Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

I remember reading professors and college students in general tend to lean left. So it's a little deeper rooted than that... of course, you can always argue that "all smart people are leftists," but I don't think anyone here is that dumb.

Yeah, it's much more broad than that but what comes to mind is a climate conference where that subject was raised. The speaker asked everyone who identifies as "conservative" to raise their hand. Out of a room of hundreds, only three raised their hand. The speaker implored the other 97% to ask those three to review their articles on climate before publishing in order to make the wording more neutral. That's where the politicizing of the issue starts.

American's really love to 'label' people. It's a very tribal and polar way of thinking that I have never really understood. Whether they are 'liberal learned' or not makes no difference to the science. A catholic scientist came up with the first birth control pill. Needless to say, the science he carried out was independent of his political/theological beliefs.

It's left brained versus right brained. It's polar because it is polar. And it absolutely does make a difference. Case in point: a conservative leaning scientist is more inclined to research cost effective ways to scrub coal power plant emissions (e.g. by using algae) over researching climate change. The latter so outnumber the former though that there is excessive focus on the problem and little focus on solutions.

In your example: birth control pills are infinitely better than performing abortions. Scientists like to research the lesser of two evils to prevent the exercise of a greater evil.

Yet, if people don't make a noise about it, from where does the impetus to innovate these solutions come?

It's called capitalism. There is a ton of money to be made in bioengineering, for example. The research is happening right now--it just isn't mainstream yet.

Ellon Musk didn't create Tesla Motors to save the planet; he did it to make money off of Hollywood actors and actresses that are dissatisfied with their Toyota Priuses.

I'll bite anyway. Alright, where is the source saying that 97% of scientists are 'lefties'? or is this just anecdotal or maybe they are just liberal because their data doesn't support what some people are spouting?

I'd have to dig through a 50 page thread at GeneralNonsense to find the video. It was a recorded conference at university.

Here's an article more broadly on the subject: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll (55% Democrat, 32% Independent, 6% Republican; 81% are or lean Democrat). Scientists that work in the private sector are the least likely to identify as Democrat (*cough*the ones actually working on solutions*cough*).

 

[nolafotoknut]

i'm not saying they are not, but why do you believe that universities are liberally aligned?
Even if I were to agree that politics influences what gets researched, I can see how anyone can believe that it holds such an influence on the conclusions reached by studies.

I have three degrees from multiple universities in different states, including an MBA and currently working on my second Master's. Being an older student, I have personally experienced the liberally aligned universities. I believe these universities are shaping and molding our youth with their beliefs to become liberals because these students don't know better have have not experienced life yet. If you think about it, who do most people look to as role models?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Not really. Someone can have extreme views that lie on both sides and are as far from moderate as any on either side. As a Brit, I always find it strange how far people on the other side of the pond accept their labels even going as far as identifying themselves by either 'Republican' or 'Democrat.' What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?

You should read this: The Science of Politics and the Conquest of Nature

The modern period also saw the reason for scientific inquiry shift from merely understanding how nature was governed to understanding how human beings could master it. Nature became not subject but object; and human inquiry was set not only in service of understanding politics, but manipulating nature for political ends.

Science today can't use the same definition of a few hundred years ago. It is no longer just about understanding all natural things. Remember, history only remembers the victors and politics are very much at play over determining the winner of competing theories.

Case in point: I believe there is more evidence to support the "expanding Earth theory" over the "Pangaea theory" but because the general consensus refuses to take a second look with modern data (mostly from deep ocean scans), we're stuck with the same old outdated theories.

Another example: the noise that string and membrane theories make even though we know they are inaccurate. That's that liberal groupthink at play.


I'll end with another great quote from that article:

This transformation, of course, describes the birth of liberalism — the philosophy that sought to liberate humans from the constraints of a prior approach to political philosophy that was content, in the words of Machiavelli, to settle for “imagined republics and principalities.” It was in order to effect this end that the revolution of the sciences first articulated by Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes was embraced: To secure human liberty, political science must become a theoretical science, while natural science must be treated as a practical science, in the specific sense that it would be a realm of human action and freedom. Within the horizon of a determined political setting — the liberal state — human beings would achieve a form of security and a new kind of liberty — the absence of constraint — through the conquest of nature.

