Is global climate policy a fraud?

[Yonivore]

Don't ask me, I know it is. But, maybe you'll take the word of Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the leaders of the international global warming movement; the deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the joint chair of the IPCC's Working Group 3, and co-chair of the Working Group "Mitigation of Climate Change" at the upcoming summit in Cancun.

On November 14, he was interviewed by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. His explanation of the current goals of the climate change movement was illuminating:

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth” (http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html)


Q: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

OE: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

Q: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

OE: Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

Q: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

OE: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Interesting...discuss.

[boutons_deux]

Already posted and beat to death. yawni yoni.

[Wild Cobra]

Already posted and beat to death. yawni yoni.
So you're admitting defeat?

[MannyIsGod]

I find it so amazing that you can focus on the part you highlighted while completely ignoring the context laid out IMMEDIATELY prior to the statement you highlighted just like Darrin did. What is it with you guys that you want to ignore what he says?

[RandomGuy]

I find it so amazing that you can focus on the part you highlighted while completely ignoring the context laid out IMMEDIATELY prior to the statement you highlighted just like Darrin did. What is it with you guys that you want to ignore what he says?

They can't make their case without lying.

Essentially, they MUST cherry pick comments like this, and ignore the wider context.

It is an effective form of lying in that this simplification distorts the original, more subtle meanings in a way that is easier for the uninformed and mildly apathetic to grasp.

Pablum for the converted, but obviously propaganda. :sleep

[TDMVPDPOY]

the question is, whoever collects the money, where does that money end up into? more shitty study and research or into the coffers of these clowns

[Yonivore]

As I've said a bazillion times -- and will continue to say -- When people who tell me there is a climate crisis start acting like there's a climate crisis I will start paying attention.

BONO 7 jets and 55 trucks, what happend to saving planet? (http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18005)

[Yonivore]

I find it so amazing that you can focus on the part you highlighted while completely ignoring the context laid out IMMEDIATELY prior to the statement you highlighted just like Darrin did. What is it with you guys that you want to ignore what he says?

How does anything else he said counter these two statements?


"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

"This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
It's easy to ignore prior statements -- even in the previous paragraph -- when you make such bold statements as "WE REDISTRIBUTE THE WORLD'S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY" and "THIS (And, by "this," I presume he means the entire debate over global climate change) HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANYMORE,..."

[MannyIsGod]

Of course its easy for you. Its easy because you struggle viewing things in proper context. Its easy because you don't want to actually think about whats being said. Its easy because you see what you want to see and no one here expects anything else from you. We don't actually expect someone who can't be bothered to read what they use to back up their opinions to suddenly show critical reasoning capabilities.

So yes, we know its easy for you. Thats not the point.

[Yonivore]

Of course its easy for you. Its easy because you struggle viewing things in proper context. Its easy because you don't want to actually think about whats being said. Its easy because you see what you want to see and no one here expects anything else from you. We don't actually expect someone who can't be bothered to read what they use to back up their opinions to suddenly show critical reasoning capabilities.

So yes, we know its easy for you. Thats not the point.
So yes, he did say they were redistributing wealth with climate policy and that the climate debate had little to do with actual climate issues anymore. Thanks for clarifying.

[MannyIsGod]

He sure did say that. You just didn't understand the context of it. Par for the course.

[Yonivore]

He sure did say that. You just didn't understand the context of it. Par for the course.
So, contextualize for me, Manny.

Explain how the entirety of his statement, interview responses, or whatever counters the fact he clearly asserted climate policy is redistributing wealth and that the debate has little to do with the actual climate anymore.

Please.

[RandomGuy]

How does anything else he said counter these two statements?


It's easy to ignore prior statements -- even in the previous paragraph -- when you make such bold statements as "WE REDISTRIBUTE THE WORLD'S WEALTH BY CLIMATE POLICY" and "THIS (And, by "this," I presume he means the entire debate over global climate change) HAS ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANYMORE,..."

You really suck at this.

You let others do most of your thinking for you, so you really don't have the critical thinking skills required to ferret out proper context.

Asking you to be either intellectually honest or apply critical thinking analysis to something is a bit like asking someone who has been sitting down in a chair for ten years to get up and run around the building on atrophied legs.

Since you need the crutch of having other people tell you what things mean, I will do that for you.


"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

We presently redistrubute wealth from countries that don't emit CO2 through fossil fuels to those that do. This is called, in economics terms, a "negative externality", wherein a third party is harmed by the actions of a first and second party. Our current policy, the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels, is forcing costs on other countries, i.e. reditributing wealth.

