Originally Posted By: TurkeyJ
Derid,
I applaud you using correlation =/= causation. You'll find this principal to be very effective in combating silly conspiracy theories. But in this particular case, causation has been proven many times over. CO2 has been proven to cause warming in the theoretical, historical, experimental, and, most recently, the observational. There's no denying we create an enormous amount of CO2. This is not contingent on previously debunk theories. Further, researchers are so far removed from policy ( I should know) that there's little incentive for them to push nebulous conclusions.

Developing countries care more about global warming because natural disasters are more likely to be catastrophic there. China is second only to Germany in green energy research.

First, accepting global warming does not necessitate "green" energy policy - see freakonomics. Secondly, if we know carbon emissions create a known quantity of economic damage - we have decent models now - we can sub-divide by tonnage and figure the true cost of carbon energy to society. We does this to many pollutants already. I don't understand why a pollutant that effects the health and livihood of everyone would be excempt from this.


Well, researchers are not immune from funding or ideology.

Sure, China is investing some in alternative energy... but they are also building carbon power plants at breakneck speed.

I do not think any current models regarding "cost to society" could possibly be relevant. For myriad reasons. I would be curious to see some though, it would be fun picking them apart if nothing else.

You are right about "Conspiracy Theories" not being provable. I still maintain my general theme that the official line of the Court Historian is often also false, and the label "Conspiracy Theory" is also quite often misused and abused. People have a tendency to assume they know more than they actually do, and they also have an ingrained tendency to conform to peer pressure. Its hard to articulate points in this area and have them be understood though. So many false continuums and rhetorical baggage is implanted in the perspective of most observers that you have to somehow get people to sit still long enough to explain multiple discrete chains of consequence to even get people to understand what you are actually *trying to say.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)