Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Dissent on Global Warming
- Thread starter DerHoggz
- Start date
- Status
Science tells us that our burning of fossil fuels has caused a significant increase in the atmospheric temperature of the Earth and will continue to do so into the indefinite future. This much is certain.
This is where the problem starts. There is no consensus at all of peer reviewed studies that tells us just how much our CO2 emissions have warmed the atmosphere so far and there is much disagreement about how much to expect in the future - even if we knew the exact amount of our future emissions - which we don't.
It's intellectually dishonest to attack those who discuss and debate the actual numbers as "deniers" when they disagree with the news media consensus or the political consensus (which is the UN IPCC report) view on what the specific numbers are. There are many qualified scientists who disagree with the quantitative conclusions contained in the The UN IPCC report and consider them to be based on less than sound scientific methods.
Science simply does not know the answer to these two questions:
1) How much of the current warming is anthropogenic?
2) How much warming can we expect in the future?
The answers are not to be found in the rhetoric that is being "discussed" in the popular press. All we see is two extremes of non-scientific viewpoints. One side is exemplified by certain talk radio hosts who say there is no warming at all and the whole issue is a giant hoax, while the other side presents us with slide shows that scare us into believing an implausibly exaggerated worst case scenario of the greatest catastrophe the Earth has ever experienced.
I think we should all calm down and wait until the real scientists come up with more definitive answers before we make up our minds based on the propaganda being shoved at us from different groups who will become obscenely wealthy and powerful if their lies are believed by a "consensus" of society.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I never claimed the acceptance was universal, there have always been and always will be intelligent people who disagreed with the consensus. My ability to accept that there's only a handful of people able to see "the truth" is much more limited than my willingness to believe there's a reason why they're in such a small minority among equally impressively credentialed peers.
I was here in the '70's...didn't get my "talking points" from 2000's AM radio, thanks. Way to belittle those with whom you don't agree with...real, well thought out scientific method there...thanks for that.
Who funded your "studies". May it have been a government, that had much to gain by having people follow their edicts lest they would "ruin the world"?, Or perhaps it was a corporation that had much to gain by producing windmills and solar arrays (which by the way require the razing of land, ie: the environment),
What better way to whip a population into willfull submission than to have them believe, by "scientific evidence", that unless they behave the way said entity wants them to, they will ruin the earth that feeds them?
Who funded your "studies". May it have been a government, that had much to gain by having people follow their edicts lest they would "ruin the world"?, Or perhaps it was a corporation that had much to gain by producing windmills and solar arrays (which by the way require the razing of land, ie: the environment),
What better way to whip a population into willfull submission than to have them believe, by "scientific evidence", that unless they behave the way said entity wants them to, they will ruin the earth that feeds them?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Suppose you went to one doctor and without even examining you, he told you you were fine and perfectly healthy - go home and stop wasting his time with your health concerns.
Then you went to another doctor and after giving you a series of brand new, "cutting edge" tests that no other doctors had access to, he told you you were 150 pounds overweight (based on a new, updated definition of "overweight") and you should quit your job immediately, check into his special clinic and spend the next 6 months and $1 million on his team of specialists where they would do everything they could think of to make you healthy again, starting with surgery and a long list of powerful drugs.
Which one of these quacks would you believe?
What I would do is go to a real doctor who would tell me the truth. He would tell me that I'm a bit overweight and I need to go on a diet and get some regular exercise, and that he would prescribe some medication to take care of the immediate problem of high blood pressure and refer me to a program to help me make healthy changes to my lifestyle.
The "side" of the government irrationally flailing against scientific consensus is quite thoroughly linked to massively powerful and wealthy corporations who would very much like to avoid any encroachment on their profits. There is the money.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
This is a false comparison. You're overlooking the fact that there are massive interests in maintaining the status quo, but assign the bias towards those interested in change.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Well, you can yell into your echo chamber, and I'll yell into mine, then.
Personally, it is typical of modern "liberal" movements to attack and control things that are "controllable", such as law abiding citizens (via even more restrictive laws) and business (via the EPA, OSHA, etc.), while ignoring the things that are obvious and immediate threats to society (do crazy a**holes who want to kill with guns obey gun laws?...while the law-abiding citizen willingly disarms himself - and cannot defend himself - for fear of being fined or imprisoned for violating a new, restrictive gun law).
So, if I live in Malaysia or Japan, or California, I care about earthquakes and tsunamis, which are real threats to existence and economy. However, these entities are not controllable or accountable to any legislation, and unable to be swayed or prosecuted by any human enforcement agency. Or how about a large meteor hitting the planet? That would make global "climate change" seem like a minor issue, wouldn't it? Thus, you don't hear much talk about them because, oh well, how do you build a political coalition based on something you can't control?
IMHO, the political motive is inextricable from the "climate change" movement, and thus must be scientifically proven with a TRUE respect for science. In the 1970s, a famous Paul Ehrlich was going around scaring the crap out of school kids with predictions of global cooling and worldwide famine and food shortages, and with the full, unfettered support of "science teachers" plugged into the newly Federal Government-driven public school systems....ahem...still waiting for the apology on that one.
...but whatever...I just had some time to kill and figured what better way then to piss off the kool-aid drinkers...LOL
Amen
Science always admits there are gaps in knowledge. That's why they continue to study. That's not to say that a lot of the science on this is well and truly established. If there are faults in published papers that you believe have escaped peer review that you'd like to point out then let's hear it.
If governments have so much to gain from funding studies then why aren't they a bit more enthusiastic about taking action? Why are governments globally having to be dragged into this kicking and screaming? The whole 'Science is a govt conspiracy thing' just defies the most basic logic.
equally, you seem happy to ignore the massive interests in changing the status quo, because evidently those changes could only represent a positive change? Of this I am highly skeptical.
If only my town, state or federal government would allow me the ability to significant, incentivized deductions for installing a windmill, solar, and geo-thermal systems in my house, I'd be on it like white on rice. Seriously, I would. But they don't, and to do this type of energy independent system simply makes no financial sense for the average person. Here in Massachusetts, it is pretty much a one party state. Explain to me, then, why this type of quantum change has not yet been mandated and supported. I'm all for emissions free sources of energy.
Invariably, there will be a political component to the implementation of policy based on climate change findings "consensus". The question is: which way does the average citizen feel like getting the shaft? Status quo, or the new "improved" government sanctioned way?
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I don't discount the potential for bias on both sides, but the available assets on the status quo side vastly outnumber the money any green energy startup is going to have available to grease palms with.
You guys are getting really distracted by the money. There WILL be money to be made in renewable energy. Canny investors will see opportunities. This does not mean the science is wrong.
Or to get into the scare quote spirit of things....
Does "not" mean the "science" is "wrong".
Or to get into the scare quote spirit of things....
Does "not" mean the "science" is "wrong".
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I agree the science certainly should speak for itself, unfortunately some people need additional translation.:|
- Status
