GTWT

When it directs the Israelites to bash in the brains of the Canaanite babies it is intolerant, it is terrifying. When it directs the believer to judge not, that's pretty good advice.

Fake news.

Religion can play a positive role in society - or a negative one. If it leads followers to be loving & giving it's great. If it leads to intolerance of other view-points or if it promotes ignorance it's terrible. I have religious beliefs by the way.

KingDL, you lost me. Are you saying there's no discussion within science that anthropogenic climate change is real? You do know that there are several respected scientific journals that deal with climatology. Each is chock full of discussion of man's role in changing the environment. There are well-attended conferences on climatology held annually. Lots of discussion - little religion.

Increased taxes on diesel? Why do you think that's a mistake?

Shell oil links executive bonuses to carbon reduction - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46424830

Intelligent, articulate, committed, & caring. He will be missed. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/george-hw-bush-41st-president-of-the-united-states-dies-at-94/ar-BBQkkGP?ocid=spartanntp

The earth has changed countless times in the past. The difference this time is that the cause isn't vulcanism or a meteor strike. The cause is human activity - the release of fossil CO2 by burning coal, oil, & natural gas. We know that the effect will be rising sea-levels, changes in precipitation patterns affecting agriculture, increased disease transmission, & loss of biodiversity. Read the recently released government report. The world will be a harsher place for our children. A poorer place. The good news is that we still have time to mitigate some of the worst effects. Unfortunately man is not known for choosing long-term good over short-term profit. That too is our evolutionary heritage.

KRAM, you do know that the pollution leading to the 'hole in the ozone' layer is a entirely different matter resulting from release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons. Restriction on release of these pollutants has resulted in reducing that hole dramatically. Restriction in fossil CO2 release will have a similar effect on climate change. Thanks for the example of how man can respond positively to man's pollution.

97+ % of scientists actually educated in climate science & related disciplines disagree with you.

Yes, man has influenced climate significantly since the agricultural revolution ~12,000 years ago. He continues his influence through the massive release of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution The effects on the climate are correspondingly greater.

Creationism, flat earthers, climate change denial. All forms of science denial. All equally irrational.

How do you feel about a flat earth?

First, not everyone agrees that the Paris Accord was a 'one-way deal'. Europe & the US agreed to greater percentage reductions. China, India, & Brazil to more modest reductions. Nigeria, Dominican Republic, et al. to even more modest reductions. Whether you think this fair or not it was in line with realistic abilities to meet accord obligations. It has, or had, a realistic chance of 1) having a meaningful effect & 2) leading to further, meaningful measures. It could also be argued that over the last 150 years most of the CO2 release has been by Europe & the US & that now we should accept greater responsibility for our planet.

So, because we think the Chinese & Indians aren't doing enough, we should do nothing?

The way to bring China, India, et al. in line is NOT to back out of our international agreements and commitments. The way to set an example for the rest of the world is NOT to elect leaders who deny the reality of climate change and denigrate the science and the scientists supporting the science. We're America. We should set an example for the rest of the world, not use the rest of the world's bad actors as an excuse for not doing what we should.

One more then I really need to watch my Big Bang Theory reruns. Segal doesn't link to any support for his second point (about distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change) but the link in the third point (about the problems with climate modelling) is to Dr. Roy Spencer. Spencer is an adherent of creationism. Funny how science denialists in one subject seem to be sympathetic to other subjects of denial. Now, Penny.

Yes they are. I don't have time to go over all your author's links right now but I did follow his first link which was in response to his 1st point - "Weather id not climate. There is no conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, drought, floods, or cold or heat waves." Yet the link this expert provides ( https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ ) says just the opposite"

CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Over the last 150 years humans have released massive amounts of CO2 by burning oil, gas, & coal. The increase in mean global temperatures over that time correlates strongly with the increase in atmospheric CO2. That seems to support the hypothesis that the increase in mean global temperatures over that time is anthropogenic. What alternative hypothesis fits the data? Sun spots?

The post you link to is written by David Segal "Entrepreneur, writer, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project". You might want to actually read what scientists have to say about the subject. The recently released report is a great place to start (link in original post)..

The link to RealClimate.org supports what I said. Science is tentative & subject to revision as new data are gathered & new analyses made. I'm glad you're familiar with that site. It is worth your attention.

There's no such thing as "settled science'. Science is always tentative - building on the next study - and always subject to the possibility of disproof. That said, some science is so well supported that only the ignorant argue against it's conclusions - e.g., a spherical earth and evolution. The data supporting anthropogenic climate change is so convincing that, as Wookies said, the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields accept that earth's climate is changing, the overwhelming cause is human release of fossil CO2m, and that the results are likely to be catastrophic. Of course, our president agrees with you. Feel better?

The executive summary: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/ Does any intelligent, educated person doubt that the climate is changing, that that change is primarily in response to human activity, & that the consequences of that change will be catastrophic?

I understand. It just seems that the people entrusted to enforce the law should follow the law.

I gave you a +1. I'm glad you're happy with the training Texas police receive & it does sound good. One thing I would like to see improved is driver training. I can't tell you how many times I've been passed on the interstate by cops doing 65 in a 60 or changing lanes without signaling. If you're going to enforce the law, respect the law. But, compared to most of the things you mention, that's trivial & said tongue-in-cheek.