Here I respond to EM's points #14 to #17, no fireworks, still I found it interesting in that it nudges the dialogue towards the question of 'motivated learning.' For instance, my life long pursuit of Earth and climate learning is driven by my need to understand this wondrous planet I was born into as well as possible. Whereas EM, and I dare say, the entire Republican pursuit of climate science is driven by its threat to their short-term economic/political "interests".
It helps explain why they can so easily ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of the established scientific "consensus." We are fools not to recognize this. We are but at the beginning of the human fossil fuels burning warming trajectory and unless we rearrange our priorities in a hurry, or there will be hell to pay.
To finish this installment I provide some sources that make plain that infrastructure and life destroying extreme weather events are being driven by an increasingly warming global climate engine and that Republicans minimize the threat at all of our own peril. (Some touch up edits Monday morning)
National Summary Information - December 2016
Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events
National Climate Assessment - 2014
The National Academy of Sciences
ATTRIBUTION OF Extreme Weather Events
IN THE CONTEXT OF Climate Change
American Meteorological Society
State of the Climate in 2015
NOT JUST THE KOCH BROTHERS:
NEW DREXEL STUDY REVEALS FUNDERS BEHIND THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL EFFORT
____________________________________________________________
- EM’s point #14, quoting me: If you look at this blog you’ll see plenty of very specific critiques, were I offer objective supporting evidence for my claims. I know what I’m talking about and ignoring my critiques doesn’t make their substance go away.
- EM responds: I have neither the time nor the desire to read all of your blog posts, as this site is not easy to navigate and I have other things to do than read through all of your (all pretty much the same) posts.
____________________________________
With all due respect, then you haven’t looked very far. As for quality of presentation, I agree it leaves much to be desired. But I’m no professional blogger, doing the best I can with what I have, in the limited moments I can spare from the rest of my day to days.
__________________________________________________________
- EM responds: I don’t argue with the evidence you present; because I’m not arguing AGW’s existence or the fact that rising global temperature is a net-negative for the planet.
____________________________________
Actually you are, in that you are dismissing AGW’s already clear and present impacts on our global society and biosphere.
