The Last Ten Years of Global Warming Never happened

a reply to: nixie_nox

it seems that there are very few of us left on ATS. i've watched this forum change and i can barely read any of it any more. it's the same nonsensical arguments over and over. "natural cycles" is the one that drives me the most nuts because NOT A SINGLE person who is on the side of the scientists has ever denied natural cycles. the cycle is MOVING AT AN EXTREMELY ACCELERATED SPEED. doesn't matter though because on ATS that means nothing. big corporations are the heros in the "fragile earth" forum. the richest people in the world are the only ones who will loose some money if we take care of the environment...... yet here it's believed the scientists are greedy bastards.

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

You know, I've been reading through this thread for quite a bit now, and I have to say, I'm feeling more than a little offended at being referred to as a "Flat-Earther", simply because I do not march in lockstep with the GW/CC/CD movement and its claims.

That is classic Saul Alinsky.

Attack and marginalize.

'Rules for radicals'.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I'm not on the global warming bandwagon, but the article you posted was for temperature in the USA. It's called global warming for a reason, it's the average temp throughout the whole globe, not just one continent.
That all being said, I do not believe that man has anything to do with the alleged warming.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
This is a debate I have had with family members who are all for taxing more under the guise of stopping/changing/helping/correcting what was then flat out called "Global Warming". No amount of money given or taken can change anything that has been done, period. All we can do is try and do better in the future, and I still fail to see how higher taxes or carbon trading schemes accomplish that.

What does it mean to "try to do better".

That's very easy. It results in diversified economic choices which in aggregate favor industrial processes which emit less greenhouse gas over ones which use more, such as generating less electricity with coal instead of gas, nukes and wind. Why do automobiles in Japan have much higher fuel efficiency than the US? Because the fuel prices are high. Why do automobiles in the US have higher fuel efficiency than they did 10 years ago? Because fuel prices are higher than they used to be.

Already businesses make major changes in their corporate structure and other policies and business for minor benefits in taxes.

A greenhouse tax (a carbon tax is only one part of it since greenhouse forcing comes from more than CO2, though CO2 is long term the largest and most dangerous) makes small changes at first, but they accumulate into large changes in behavior.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Just a few there are more.... Go ahead read the PDF and get back to us.

Read it and WEEP... Source

Oh, come on - do tell!!! What are we supposed to weep over? About how a review of the already good NCA makes it that much better?

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: amazing

Please forgive me for being so abrupt, but if the AGW debate was about hard science, I would be delighted.

Hard science would say "We haven't accounted for all of the factors comprising Global warming. H---, we don't even know for sure if we have global warming. The data is incomplete and can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn't help that some of our scientists have been caught lying about their results.

"The best we can tell you is that human activity may have some effect on global warming. We don't know how much of an effect, and we don't even know how high temperatures will get, and by when.

That was a reasonable description of the scientific state in 1965, minus the baloney about lying. It is not true in 2014. Obviously not everything is known, but enough is certainly known.

"But all that is a politician's area not ours. if you want to take control of the planet, that's your call. But don't say science is demanding that you do it, we just don't know for sure."

Yeah, there's always the 'uncertainty defense'. Except that you don't even listen to the scientists' own evaluation of the uncertainty---you impose your own desires only on account of distate at the politicial consequences of the requirements for mitigation.

In reality it works the other way---making major perturbations to the climate of the planet is a very very poor idea, potentially catastrophic to the prosperity of human civilization over 500 years.

originally posted by: neo96


Them things called history books have that thing called information about older civilizations that now sit under hundreds of feet of water.

Ya know that happened long before the industrialization of man.

Them 'evil' corporations did that too?

Um, those natural events were also catastrophic for those civilizations too. Just because there are natural events doesn't mean that humans should add to it voluntarily and on a global scale at historically unprecedented rates.

It's like saying "See all those people died of natural heart conditions----so I'm not going to listen to those scientists squealing for funding, there's no problem with me mainlining a speedball of coke into my aorta!!!"

originally posted by: pasiphae
a reply to: nixie_nox

it seems that there are very few of us left on ATS. i've watched this forum change and i can barely read any of it any more. it's the same nonsensical arguments over and over. "natural cycles" is the one that drives me the most nuts because NOT A SINGLE person who is on the side of the scientists has ever denied natural cycles. the cycle is MOVING AT AN EXTREMELY ACCELERATED SPEED. doesn't matter though because on ATS that means nothing. big corporations are the heros in the "fragile earth" forum. the richest people in the world are the only ones who will loose some money if we take care of the environment...... yet here it's believed the scientists are greedy bastards.