Consider:
A factory makes something.
A byproduct of that manufacture is industrial waste dumped in the local river that poisons fish.
The factory sells the goods to consumers.
The involuntary wealth distribution is from the people that fish or drink out of the river (thrid parties) to the first (factory) and second (consumer) parties.

This is the logical basis for the assertion that the richer countries that benefit the most from the current policy and that this redistribution should be addressed.

This isn't "we are doing this for a naked wealth redistribution as a handout from the rich countries, buwahahahahaha". This is simply addressing an economic reality.



"This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

He was acknowledging the very real economic impacts that such things have, and that one cannot consider environmantal policy without considering the underlying economics.

Both statements are rather candid acknowledgments of some aspect involved in very complex issues, not some indication of a leftist/green plot, as you seem to assert here.

Climate policy is a wealth distribution and he clearly acknowledged that, as you pointed out. What you seem to miss now is that wealth redistribution is from poor countries to rich ones.

Do you think it is ethical for that factory to redistribute wealth to itself and its consumers from people that depend on the river without paying for it?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You really suck at this.

You let others do most of your thinking for you, so you really don't have the critical thinking skills required to ferret out proper context.

Asking you to be either intellectually honest or apply critical thinking analysis to something is a bit like asking someone who has been sitting down in a chair for ten years to get up and run around the building on atrophied legs.

Since you need the crutch of having other people tell you what things mean, I will do that for you.



We presently redistrubute wealth from countries that don't emit CO2 through fossil fuels to those that do. This is called, in economics terms, a "negative externality", wherein a third party is harmed by the actions of a first and second party. Our current policy, the unrestricted burning of fossil fuels, is forcing costs on other countries, i.e. reditributing wealth.

Consider:
A factory makes something.
A byproduct of that manufacture is industrial waste dumped in the local river that poisons fish.
The factory sells the goods to consumers.
The involuntary wealth distribution is from the people that fish or drink out of the river (thrid parties) to the first (factory) and second (consumer) parties.

This is the logical basis for the assertion that the richer countries that benefit the most from the current policy and that this redistribution should be addressed.

This isn't "we are doing this for a naked wealth redistribution as a handout from the rich countries, buwahahahahaha". This is simply addressing an economic reality.




He was acknowledging the very real economic impacts that such things have, and that one cannot consider environmantal policy without considering the underlying economics.

Both statements are rather candid acknowledgments of some aspect involved in very complex issues, not some indication of a leftist/green plot, as you seem to assert here.

Climate policy is a wealth distribution and he clearly acknowledged that, as you pointed out. What you seem to miss now is that wealth redistribution is from poor countries to rich ones.

Do you think it is ethical for that factory to redistribute wealth to itself and its consumers from people that depend on the river without paying for it?

but yoni know's it's a fraud. isn't that good enough for you?

[CosmicCowboy]

So taking bazillions of dollars from the developed world and shipping them to shithole third world countries/dictators to steal stops global warming.

Right.

[RandomGuy]

but yoni know's it's a fraud. isn't that good enough for you?

Well, it is simply a case of believing in conspiracy theories, not unlike the 9-11 truthers.

Since he is convinced the entire body of science is a fraud, whose sole purpose is to provide an excuse for the rest of the world to steal from the US via "climate policy", this simply becomes an "AHA!" moment for him.

"The rest of the world is just jealous and wants a handout."

When viewed through that prism, the conspiracy theory becomes more plausible. I call it looking at the world through stupid-colored glasses.

The entire basis for this conspiracy theory is little more than ad hominem arguments and pseudoscience. That pseudoscience gets gussied up to look like real science, and lets people like Yoni and Wild Cobra feel better about being paranoid of "tree huggers", but really does a disservice to the honest people involved in studying our climate, who have real data to support the AGW/ACC theory.

[RandomGuy]

So taking bazillions of dollars from the developed world and shipping them to shithole third world countries/dictators to steal stops global warming.

Right.

One way to simply stop the wealth redistrubution is to simply reduce CO2 emissions. That would not involve "shipping bazillions of dollars" to anyone to steal, would it?

[boutons_deux]

"entire basis for this conspiracy theory is "

... VRWC stink tanks, US CoC, whored scientists, all financed by the carbon industries.

That "Is global climate policy a fraud" even a question means the VRWC is winning.

Same false equivalence between ID/Creationism science as plausible alternative to hard science.

Same false equivalence that smash-mouth, shut-down govt, obstruct-everything partisanship is shared equally between Dems and Repugs.

[CosmicCowboy]

One way to simply stop the wealth redistrubution is to simply reduce CO2 emissions. That would not involve "shipping bazillions of dollars" to anyone to steal, would it?

Do you always argue about things you apparently know nothing about just to argue?