A fundamental debate between ancients and moderns revolves around the question of which conception of human nature is more correct — one oriented toward the attainment of virtue within a fixed natural order, or one based upon the expansion of satisfactions of human self-interest through the conquest of nature.

Liberals are turning from the modern definition of liberalism to the ancient definition.

 

[silkstone]

Yeah, it's much more broad than that but what comes to mind is a climate conference where that subject was raised. The speaker asked everyone who identifies as "conservative" to raise their hand. Out of a room of hundreds, only three raised their hand. The speaker employed the other 97% to ask those three to review their articles on climate before publishing in order to make the wording more neutral. That's where the politicizing of the issue starts.

Which conference? I can't find anything. Anecdotal?

It's left brained versus right brained. It's polar because it is polar. And it absolutely does make a difference. Case in point: a conservative leaning scientist is more inclined to research cost effective ways to scrub coal power plant emissions (e.g. by using algae) over researching climate change. The latter so outnumber the former though that there is excessive focus on the problem and little focus on solutions.

In your example: birth control pills are infinitely better than performing abortions. Scientists like to research the lesser of two evils to prevent the exercise of a greater evil.

Left-brained and right brained is another myth, there is no such thing! Why would a 'liberal-thinking' scientist not want to research CO2 scrubbing methods? It really seems like you are making things up in your head to justify your arguments.

It's called capitalism. There is a ton of money to be made in bioengineering, for example. The research is happening right now--it just isn't mainstream yet.

Ellon Musk didn't create Tesla Motors to save the planet; he did it to make money off of Hollywood actors and actresses that are dissatisfied with their Toyota Priuses.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but didn;t Ellon Musk just give away his patent portfolio on Telsa? Not very capitalist of him!

I'd have to dig through a 50 page thread at GeneralNonsense to find the video. It was a recorded conference at university.

So a random video and your mind is made up?

Here's an article more broadly on the subject: Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll (55% Democrat, 32% Independent, 6% Republican; 81% are or lean Democrat). Scientists that work in the private sector are the least likely to identify as Democrat.

A poll funded by oil companies lobby groups. Must be legit!

I have three degrees from multiple universities in different states, including an MBA and currently working on my second Master's. Being an older student, I have personally experienced the liberally aligned universities. I believe these universities are shaping and molding our youth with their beliefs to become liberals because these students don't know better have have not experienced life yet. If you think about it, who do most people look to as role models?

Anecdotal evidence based on your own (subjective) experience? And no, in my experience, students do not look up to their lecturers. Pity is a word that might be thrown around, but never admire! I've spent a bit of time in university, never once do I remember climate change being discussed.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Left-brained and right brained is another myth, there is no such thing! Why would a 'liberal-thinking' scientist not want to research CO2 scrubbing methods? It really seems like you are making things up in your head to justify your arguments.

Not a myth. There are clear trends in many facets of life that can be surmised from political beliefs (e.g. conservatives tend to watch Jay Leno over David Letterman).

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but didn;t Ellon Musk just give away his patent portfolio on Telsa? Not very capitalist of him!

You're talking about greed. Ellon Musk is not a greedy man. Capitalism responds to emotions (e.g. bull and bear markets) but it has no emotions.

A poll funded by oil companies lobby groups. Must be legit!

Pew Research Center is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that does international polling and is very well respected. In terms of polling, only Gallup really compares but Pew tends to do more broad research (like science and religion) where Gallup is mostly focused on politics.

 

[nolafotoknut]

Which conference? I can't find anything. Anecdotal?



Left-brained and right brained is another myth, there is no such thing! Why would a 'liberal-thinking' scientist not want to research CO2 scrubbing methods? It really seems like you are making things up in your head to justify your arguments.



I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but didn;t Ellon Musk just give away his patent portfolio on Telsa? Not very capitalist of him!



So a random video and your mind is made up?