Scientists do not HAVE a side!! When will you get this through your thick skulls that everything a scientist knows and learns is ALSO messed with, and causes them to look at things through all manner of ways, mostly MEANINGLESS.

PROVE this accelerated speed has not happened before, PROVE that everyday working people on the earth need to be Taxed and Killed over this... PROVE that an agenda does not exist to actually DO THIS TO THE EARTH!

It is like you all have been framed into a category, one that you could never see beyond!

I have little to no respect for scientists, because instead of actually FINDING the answers, they use some biased slow as hell systems to lead them this way and that, all the while believing they are actually doing something !!!

This is no different than any religious caste system.

WHY NOT ACTUALLY ASK HARD QUESTIONS , AND FIND THE BLOODY ANSWERS, INSTEAD OF PRETENDING WE WILL GET THERE ONE DAY !!!!!

This planet is in the hands of a group that sure loves the fact that they own ALL the Podiums!!!!!


The scientists may or may not be greedy bastards, who the hell cares!!

The fact is , not one of them can actually say what is happening, because SCIENCE, is FLAWED at its very core, This is easily proven, by the fact the schooling focuses on brainwashing and shaping the mind, to direct investigation FROM THE ROOT, so that it can be divided, controlled, and used.

Face it, the scientists are completely powerless, and are just as much pawns as ANY ARMY, has EVER BEEN.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Thank you so very much for actually going out and looking for the information yourself, instead of lazily posting links of whatever and hoping you are right.

That is the type of discourse that should be going on ATS. I provide my POV, you then POV and substantiate yours.

So I feel bad for saying this but what you have listed are simply authors who have compiled the mass amounts of information to write a report. They didn't receive grants to study GW and be a proponent, they simply compiled the information they were given.

But your source brings about a good point I want to make.

Federal grants are complicated. I am paid by grants. I know how they work. The people who spout that the government pays scientists to report GW is really silly, as that is not how government grants work.

They are very complicated for the layman to understand. Offices that deal with grants often have a person whose job is to ferry the money where needed.

It is not simply given to one person. It can actually pass through several agencies before it even reaches a person. They may not even know where it originates.

When giving grants, the government sets very specific standards on how they are used and how to report. They want to see work, not specifically results.

In my employment, we have to have a series of 5 very large conferences just to explain the application process.

As I explained earlier, it is in the government's best interest to NOT have GW. GW is expensive. It is insvasive. It depletes resources and reduces productivity. There is nothing that the government can garnish from it that would make a hoax worthwhile.

So you just said what most people denying Man Made Global Warming are saying and thinking that they can't trust science. I have a few pet theories and conspiracies that I believe, but I don't go against just about every scientist in the world on things. This Science on Global Warming and Man Made Global Warming in particular is pretty set...almost like the theory of Gravity, but we can't really give you definitive proof of that either. You either trust science or you don't. Sure science can be wrong at times, but this is pretty definite. They're all saying it.

You guys talk about radicals and possessing all the podiums. I guess you haven't heard the radicals on Talk Radio or Fox News and how loud and how huge of an audience they have. They have many of these "Podiums" on lock down and people will believe anything they say. It's not good to be anti science.

Why do people keep bringing up Al Gore on these debates. I wouldn't even know what Al Gore is doing these days if not for the Climate Deniers in these threads. You guys keep throwing these people out there, but the debate has to be based on Science not talking heads.

There have been some really good arguments on some of these threads...some really good scientific quotes and data put on some of these threads against man made global warming...that's a good discussion. When we ask questions...like what about this or that...but not when people throw out random craziness and try to link me or others to Al Gore or other people. You guys need to stop that.

Let's try science. Science will always win in the end. It always has. Being anti science and parroting talk radio gets us know where. We know those guys are buffoons and anti science almost to the core. Let's deny ignorance, shall we?

a reply to: ParasuvO

Then you better stop buying and using computers, as that is all created by scientists. You better not drive a car, as they are designed by scientists. You better never seek medical treatment, as it is all researched by scientists. You better never go into a building, as it was built on science. You better not use electricity, drive on asphalt, use any appliances. eat any food, or any plastic, because it has all been brought to you by science.

