AGW: Straight Answers

(thanks to GH for providing the questions)

(1) Is there a consensus among climatologists that AGW is real?

Yes, mainstream climatologists of today believe in AGW

(2) If real, AGW poses a serious threat – drought, rising sea level, severe weather and more. Yes or No.

Yes. If.

(3) Beyond broad incremental change there is a risk of significant, catastropic and irreversible change. Yes, or No, and if No, who are you to be so sure?

There is a risk of everything. An asteroid may come our way lost in the glare of the Sun, bringing a catastrophic change orders of magnitude worse than the direst AGW prediction. The issue is about evaluating those risks. And that is a political decision at the end of the day, because such evaluation includes non-quantifiable factors

(4) Remedial action is easier the sooner it is undertaken. Yes or what the bleep are you thinking?

Yes, remedial action is better taken asap. On the other hand, the wrong remedial action more often than not cause makes the situation worse. If you have pain at the level of the heart, a painkiller will be “remedial action” but…

(5) There has been a systematic campaign to discredit AFW by commercial interests, Yes or No.

Yes, but nothing in comparison to the far bigger systematic campaign to shove AGW down everybody’s throat, by commercial and political interests. We are talking a few million dollars against hundreds and hundreds million dollars.

(6) US political support for action has been a much lower percentage of lawmakers than of qualified climatologists, Yes or read the newspapers.

US political support for action has been a much lower percentage of lawmakers (and professional weathermen) than of qualified climatologists

(7) The discrepancy between political support for action and scientific concerns is due largely to BAU interests, Yes or No.

No. The discrepancy between political support for action and scientific concerns is due largely to the inability to bring the AGW credo to the masses

(8 ) Politicians seeking to do harmful things for profit of special interests, will seek shelter under any contrary opinion they can find, no matter how well or poorly founded it is, Yes or No.

No. Politicians seeking to do harmful things for profit of special interests, will masquerade their actions as perfectly aligned with current scientific consensus (corn-based ethanol where are thou)