A poll funded by oil companies lobby groups. Must be legit!



Anecdotal evidence based on your own (subjective) experience? And no, in my experience, students do not look up to their lecturers. Pity is a word that might be thrown around, but never admire! I've spent a bit of time in university, never once do I remember climate change being discussed.

So, your experience trumps anyone else's in this forum? And yes, teachers and professors are role models!

 

[dorsetknob]

I'd have to dig through a 50 page thread at GeneralNonsense to find the video. It was a recorded conference at university.

to save you the bother
watch this

enjoy

 

[rtwjunkie]

Anecdotal evidence based on your own (subjective) experience? And no, in my experience, students do not look up to their lecturers. Pity is a word that might be thrown around, but never admire! I've spent a bit of time in university, never once do I remember climate change being discussed.

I envy you! You were very lucky not to have had any professors who taught THEIR opinion, instead of neutral knowledge facts, and you are lucky you never had to witness any eager young college students with no world experience lapping up the total tripe being spewed by said opinionated professors, as a thirsty dog laps from a bowl on a hot day.

I guess it's very lucky for you that your anecdotal experience gave you neutral teachers only concerned with teaching facts, and not interpretations. Again, I envy you!

This is a ten year old study, but I venture it is more true today than ten years ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I spent the last hour trying to find that video but I can't. These discussions on climate change or so frequent and so long-winded that finding the premium meat is laborious work.


Edit: I'm still looking but there are 100 threads and many of them have over 100 posts.

 

[silkstone]

Not a myth. There are clear trends in many facets of life that can be surmised from political beliefs (e.g. conservatives tend to watch Jay Leno over David Letterman).

It is a myth. Your link is about genetic/hormonal influences on political affiliation, it might as well be a nature vs. nurture piece. However, I'm guessing you're folks were republicans. I have studied a little neuroscience. Not enough to have any real expertise, but enough to know that it is a new, interesting field of study and one that very few conclusions are made.

You're talking about greed. Ellon Musk is not a greedy man. Capitalism responds to emotions (e.g. bull and bear markets) but it has no emotions.

Gordon Gekko would disagree. Unchecked capitalism is inherently greedy, without it, capitalism would not function. It's only a bad thing when it becomes 'above all else'.
An interesting read: http://www.economist.com/node/1119945

Pew Research Center is a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization that does international polling and is very well respected. In terms of polling, only Gallup really compares but Pew tends to do more broad research (like science and religion) where Gallup is mostly focused on politics.

So a political lobby group funded by the oil industry is a group you want to trust when discussing climate change? I bet you still smoke Marlboro too, as that is safe, right?

I spent the last hour trying to find that video but I can't. These discussions on climate change or so frequent and so long-winded that finding the premium meat is laborious work.

Don't mean to keep you looking for sources. However, you have to admit, that if such a radical statement is that hard to find (I spent 20-mins on google), it might not be all that salient. I'm sure if it was 97%, a lot of people would have picked up on it in their arguments too.

I envy you! You were very lucky not to have had any professors who taught THEIR opinion, instead of neutral knowledge facts, and you are lucky you never had to witness any eager young college students with no world experience lapping up the total tripe being spewed by said opinionated professors, as a thirsty dog laps from a bowl on a hot day.

I guess it's very lucky for you that your anecdotal experience gave you neutral teachers only concerned with teaching facts, and not interpretations. Again, I envy you!

This is a ten year old study, but I venture it is more true today than ten years ago: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

"The study was sponsored by the Randolph Foundation, a private philanthropy that funds many conservative organizations, such as Americans for Tax Reform, the Independent Women's Forum, and right-wing pundit David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture."

So ... it does confirm that there is a higher ratio of liberals to conservatives in academia, but not to the extent reported as it really over-represented doctoral institutions.

It did not prove any sort of liberal bias in the hiring/promotion of faculty. So no liberal conspiracy there. Phew!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Don't mean to keep you looking for sources. However, you have to admit, that if such a radical statement is that hard to find (I spent 20-mins on google), it might not be all that salient. I'm sure if it was 97%, a lot of people would have picked up on it in their arguments too.