To claim that scientists don't know what they are doing is another extremely lazy skeptical copout. It is bullcocky.

It is not a religion either. That is the latest propaganda created by creationsists to try and fail miserably at turning people from science. Let it go, it means nothing and makes you look uneducated.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I missed one of your replies to me. Nope, not disinformation. China does use more energy than the US, though per capita we're still way higher. They are using a lot of coal for their energy source right now, just like us, but there are PLANS in the making to help ease their obviously ridiculous smog levels that are a reality today. This is all besides the point.

The point was that you were incorrectly implying that the US was the only country who was concerned and/or making plans for cleaning up the environment, and curbing fossil fuel usage. You implied this by asking why WE must do this, when other countries were polluting as well. It's a rubbish argument, and a lie, because all developed countries have plans worked on by scientists that are going through political debates, and/or are already being implemented. That's absolute truth.

No misinformation here. There is many things on this topic that must not be confused.

First, a difference between the science and the politics, and next the differences in various implementations of actions which help or hinder the issue of pollution and FF's, specifically.

So, wrapping up, no, I did not claim that China was not the highest pollution producing nation. They took over that role recently, though I'm sure you're aware we held that spot for decades. To think of this in an us vs them mentality, in the face of this being about a closed system problem, ie the earth's system, is just not too bright. We all need to work on this problem, individually and as a group.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: MarlinGrace

I missed one of your replies to me. Nope, not disinformation. China does use more energy than the US, though per capita we're still way higher. They are using a lot of coal for their energy source right now, just like us, but there are PLANS in the making to help ease their obviously ridiculous smog levels that are a reality today. This is all besides the point.

The point was that you were incorrectly implying that the US was the only country who was concerned and/or making plans for cleaning up the environment, and curbing fossil fuel usage. You implied this by asking why WE must do this, when other countries were polluting as well. It's a rubbish argument, and a lie, because all developed countries have plans worked on by scientists that are going through political debates, and/or are already being implemented. That's absolute truth.

Even though the Chinese's use of highly polluting coal has increased much faster than that in the USA, denialism of scientific facts and interpretation of global warming is not prominent there, even in an authoritarian one-party political system.

The US is exceptional, in an embarrassing way. And besides, the one-child policy of the Chinese was the most important gift to reducing the effects of resource consumption (peak oil and global warming) ever done, though it was totally inadvertent.

originally posted by: amazing

Why do people keep bringing up Al Gore on these debates.

I think it's instinctive biology. People are evolved to respond to primitive fear of Other People. Enemies. In the primitive environment, once wolves and lions are subdued by tribes, spears and arrows, it is other people who are the biggest danger.

It's been scientifically demonstrated that right-wing politics & ideology is correlated with a heightened emotional fear response.

Cavemen couldn't possibly be evolved to be afraid of complex natural phenomenon they weren't able to directly perceive, it's much easier to evolve stimulus-response actions to immediate things. Animals with teeth, and The Wrong Kind of Poeple.

Look how long it took humanity to understand the danger from disease-causing microbes---things which are invisible. Global warming is the same way. Completely imperceptible by sight, sound and touch, and yet profoundly a threat in the long term, like a degenerative disease of civilization.

Blaming Somebody is much easier than recognizing the fault in all of us, and the difficult task ahead, and everybody's shared responsibility for sacrifce in order to ameliorate something which is imperceptible to human senses.

The instinct is always to Blame Somebody. Remember the supposed "Bin Laden tape" released immediately before the 2004 election? It was suspicious to me---the one where Bin Laden talked totally differently than other times? Bush's numbers jumped up 4-5%.

Find the Bad Guy, much easier than difficult resopnsibility. That's the reason for concentration on Al Gore.

Everybody picks on him like George Soros. And yet, there isn't any specific objectively evil action that these men have done that people can point to.

originally posted by: nixie_nox

Federal grants are complicated. I am paid by grants. I know how they work. The people who spout that the government pays scientists to report GW is really silly, as that is not how government grants work.

