "

Draug we're going around in circles here. Please try to focus on the discussion at hand.

You said it yourself: "how much of an impact". I am hoping now that we are on track to have a discussion.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your position is this:

1. "Climate changes over millions of years, but the world is not currently warming"
2. Humans do not have that much of an impact on climate.

I am genuinely interested to know what you think and why. How did you arrive at these beliefs?

What facts will present and how do these link together to support the points you are making? (Specifically the two points above).

2. is incorrect. Plain and simple, I repeat, I have made no such stand as to how much is an aspect of man on the planet and how much is cyclical. Point in fact, I don't have a clue how much is manmade and how much occurs as a result of earth's tendency to cycle itself as part of a "refreshing". I do believe we should reduce our pollutant levels of all sorts and care for the planet if just for the species we kill of today and the fact that the system we love in is so complex we can't possibly know what eliminating even one species will do to the cycle.

"2. is incorrect. Plain and simple"

You are contradicting yourself. Contrast the above statement with the statement below.

"I repeat, I have made no such stand as to how much is an aspect of man on the planet and how much is cyclical."

In the first statement you *are* categorically taking a "stand as to how much is an aspect of man". Your unambiguous answer is "not much of an effect".

Which is it Draug?

On what basis do you claim that the earth is not currently warming? And the effects of humanity on climate are exaggerated?

No, my answer was "how much is up for debate". That is not an unambiguous statement to anyone except an illiterate dolt. So which is it, are you illiterate like obi or are you just trying to twist my words like Putin loves to do.

You said:

"Please try again. I said *nothing* about climate change (in fact, I believe climate change is occurring just not at the radical swings the extreme alarmist are stating and not as directly attributable to man as they would like us to believe."

You said not as much as they would like us to believe. They being the climate science community, the entirety of which you accuse of bias and dishonesty.

On what basis do you claim the entire field is providing inaccurate information? Where are you getting your information from? Why do you refuse to answer this question?

Okay I see now that I misunderstood you were denying my wording of point 2.

"Man is having *an* effect. How much? That is up for debate."

So you don't have an opinion on the matter then?

So your position is just point 2 then. That the world is not warming.

This is easily shown to be false. Look at graph of global temperatures over the past 150 years - the overall trend is clearly upward.

To add to that... and this is the clincher. We have no way of explaining the increase in temperature other than the increase in greenhouse emissions. And the rise in temperate almost exactly correlates with the temperature increase. And the increase in emissions can be show to be mostly human-made.

There are various points there theory could be proven wrong. Here are a few hypothetical examples:
1. The temperature increase over the past 150 years could shown not to have occurred
2. Measurements could show that greenhouse gases emissions had not increased
3. Another factor could be discovered - for example conceivably it could have been discovered that the sun was emitting more radiation.
4. Or it could have been shown that yes the world was getting warmer, and yes the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere had increases - but the primary reason for this was natural - volcanoes for example, and not humans.

But there is no evidence for any of the above. So all we are left with is the theory that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible. This is the best explanation we have. It is conceivable (but unlikely) that another explanation could be discovered. But the appropriate time to abandon the current theory would be if an when such an alternate theory could be discovered and shown to be more likely.

Btw we know that while that the overall trend has been upward, that there have been country cycles, such as post WW2. But we understand why this occurred and we have evidence for why this occurred. And this is precisely what the deniers lack. Evidence.

typo two posts up... my comment to Draug should read:

So your position is just point *1 then. That the world is not warming.

^bouncing off Putin's earlier post - I think this graph displays the issue succinctly.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

Climate Change & Global Warming - are they the same issue or are they different. Should they even be compounded into the same sentence? I think that labels of the issue have a strong effect on the stance that individuals take on the issue, ie. are we discussing Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"Climate Change & Global Warming - are they the same issue or are they different."

For all intents and purposes they are the same issue. Climate Change is the consequence of a warmer planet. They don't have exactly the same definition, but the differences in their meaning have practically no consequence for debate you might see in a forum like this one.

Choose which ever wording of the topic your prefer:

Are human greenhouse emissions causing the Earth's climate to change?

Are human activities responsible for the global warming we have seen over the past 150 years, and are human activities likely to lead to further global warming.

It is conceivable that a consequence of the Earth's retaining more of the Sun's energy (that is, the Earth's energy balance is changing) could mean a colder surface temperatures for a period (as occurred during the Younger Dryas around 12,000 years ago), but the long term consequence of more greenhouse gases is undeniably a warmer planet than we would have otherwise. The complexity of the issue might be why the term Climate Change is often preferred. Another difference is that Climate doesn't just refer to temperature about a host of other weather conditions, such as average rainfall.

One thing to absolutely clear on: this topic is NOT about whether or not the Earth's temperature has changed dramatically before. Climate Change scientists are well aware of this fact. So when deniers jump on this fact as evidence that AGW is false, they make fools of themselves. It is ridiculous when deniers point this out as if no one has ever thought of this before.

Agreed. Brian Fagan in his book 'The Great Warming' provides an easily accessible narrative in this regards. I raised the question to provide some sort of definition of the difference (if any) between GW & CC. As there seems to be some here who will argue that there is a semantic difference between the two.

I really hate words like anthropogenic. They take a really straightforward and easy to understand concept and make it look like inaccessible high science crap. The debate would benefit greatly from abolishing such terms.