Like I said, it was a conference about how climate change is discussed within the scientific community. It's a really obscure video and that little experiment was only the opener for it making it clear to everyone in the room there's a reason to be concerned.

The good sources like that are drowned out by all of the noise of generic political/news articles. I found that back before the internet dug its teeth into climate change and trashed the search results. The same thing has happened to the internet and marijuana searches.

I really want to find it but it is literally a needle in a haystack. The thread I'm looking at now is 600 days old. The one I need to find is probably 3-5 years old.

 

[rtwjunkie]

"The study was sponsored by the Randolph Foundation, a private philanthropy that funds many conservative organizations, such as Americans for Tax Reform, the Independent Women's Forum, and right-wing pundit David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture."

So ... it does confirm that there is a higher ratio of liberals to conservatives in academia, but not to the extent reported as it really over-represented doctoral institutions.

It did not prove any sort of liberal bias in the hiring/promotion of faculty. So no liberal conspiracy there. Phew!

Now compare what you just said, decrying the study as faulty because of it's political bias, with what you stated on the previous page in post #523: "What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?"

 

[silkstone]

Like I said, it was a conference about how climate change is discussed within the scientific community. It's a really obscure video and that little experiment was only the opener for it making it clear to everyone in the room there's a reason to be concerned.

The good sources like that are drowned out by all of the noise of generic political/news articles. I found that back before the internet dug its teeth into climate change and trashed the search results. The same thing has happened to the internet and marijuana searches.

I really want to find it but it is literally a needle in a haystack. The thread I'm looking at now is 600 days old. The one I need to find is probably 3-5 years old.

Save the effort, I will concede that it probably does exist. We'll argue the point of it. A scientist's interpretation may indeed also be influenced by one's belief's. This would fit in well with a radical constructivist's view of scientific endeavor and what it all means.

The data, however, is black and white. The point that i'm guessing you will argue is that they are only looking at causation through a pair of liberal goggles. However, science is done based on a process of elimination. They can only really come to a conclusion once they have discredited all other causes.

Now compare what you just said, decrying the study as faulty because of it's political bias, with what you stated on the previous page in post #523: "What difference does it make, whether someone is 'left-leaning' or 'right-leaning', to the science? Does it automatically invalidate all of their arguments if their political orientation is different from your own?"

Difficult to refute when someone uses your own arguments against you! If you read again, I actually didn't discredit the "study". I use the word in the loosest sense as the "study" is not exactly science.
Scientifically speaking, out of 1,643 members of faculty at 81 doctoral, 59 comprehensive and 43 liberal arts institutions, 73% identify as liberal.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Difficult to refute when someone uses your own arguments against you! If you read again, I actually didn't discredit the "study". I use the word in the loosest sense as the "study" is not exactly science.

Alright I concede that I did stretch the study concept into the science realm a bit.

I just wanted to make my point that neither of us can really refute the other's argument simply because of the sources!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ran across a relevant quote in a thread 1161 days old:

No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power. … The time has come to consider how we might bring about a separation, as complete as possible, between Science and Government in all countries. I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state.

1971

Edit: Ahahaha! I'm not even back to the "Climate Gate" megathreads!

 

[silkstone]

Alright I concede that I did stretch the study concept into the science realm a bit.

I just wanted to make my point that neither of us can really refute the other's argument simply because of the sources!

Agreed. However, I know that I don't trust that big tobacco, big chemical or big oil hold me in their best interests.

Ran across a relevant quote in a thread 1161 days old:

1971

Urgh ... Really, science is equivalent to religion? Yes. Let government act without any information. While we are at it, lets separate government from economics, medicine, military, ... Let's even remove government from politics, that sounds like a good idea.

 

[OneMoar]

this thread has derailed harder then a AMTrack loaded with orphans while crossing a bridge over a 500FT Gully
please make it stop ....

 

[silkstone]

this thread has derailed harder then a AMTrack loaded with orphans while crossing a bridge over a 500FT Gully
please make it stop ....