They are very complicated for the layman to understand. Offices that deal with grants often have a person whose job is to ferry the money where needed.

It is not simply given to one person. It can actually pass through several agencies before it even reaches a person. They may not even know where it originates.

When giving grants, the government sets very specific standards on how they are used and how to report. They want to see work, not specifically results.

Indeed. I also was once funded by grants (on a subject completely unrelated to climate). The idea that this is any gravy train to riches is preposterous. The funding rate is under 10% for most programs. And, not only that, your own institution sets a *maximum salary* that you can earn. If you get grants with more money, you don't take home anything more---you just can hire additional postdocs and grad students and buy instruments & time on facilities to further your resesarch, so it's good, but you don't make money.

It would literally be much much easier and far far far more profitable for somebody like me with a science doctorate to cull through science articles and spew truthiness BS for some right-wing """""""""think""""""""" tanks which happens to match the economic interest of fossil fuel donors to such institutions.

As I explained earlier, it is in the government's best interest to NOT have GW. GW is expensive. It is insvasive. It depletes resources and reduces productivity. There is nothing that the government can garnish from it that would make a hoax worthwhile.

Exactly. Consider how this supposed 'hoax' perpetrated over 50 years would come to be? Going up against the most powerful and wealthiest people and industires on the planet? From science PhD's?? I mean that's just a whole nother depth of stupid. Grad students are hardly that dumb even when stoned on Colorado's finest.

Lucius Fox: [to Reese] Let me get this straight, you think that your client, one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante, who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands, and your plan is to blackmail this person?

[Reese's face falls and Fox smiles]

Lucius Fox: Good luck.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

“Unstable climate conditions favoured the evolution of the roots of human flexibility in our ancestors,” said Potts, curator of anthropology and director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. “The narrative of human evolution that arises from our analyses stresses the importance of adaptability to changing environments, rather than adaptation to any one environment, in the early success of the genus Homo.”

Yes.

Potts is accurately (in my opinion) describing some of the conditions that influenced the evolution of humankind. The natural variability of climate, and the migrations forced on humankind was vital.

It has absolutely ZERO applicability to the debate about Human Caused Global Warming and the subsequent Human Caused Global Climate Change.

The debate is about HUMAN CAUSES, not natural causes. Natural causes are there and we can't do anything about them other than measure them. We can do something about HUMAN CAUSES.

Here is something else about conditions that led to Human evolution doesn't normally get mentioned when people try to bend the debate to natural causes. When life first appeared on Earth, the dominant gas in the atmosphere was dominated by methane (CH4). Life on earth took 3.5 billion years to pull that carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it as coal, peat, petroleum, etc. No I am not saying that was somehow a 'conscious' decision by life to do that, but life most certainly did change the atmosphere. That change allows for the existence of the current biosphere. If it hadn't happen, life on earth would be very different today, in exactly the same way that humans wouldn't exist or would be very different if Potts' climate changes had not occurred.

It has taken human kind less than 3.5 centuries to put a huge percentage of that naturally sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. 3.5 billenia for life to evolve and adapt versus 3.5 centuries. Do you really think that life on eary can handle that shock. Can you conceive of the difference between 3.5 billion years and 350 years? Even Potts' changes were on the order of 3.5 million years.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a short hand term for the increase in solar energy held in the atmosphere and oceans due to 'greenhouse' gases, mainly CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (methane), added to the atmosphere by human activity. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a short hand term for the long term changes in the atmosphere and the oceans directly caused by the AGW energy.

Remember, the debate is about Anthropogenic (HUMAN CAUSED) Global Warming (AGW) and the Climate Change that AGW causes; not about natural climate variability.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

We make up a small fraction of the world population but are the ones asked to make the sacrifices, based on government funded climate change.

Where do you get the idea that 'we' (by 'we' I assume you mean the USA?) are the only "ones asked to make the sacrifices"?

The only developed country on Earth that is doing less than the USA is Australia who are in the process of taking down their carbon pricing scheme that was at one time way ahead of what ever the USA is doing. Europe is so far ahead of the USA it isn't even in the same ballpark anymore. Even China and India are making more progress than the USA.

The problem is a GLOBAL problem (that is why it is called GLOBAL WARMING) and the USA ( and now Australia ) are quite literally the only countries on the GLOBE that are keeping their heads in the sand. Of course everybody needs to do more; but the USA is essentially doing nothing.