Lets follow Einstein's example and keep things simple. Have sea levels been rising? Yes. Have global temperatures been rising? Yes. Is there good reason to believe this will continue? Yes. Have they risen in line with the worst predictions, has humanity shown any signs it will reduce emissions enough to make a blind bit of difference, and even if it did would it stop the problem? No, no and no.

So it is really very simple. Climate change is happening, and we need to learn how to better adapt ourselves or find a way of engineering the climate to where we want it.

Things almost never go in line with worst case scenarios. That's why they're worst case scenarios - they're the path that could happen in extreme circumstances but are seriously unlikely two. Hence arguments against climate change as a whole that rely on the fact that the worst case scenarios haven't happened are fallacious at their very core.

It's really very simple. The do-nothing despondency and appeal to the laziness of human nature as offered by Octavious should be summarily rejected as completely untenable.

"hey take a really straightforward and easy to understand concept and make it look like inaccessible high science crap."

My god what is up with the demand for mollycoddling and the rank anti-intellectualism of the right? Should we abolish the term anthropology too? No Greek derived words, they're too complicated.

@ Putin

Absolutely, why use well-known English words when a Greek derived word that most of the population don't understand will suffice? Also, how the hell do you read adapt or engineer a solution as 'do nothing'?

I ask you this, Putin. Do you have a way of taking the carbon in the atmosphere back out? Do you have a realistic plan to reduce emissions enough to make a difference? Because I have not seen one from anyone.

you haven't seen plans to reduce emissions? then you aren't looking.

@Putin33 I'm with Octavious on this, ideas should be expressed as clearly as possible, and using a word like "anthropogenic" can reduce comprehension (unless the author/speaker introduces the word and explains what it means as well.)

As far as being "anti-intellectual", complicated (or complicated-seeming) wording can be an indication of lack of actual intellectual rigor, rather than "erudition", which Sokal sent up with his brilliant hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_hoax

What 'well-known' English substitute could replace anthropogenic that wouldn't lead to the usual hairsplitting nonsense that we get when we use global warming? Human activity induced? No matter what it is labeled, the complainers and science bashers will always complain and use it as a cheap excuse for the prevailing ignorance.

"Also, how the hell do you read adapt or engineer a solution as 'do nothing'?"

Because it involves no sacrifice of lifestyle whatsoever and is effectively giving up on doing anything to rectify the problem. And honestly, you insist on a 'realistic' solution and you propose to 'engineer' the entire bloody climate?

"Because I have not seen one from anyone."

Because you're making rigid assumptions of human "shit-birdism" that render any kind of solution impossible which involves sacrifice or reduction of consumption.

"Do you have a way of taking the carbon in the atmosphere back out?"

Fake trees.

"Do you have a realistic plan to reduce emissions enough to make a difference?"

Halt car production. Implement commuter taxes. Shut down all coal power plants. Ban electricity-guzzling devices. Abolish meat production. Take advantage of the opportunity to de-industrialize that the blight of 'free trade' has provided us.

More feasible than "engineering the climate" or surrender to climate change, which is your solution(s).

@Putin33

"Halt car production. Implement commuter taxes. Shut down all coal power plants. Ban electricity-guzzling devices. Abolish meat production. Take advantage of the opportunity to de-industrialize that the blight of 'free trade' has provided us. "

Good Christ, man, why so all-or-nothing in this proposal? How about reduce car production, raise efficiency requirements, raise electricity prices? Are you just looking for reasons to make the revolution that re-creates the world according to your "ideal"?

Incremental, reversible changes, adjusted according to feedback from results, may provides controllable improvements. Full-on de-industrialization is nuts.

Didn't they attempt de-industrialization in Cambodia back in the 1970s?

"As far as being "anti-intellectual", complicated (or complicated-seeming) wording can be an indication of lack of actual intellectual rigor, rather than "erudition""

Using the word anthropogenic is not in the same universe as Sokol's faux jargon. Talk about fallacious and hyperbolic comparisons.

The population is getting dumber and has a shorter attention span and you're pandering to it with your low expectations.

@ kasimax

Not one that would both make a significant difference and has a cat in hell's chance of being adopted, no. I worked for SWEEG (the South West Energy and Environment Group) for some time and one thing became perfectly clear. There is enough carbon in the atmosphere now to keep global warming going for the foreseeable future, and despite our best efforts it continues to be increased at record rates. Not even the most ambitious plans to reduce emissions will have much of an impact, and there's not a hope of getting the world to agree to them even if they would. That is the reality of the situation.

"Good Christ, man, why so all-or-nothing in this proposal?"

People cannot simultaneously whine that no action will create any difference while objecting to any kind of notable sacrifice in consumption. You cannot have it both ways. We haven't even tried to reduce consumption and people are claiming that we cannot do anything about it.

"How about reduce car production, raise efficiency requirements, raise electricity prices?"

Because the climate is in crisis and we cannot afford to go slow on it. Pay the costs now or pay the costs later.

"Full-on de-industrialization is nuts."

Continuing on this path of self-destruction and listening to silly objections about word choice or message marketing is "nuts".

"Didn't they attempt de-industrialization in Cambodia back in the 1970s?"

No, they emptied the cities because they couldn't feed people, because the country was bombed to bits, the cities' food supplies were choked off, and people were flooding into the city at the same time.

Once again you bring up non-sequiturs and try to paint your opponent as extreme as possible. Something you used to object to but now do with great frequency.

" There is enough carbon in the atmosphere now to keep global warming going for the foreseeable future, and despite our best efforts it continues to be increased at record rates. "

Best efforts my foot.