Ha! I think I might have drank too much this evening. Apologies.
Back on topic:
The data is not able to attribute climate change to:
Cows,
Volcanoes,
The clouds,
The sun,
The moon,
and the stars in the sky ... Sorry getting off track again. Think I need some sleep.

The data is not able to eliminate fossil fuels as being the cause.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Because the computer models do a very poor job at modeling all those points of data. If you look back at "global warming" articles just 10 years ago, a lot of them predicted New York City would be under water by now. It should give you an idea of how inaccurate the predictions have been.

Case in point: clouds (aka water vapor) can have a massive positive and negative on climate. The models often used a fixed number for albedo instead of modeling weather as well. The models are fundamentally flawed.

Even irregular events like forest fires have massive impacts on climate on many levels. They cause short term heating where the fires actually are but the smoke they produce is usually white and cloud-like. Down wind, that white smoke causes solar energy to be reflected instead of absorbed causing minor but measurable cooling. At the same time, the amount of CO2 released as well causes a more long term warming effect as well as the damaged trees having a very long term effect of not removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere. There are so many data points to consider on top of the fact that forest fires aren't a regular thing. The models just end up being wrong.

There are lots of correlations but there simply isn't enough data to prove causation.

Urgh ... Really, science is equivalent to religion? Yes. Let government act without any information. While we are at it, lets separate government from economics, medicine, military, ... Let's even remove government from politics, that sounds like a good idea.

Bronowski used separation of church and state as an example of what is necessary with science and state. It goes back into that political science argument where the two are intrinsically linked even though they ought not be.

Your link is about genetic/hormonal influences on political affiliation, it might as well be a nature vs. nurture piece.

It's more nature than nurture. Case in point: if you're easily startled, you're more likely to be a conservative than a liberal (fight-or-flight mechanism).

 

[silkstone]

Because the computer models do a very poor job at modeling all those points of data. If you look back at "global warming" articles just 10 years ago, a lot of them predicted New York City would be under water by now. It should give you an idea of how inaccurate the predictions have been.

Case in point: clouds (aka water vapor) can have a massive positive and negative on climate. The models often used a fixed number for albedo instead of modeling weather as well. The models are fundamentally flawed.

Even irregular events like forest fires have massive impacts on climate on many levels. They cause short term heating where the fires actually are but the smoke they produce is usually white and cloud-like. Down wind, that white smoke causes solar energy to be reflected instead of absorbed causing minor but measurable cooling. At the same time, the amount of CO2 released as well causes a more long term warming effect as well as the damaged trees having a very long term effect of not removing as much CO2 from the atmosphere. There are so many data points to consider on top of the fact that forest fires aren't a regular thing. The models just end up being wrong.

There are lots of correlations but there simply isn't enough data to prove causation.

Okay, on the data side of things. The rise in CO2 levels can only be attributed to human factors, agreed? Data is data, and we have a lot of it. The interpretations might vary slightly until a general contentious is reached on what it all actually means. Every other cause of rising CO2 levels has been ruled out. Process of elimination.


With regards to the models, they are just that. Very few in the scientific community disagree that CO2 is driving climate change. Not based on models, based on data. Scientists interpretations of said data have been reviewed multiple times and there is no disagreement that the data shows CO2 as a cause of climate change. Well, it's either that or someone dropped a big-ass block of dry ice on us from outer-space without us noticing!

With regards to models predicting the future changes (as it seems you are bunching these two 'models' together. They have been more accurate predicting changes than not. The melting ice-caps, extreme whether. Where there have been some inaccuracies, many more predictions have been accurate, especially over the 10-year time-frame. They are considered to be generally accurate and while not predicting everything, they do give a good general overview of what is happening.

Scientists don't do their work based on models, they do it based on the data they have and use models to come up with predictions as to what will happen. In that sense there is disagreement as to the specifics, as they are only hypothesis at the moment, but everybody is saying that nothing good will come of this!

Nowhere in my quote mentions religion. That's all you.

"I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state."