If there is any truth to the idea that 'we' are the "only ones asked to make the sacrifices" it is that everybody else has already answered the question and 'we' are the only ones who haven't replied - so 'we' keep getting asked.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

Read it and weep smart guy Source

Your source indicates that about 2 billion dollars a year is spent by the US government on 'climate science' (not including technology) and that has been steady since at least 30 years.

The National Cancer Institute says that its budget for FY2012 was over 5 billion dollars. That is just one agency involved in Cancer research; I don't know how many more billions go to other agencies.

Are Cancer Scientists better lobbyists or just better at scare-mongering than Climate Scientists?

How many climate scientists are there in the US anyway? 1000? 2000? 5000? If there are 5000, then they are getting on average about 400,000 dollars a year. That is for their salary, their 5 graduate assistants salary, their University's cut for office rental and facilities, their personal office staff, their trips to climate science conferences, their subscriptions to all the journals they need, their lab equipment, their publicist, their off campus office rental, and of course, the Hummer they drive because they 'know' their science is just a lie and why should they worry?

What exactly is your point about how America funds basic research? Do you have the same complaint about all science funding, like cancer research or agriculture or anthropology? Or is it just Climate research in particular? Do you turn off the TV when the weather report comes on because you object to the government funded research that made that weather report possible?

Do you really think the Government funds Cancer research because it wants the scientists to scare everybody about how Cancer is a nasty way to die? Is that the only reason Government funds science - to scare people?

Or is it possible that Government funds science because we need to know this stuff. Scientists don't write lies so they can get funded to produce more lies. Other scientists will quickly uncover charletons. It is a really bad 'business decision' and a really, really bad career move to take government money to produce false research. Every scientist wants to find something new, and if they find something new that burns off a fraudulent predecessor they'll be on it like a ton of bricks.

Scientists really, really hate fraudsters. They really do. Scientists that lie are just stupid people, lies are too easy to be proven wrong. That is not to say that scientists don't make mistakes, they are human like everyone else. But to lie, to manufacture data, to falsify research, is not a mistake, it is fraud.

Remember the Australian guy (Wakefield I think his name was) that said that autism was caused by vaccinations? He was proven to have falsified his data very quickly. His reputation was destroyed. He lost his license to practice medicine. He based his 'theory' on faked data from something like 15 cases. Since then there have been hundreds of studies covering millions of cases and there has been absolutely ZERO evidence of any vaccine having anything to do with autism in any case, any where, any time.

Yet thousands of parents are still frightened for their children and refuse to vaccinate them and as a result diseases that were all but eliminated are coming back and needlessly killing thousands of children each year. Deaths in the US from Measles dropped from around 5000 per year to less than a hundred in just a couple of years. Since Wakefield they have climbed back to 2500 due to the lowering of the 'herd immunity' because of parents not vaccinating their kids.

Do you actually think Scientists like that kind of bull crap happening? Do you really think they just make crap up so they can get paid?

Here's some graphs again to show the bigger picture of climatic variations.

www.climate4you.com...

Diagram showing the average global temperature change (anomaly) during the satellite observational period (since January 1979), according to five global temperature estimates shown above. The upper panel show the average anomalies for the last 12 months, the mid panel show the average anomalies for the last 5 years, while the lower panel show the average anomalies for the last 10 years. As the base period differs for the different temperature estimates, they have all been normalised by comparing to the average value of their initial 120 months (10 years) from January 1979 to December 1988. Last month included in analysis: June 2014. Last diagram update: 1 July 2014.

a reply to: charles1952

a reply to: amazing

Please forgive me for being so abrupt, but if the AGW debate was about hard science, I would be delighted.

Hard science would say "We haven't accounted for all of the factors comprising Global warming. H---, we don't even know for sure if we have global warming. The data is incomplete and can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn't help that some of our scientists have been caught lying about their results.

"The best we can tell you is that human activity may have some effect on global warming. We don't know how much of an effect, and we don't even know how high temperatures will get, and by when. On top of that, while we know that global warming to some degree will be good for the planet, we don't know what that degree is. Finally, it looks like it might be cheaper just to adapt to it if it comes, rather than spending a billion dollars a day, worrying about it.