[MannyIsGod]

The problem is that some of you see wealth redistribution as something that is only accomplished by legislation or policy so you don't see the context being put forth where wealth redistribution happens everyday as a simple matter of economics and in this case its not going from the rich to the poor or the developed to the underdeveloped but the other way around.

As an example, wealth is taken from a fishing family who owns land at sea level and redistributed to factory owners who emit CO2 at high rates when that fishing family loses their land due to seal level rise caused by AGW.

[RandomGuy]

Do you always argue about things you apparently know nothing about just to argue?

What topic to I "apparently know nothing about" are you referring to?

[CosmicCowboy]

What topic to I "apparently know nothing about" are you referring to?

The proposed carbon tax wealth transfers to third world countries are real dollars. Lots of them. Check it out.

[MannyIsGod]

And? This isn't a debate about a carbon tax but rather what was said and a lot of peoples inability to fully understand it. ALL economic policy is a matter of wealth redistribution.

[CosmicCowboy]

As an example, wealth is taken from a fishing family who owns land at sea level and redistributed to factory owners who emit CO2 at high rates when that fishing family loses their land due to seal level rise caused by AGW.

Except you are neglecting or ignoring the fact that the sea level hasn't risen and the fisherman is still catching fish.

[MannyIsGod]

CC, if I owned land upwind from you and I decided to place a plant there that polluted the air and had serious affects on your land would you be OK with that?

[MannyIsGod]

Except you are neglecting or ignoring the fact that the sea level hasn't risen and the fisherman is still catching fish.

Actually sea level is rising but thats besides the point. I'm giving you an example of what has happened and further more what will happen at an accelerate rate in the coming century. When it does, it will be wealth redistribution.

Once again however, the context and ultimate point is missed.

[CosmicCowboy]

NIMBY issues aside, we already have strict air quality regulations.

[MannyIsGod]

NIMBY issues aside, we already have strict air quality regulations.

Your missing the point yet again. The point isn't about any specific legislation but a general economic point about wealth redistribution in general. How would you react to my plant?

[boutons_deux]

US ships $400B a year overseas to buy carbon(oil), no problem, because the US oilcos skim 10s of $Bs in profits that they use to fund the VRWC global warming denial scam.

[CosmicCowboy]

Actually sea level is rising but thats besides the point. I'm giving you an example of what has happened and further more what will happen at an accelerate rate in the coming century. When it does, it will be wealth redistribution.

Once again however, the context and ultimate point is missed.

Your ultimate point is that you believe in AGW and because of the collective guilt of the industrialized world they should be punished and third world countries compensated.

[MannyIsGod]

Guilt? No, you miss the point again. Its economics. That is the point. When I place plant that makes your land completely unusable then there is a very simple point that your wealth was redistributed to me and my money making efforts via the pollution I emitted.

What is being spoken of in the OP and those quotes is economics.

[CosmicCowboy]

Guilt? No, you miss the point again. Its economics. That is the point. When I place plant that makes your land completely unusable then there is a very simple point that your wealth was redistributed to me and my money making efforts via the pollution I emitted.

What is being spoken of in the OP and those quotes is economics.

Manny, I get the economics argument but in this application it is based on the religion/premise of AGW.

[RandomGuy]

The proposed carbon tax wealth transfers to third world countries are real dollars. Lots of them. Check it out.

Ah. We are having two different conversations then.

I know there is a proposal for direct transfers to mitigate the effects of environmental damage, I have read the news reports, and understood your concerns.

My statement was simply a way of addressing those concerns, which I happen to share to some extent. (surprise!)

I was merely pointing out that there are ways to limit the involuntary/indirect wealth transfers without actaully sending dollars into sinkholes.

There are also ways of ensuring any actual dollars sent actually go where they are supposed to, nes pa?

[CosmicCowboy]

And yes, I think AGW is a lot like a religion.

Like religion, you have to accept some parts on faith.
It preys on our collective guilt.
It requires a confession of guilt and a tithe for our salvation.

[RandomGuy]

Manny, I get the economics argument but in this application it is based on the religion/premise of AGW.

You prefer the religion/premise of the denier movement then.

We will be at an empasse as long as you assert the conspiracy theory that all climate scientists are lying.

[RandomGuy]

And yes, I think AGW is a lot like a religion.

Like religion, you have to accept some parts on faith.
It preys on our collective guilt.
It requires a confession of guilt and a tithe for our salvation.

Few religions are based on testable science.

(shrugs)

We learn more all the time. If the deniers/skeptics have the more solid case, that will win out.

The fact that CO2 emissions will continue their exponential climb will make it a lot easier to ferret out the ultimate causes of warming trends.