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Okay, on the data side of things. The rise in CO2 levels can only be attributed to human factors, agreed? Data is data, and we have a lot of it. The interpretations might vary slightly until a general contentious is reached on what it all actually means. Every other cause of rising CO2 levels has been ruled out. Process of elimination.

Negative. Because the surface of the Earth warmed, trapped sources of CO2 are releasing (glaciers and permafrost). So no, the use of the word "only" is erroneous.

With regards to the models, they are just that. Very few in the scientific community disagree that CO2 is driving climate change. Not based on models, based on data. Scientists interpretations of said data have been reviewed multiple times and there is no disagreement that the data shows CO2 as a cause of climate change. Well, it's either that or someone dropped a big-ass block of dry ice on us from outer-space without us noticing!

Actually, they do. You have to be careful with polling data because they ask very specific questions and get very specific responses. For example, the "97% of climate scientist believe in global warming" figure is just that: 97% percent of climate scientists believe the surface temperature of the Earth is warming. When they go further and ask whether or not it is caused by man, less than 60% say it is (this figure almost exactly mirrors the climate scientists that identify themselves as Democrat). When asked if it is dangerous, the number falls even lower. Thanks to satellite-based temperature data, it is surprising 3% disagree warming is occurring. When you get into the details though, the shades of gray appear.

And before you ask for a source, it was a US News link magibeg posted in one of those dozens of threads I was looking through.

The melting ice-caps, extreme whether. Where there have been some inaccuracies, many more predictions have been accurate, especially over the 10-year time-frame. They are considered to be generally accurate and while not predicting everything, they do give a good general overview of what is happening.

Extreme weather is not increasing (there was a better source for that but again, drowned out by the noise). Ice coverage is decreasing in some places (particularly Arctic) and growing in others (particularly Antarctic).

Scientists don't do their work based on models, they do it based on the data they have and use models to come up with predictions as to what will happen. In that sense there is disagreement as to the specifics, as they are only hypothesis at the moment, but everybody is saying that nothing good will come of this!

CO2 is plant food. CH4 should be the greater concern in the atmosphere because it only leaves by way of breaking down.

"I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state."

I ninja edited. He never said science was a religion (see atheism for an example where it is but that's going off topic).

 

[magibeg]

Sorry guys, was busy looking at wedding venues.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."


Also for CO2, we know the leading cause is from fossil fuels due to carbon isotopes.

CH4 is much less of a concern because it has a much shorter circulation period so it cannot accumulate the same way CO2 does. It also isn't even close to the same concentration levels. We discussed this already: http://www.generalnonsense_net-this_site_no_longer_exists/showpost.php?p=49137&postcount=91

I hope this was to the point enough.

 

[silkstone]

Negative. Because the surface of the Earth warmed, trapped sources of CO2 are releasing (glaciers and permafrost). So no, the use of the word "only" is erroneous.

Yes, trapped sources of carbon, but no to permafrost and glaciers, though they do contribute, negative feedback is a bitch

Actually, they do. You have to be careful with polling data because they ask very specific questions and get very specific responses. For example, the "97% of climate scientist believe in global warming" figure is just that: 97% percent of climate scientists believe the surface temperature of the Earth is warming. When they go further and ask whether or not it is caused by man, less than 60% say it is (this figure almost exactly mirrors the climate scientists that identify themselves as Democrat). When asked if it is dangerous, the number falls even lower. Thanks to satellite-based temperature data, it is surprising 3% disagree warming is occurring. When you get into the details though, the shades of gray appear.

And before you ask for a source, it was a US News link magibeg posted in one of those dozens of threads I was looking through.

Nope. 97% of climate scientists agree that it is 'very likely due to human activities." http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Even assuming you are right, and it's 60%. That is not the same as saying 40% say it is definitely not due to human activities. 60% is still an overwhelming majority. If 60% of people agreed on most things, we'd have a very peaceful world.
Regarding your inference to 60% being Democrat, try to remember that not all scientists are American. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them would not identify themselves as 'Democrat'.

Extreme weather is not increasing (there was a better source for that but again, drowned out by the noise). Ice coverage is decreasing in some places (particularly Arctic) and growing in others (particularly Antarctic).