"But all that is a politician's area not ours. if you want to take control of the planet, that's your call. But don't say science is demanding that you do it, we just don't know for sure."

No 'hard science' would not say that, because it would be (mostly) lies.

Hard science would say "We haven't accounted for all of the factors comprising Global warming.

True enough. But we know darn near all of them. (Human Caused) Global Warming is almost entirely due to the 'greenhouse gases' injected into the atmosphere by Human Activity.

H---, we don't even know for sure if we have global warming.

Completely false, and it would be outright fraud for a scientist to say anything like that. (Human Caused) Global Warming is a fact.

The data is incomplete and can be interpreted in different ways.

Again true, but it is true of ANY study in ANY scientific discipline at ANY level of maturity. The statement is so trivially true that it is meaningless. Data is ALWAYS incomplete and ALWAYS subject to interpretation. In the case of Human Caused Global Warming, there is so much data and so much interpretation that it is impossible for any one person to, let alone scientifically ignorant propaganda bloggers to get a handle on. That is why the IPCC is tasked with summarizing the available data, coming up with consensus interpretations, and suggesting lines of inquiry that can validate or invalidate that consensus.

It doesn't help that some of our scientists have been caught lying about their results.

What doesn't help is that some people lie about climate scientists having been caught lying about their results. There have been no climate scientists caught lying about their results. None.

The best we can tell you is that human activity may have some effect on global warming.

False. Scientists can tell you more, much more. They know for a fact that human activity is having a huge effect on global warming.

We don't know how much of an effect, and we don't even know how high temperatures will get, and by when.

Again, so trivially true that the statement is meaningless. Scientists can do a pretty good job of telling you whether or not it will rain tomorrow these days (that is weather by the way, not climate), but they can't predict exactly how much or exactly when.

On top of that, while we know that global warming to some degree will be good for the planet, we don't know what that degree is.

False. Scientists don't know that at all, and it would be fraudulent for them to say such a thing. It may be good for some particular species of plant or the other maybe, but is what's good for that plant really good for the planet? Highly doubtful and no scientist worth the name would make that assertion.

Finally, it looks like it might be cheaper just to adapt to it if it comes, rather than spending a billion dollars a day, worrying about it.

False. That is so laughably ludicrous that the pretended sincerity of everything that preceded it is exposed. This is a piece of theater isn't it? You realize that if we just keep going like we are, 'adapting' to the change will eventually cost several times the GDP of the planet, hundreds of millions of lives, and the loss of some of the most productive areas on the planet. That is not a scare tactic, it is simple fact. Hundreds of millions of people live in the Indus and the Ganges deltas, there is no where for those people to go when they are flooded. They will die of starvation and disease - that is an unavoidable fact of inaction. You may think to yourself, who cares about Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, but the US and Europe will not escape.

There is already irreversible (in the short term) damage been done, but the worst case scenario (like that above) can be avoided.

"But all that is a politician's area not ours. if you want to take control of the planet, that's your call. But don't say science is demanding that you do it, we just don't know for sure."

True, again trivially so. That is ALWAYS the way of the scientist. Scientists report the facts. If you fail to act, its on you. That is how science works, its what society pays them for.

Your argument is actually proven a lie by this last sentence. In your first sentence you say that if the debate was about hard science you would 'be delighted'. Then in you last sentence you say that you think the scientists should just give the politicians the information and let them figure out what if anything to do about it.

In fact the debate is not about hard science because there is no longer any room for debate. Sure, not everything is known yet, but there is no doubt about the fact of human caused global warming. It is here. It is causing human hardship. It isn't going away anytime soon.

The debate is now squarely in the politician's realm, firmly and absolutely. Bitch and moan as much as you like about Al Gore, but he is not a scientist, he is a politician doing what politicians should be doing: working to come up with a political consensus about what to do. Many politicians couldn't give a rats patootie about anything except sucking up to their donors.

There used to be a saying about two classes of politicians: those who want to be elected so they can do something and those who want to do something so they can get elected. Today's politicians have given that up; they want to be elected so they can be reelected - and that is all they care about.

If politicians would take the sentiment of your last sentence to heart, I'd be delighted.



What it comes down to is that you are saying is that you would be delighted if the scientists would shut up so you wouldn't have to think about it.