The best that the denier pseudoscientists seem to have come up with is "its the sun", but the sun's output really doesn't vary that much.

If it continues to warm, and the sun's output doesn't change, we can discard that theory pretty conclusively, and will be left with little else to explain why things are changing, other than the obvious variable.

[CosmicCowboy]

You prefer the religion/premise of the denier movement then.

We will be at an empasse as long as you assert the conspiracy theory that all climate scientists are lying.

I don't think anyone denies global warming/cooling happens.

proving AWG is another thing entirely.

Are all Climate Scientists lying? Meh. Probably not, but they have a vested interest in proving the AWG theory.

It's the cause/effect assumptions that are flaky.

CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, therefore Man caused CO2 caused temperatures to rise.

Incidents of Somali Piracy go up, temperatures go up, therefore Somali Pirates caused temperature to rise.

See, I understand how this "science" works too.

[MannyIsGod]

Faith huh? I'd love to know what parts of AGW theory are based upon faith.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think anyone denies global warming/cooling happens.

proving AWG is another thing entirely.

Are all Climate Scientists lying? Meh. Probably not, but they have a vested interest in proving the AWG theory.

It's the cause/effect assumptions that are flaky.

CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, therefore Man caused CO2 caused temperatures to rise.

Incidents of Somali Piracy go up, temperatures go up, therefore Somali Pirates caused temperature to rise.

See, I understand how this "science" works too.

Too bad the CO2 is verifiable and the Somali Piracy theory is not. I'm sorry, but this post is complete bullshit especially after what you posted to RG in this very thread.

[CosmicCowboy]

Too bad the CO2 is verifiable and the Somali Piracy theory is not. I'm sorry, but this post is complete bullshit especially after what you posted to RG in this very thread.

Manny, we get that you are a true believer in AWG and witness on your faith at every opportunity.

[MannyIsGod]

I get that when your cornered that you resort to bullshit posting like that or you resort to the LOL I WAS TROLLING defense.

Let me know when you can name what parts of AGW theory are based upon faith.

[DarrinS]

I get that when your cornered that you resort to bullshit posting like that or you resort to the LOL I WAS TROLLING defense.

Let me know when you can name what parts of AGW theory are based upon faith.



Do you know what the climate will be 100 years from now? If you think you do, what is that based on?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Darrin, pick up a dictionary. Look up the word faith. Thanks.

[CosmicCowboy]

I get that when your cornered that you resort to bullshit posting like that or you resort to the LOL I WAS TROLLING defense.

Let me know when you can name what parts of AGW theory are based upon faith.

Manny, I don't see the "corner" you speak of.

The "faith" part is believing in a direct relationship between small changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures.

I get that you believe it.

I get that the career academics at your university are probably believers too.

No need to get personal.

[Winehole23]

A recent related thread explicitly called out AGW debunkers as paranoid, cultish and irrational. This sort of thread is an appropriately tedious reply to the very broad brush applied there IMO.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I don't see the "corner" you speak of.

The "faith" part is believing in a direct relationship between small changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures.

I get that you believe it.

I get that the career academics at your university are probably believers too.

No need to get personal.

Career academics huh? You should talk to my calculus professor who was a conel in the air force and was responsible for a good amount of R&D at NASA as well who I guess is just full of AGW faith.

I don't think you understand what the word faith means because you're using it incorrectly. When there is evidence that is testable then it becomes quite the opposite of faith.

I understand that you find it hard to believe that a small amount of a substance can have drastic effects but I'm assuming you've run across rattlesnakes on your ranch before.

[MannyIsGod]

A recent related thread explicitly called out AGW debunkers as paranoid, cultish and irrational. This sort of thread is an appropriately tedious reply to the very broad brush applied there IMO.

Scientific, rational, and logical skepticism is and always will be welcome in any scientific community. That is how you advance knowledge. But if I prove to you that 2+2 is 4 only to have you question how 2+2 could possibly equal four over and over and then still claim it equals 5 then I will probably become annoyed and dismissive.

[MannyIsGod]

I find it rather laughable how an argument is thrown out that climate scientists come to the conclusions they do based upon funding. Funding was there for science prior to AGW theory and it will be there after AGW theory. Scientists study out of curiosity and a general desire for understanding.

[TeyshaBlue]

Scientific, rational, and logical skepticism is and always will be welcome in any scientific community. That is how you advance knowledge. But if I prove to you that 2+2 is 4 only to have you question how 2+2 could possibly equal four over and over and then still claim it equals 5 then I will probably become annoyed and dismissive.

2+2=4 is a theorem. AGW, at this point, is still theory absent conclusion. AGW aint 2+2=4 yet.