Arctic ones are. Antarctic, probably not yet: Which is a very good thing.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

By the way, the 'contributor' you linked to is not a scientist, but a lobbyist/lawyer. I think he also lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry trying to promote smoking as an expression of freedom. He works for the Heartland institute. A basic google search will bring up his credentials and who he is paid by. Seriously, watch "Merchants of Doubt" I think he is actually in it.

CO2 is plant food. CH4 should be the greater concern in the atmosphere because it only leaves by way of breaking down.

Sunlight is plant's 'food', they used CO2 to respire. More CO2 (most probably) does not mean more plants, just like more oxygen does not mean more people.
The relationship is actually quite complex. In simple terms it is down to the law of limiting factors. For a (incomplete) overview, see here: http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/content/filerepository/CMP/00/001/068/Rate of photosynthesis limiting factors.pdf

However 'hoping' that an increased rate of photosynthesis will balance out the negative effects of global warming is pretty wishful thinking.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nope. 97% of climate scientists agree that it is 'very likely due to human activities." http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

No, that source is looking exclusively at published articles. It doesn't ask anyone's opinion. I quote:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

That's hardly scientific. All that really amounts to is that climatologists are getting a lot of money to research climate change and that shouldn't surprise anyone (pretty much exclusively the only contracts available since the first IPCC report in the early 1990s). Additionally, the criteria they used for categorizing articles has been heavily criticized and there are a lot of garbage references..

It should also be strongly noted that this article is written by John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science blog. He profits directly from the climate change alarmism (estimated value $21,000) by way of accepting donations. Website was founded in 2007. He published his first book on climate change in 2011. As far as I can gather, he is not a climatologist (has a degree in physics and is pursuing a degree in psychology).

60% is still an overwhelming majority. If 60% of people agreed on most things, we'd have a very peaceful world.
Regarding your inference to 60% being Democrat, try to remember that not all scientists are American. I'm pretty sure that a lot of them would not identify themselves as 'Democrat'.

The actual number was 54% (55% call themselves Democrat) and even 60% doesn't constitute an "overwhelming majority." It is simply a "majority." 60% is what got us Obamacare and the outcome of that is far from "peaceful." 55.5% is what got us the slew of recent SCOTUS rulings and those have hardly had "peaceful" outcomes either. You're not going to get "peaceful" unless it is unanimous (100%).

By the way, the 'contributor' you linked to is not a scientist, but a lobbyist/lawyer. I think he also lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry trying to promote smoking as an expression of freedom. He works for the Heartland institute. A basic google search will bring up his credentials and who he is paid by. Seriously, watch "Merchants of Doubt" I think he is actually in it.

I put that text in parenthesis for a reason. The original study that looked at extreme weather events, I believe, was performed by NOAA. Out of the four categories they looked at, only one increased (I believe it was flooding). As I pointed out, the good dissenting articles are quickly buried by the noise on the internet for any and everything that supports climate alarmism likely because they get a lot more hits. I'd have to dig through thousands of posts to find it.

However 'hoping' that an increased rate of photosynthesis will balance out the negative effects of global warming is pretty wishful thinking.

Plants are ultimate what puts carbon back in the dirt. Killing off plants contributes to increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 because less carbon can be removed from the atmosphere on an annual basis. The same also applies to algae and other ocean-based carbon dioxide consuming plants and organisms.

Bioengineering plants can lead to species of plants that excel at photosynthesis (e.g. remove the fruit bearing from a species and devote it all to creating carbon-full root nodules). Farmers could plant those as part of conservation program and disc them into the ground permanently removing a massive amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

 

[Fourstaff]

Currently, IMHO, the biggest problem is that all the "leading and respected" journals are not really entertaining 2 sides of the argument: its either you are a climate change advocate, or you are an idiot and we will not publish your paper. Unfortunately, this does not lead to a healthy debate. This gap is filled by funding from companies vested in denying climate change (think Big Oil Co.), damaging credibility and allowing strawman arguments.