[MannyIsGod]

No, you're right. But I was trying to make a broader point that scientists are far from above questioning but asking the same questions that have been answered and explained over and over again gets tedious and leads to annoyance.

[CosmicCowboy]

Career academics huh? You should talk to my calculus professor who was a conel in the air force and was responsible for a good amount of R&D at NASA as well who I guess is just full of AGW faith.

I don't think you understand what the word faith means because you're using it incorrectly. When there is evidence that is testable then it becomes quite the opposite of faith.

I understand that you find it hard to believe that a small amount of a substance can have drastic effects but I'm assuming you've run across rattlesnakes on your ranch before.

A cute analogy but CO2 is a naturally occurring component of air (although much less than 1%) and it's a giant leap of faith to attribute global warming to tiny percentage changes in a gas that is a tiny percent of air to start with.

[TeyshaBlue]

No, you're right. But I was trying to make a broader point that scientists are far from above questioning but asking the same questions that have been answered and explained over and over again gets tedious and leads to annoyance.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?:lol

[Winehole23]

It's like taking your doctor's advice, TeyshaBlue. You don't ask him why. You just do it.

[MannyIsGod]

No, its like not believing your doctor when he tells you that you have cancer because both the doctor and the tumor are wrong and you know this based upon well, that doesn't matter.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's like taking your doctor's advice, TeyshaBlue. You don't ask him why. You just do it.

Bad analogy. I question my doctor constatnly because he is motivated 100% by profit. He's a fucking Ferengi.:depressed


On the other hand, that might not be such a bad analogy.:lol

[Winehole23]

(Slight recursion to a former state of the conversation, sorry.)

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?:lol

You know, I actually typed out a response then I reread it and a light bulb came on.

Well played. Very very very well played.

[CuckingFunt]

It's the cause/effect assumptions that are flaky.

CO2 goes up, temperature goes up, therefore Man caused CO2 caused temperatures to rise.

The argument has never been that simple, though.

It gets demonized/politicized through the assumed implication that the presence of human kind is inherently evil and that we alone are killing our precious Earth mother. Which would, of course, be short-sighted and wrong. But no one is saying that. The cause/effect assumption is not simply "man make temperature rise," but rather that human kind, through certain actions, has had enough of an impact on the environment in which we live that the temperature is rising at a faster rate than it would if we weren't here and that human kind, through certain other actions, could reduce, or at least slow, their negative impact on the environmental factors which contribute to rising temperatures. The argument actually being made, when stripped of all the reactionary politics that have been heaped upon it, is quite reasonable. Common sense, even.

It's impossible for an organism to not affect/change the environment in which it lives. Impossible. I know I've used this analogy here before, but it really is like a fish bowl. A fish bowl, filled with water/plants/gravel/etc. but without fish, will over time get dirty. The water will cloud, the plants and gravel will likely develop molds and algae, all on their own. But it will take a while. Add a fish, however, and it will happen much faster. Add several fish, and it will happen even faster. Not because the fish are evil, or because they're doing bad/evil things, but just because they're being fish. Thinking that we can somehow live in our own fish bowl without eventually clouding the water is just willfully ignorant.

[RandomGuy]

Bad analogy. I question my doctor constatnly because he is motivated 100% by profit. He's a fucking Ferengi.:depressed


On the other hand, that might not be such a bad analogy.:lol

Ferengi... :lol

Man if ever an image calls for a photoshop, that would be it. Quark in a doctor's lab coat with a stethescope, and a caption along the lines of "I can fix anything for enough pressed latinum..."

[RandomGuy]

Are all Climate Scientists lying? Meh. Probably not, but they have a vested interest in proving the AWG theory.

... as do the scientists directly funded by companies involved in the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, who, strangely enough, start sounding suspiciously like tobacco company "scientists" who claimed that smoking didn't cause cancer.

We can still formulate some reasonable courses of action to avoid the worst risks, even if the science isn't perfectly settled.

I don't need to know how many inches there are between me and the cliff to know that I probably should stop my car before it gets there.

[Wild Cobra]

Too bad the CO2 is verifiable and the Somali Piracy theory is not. I'm sorry, but this post is complete bullshit especially after what you posted to RG in this very thread.
How many times have I blown the CO2 theory?

Please... You AGW theory guys are stuck on stupid. Show me some hard evidence.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Darrin, pick up a dictionary. Look up the word faith. Thanks.
I see....

It's your religion!

Thanks for clarifying that.

[Wild Cobra]

2+2=4 is a theorem. AGW, at this point, is still theory absent conclusion. AGW aint 2+2=4 yet.
Very true. It isn't anywhere close.