Contributor
|
And then people read arguments like yours and think, "Yeah, I was right. Scientists really are up in the air about climate change. It's all a scam."
Also, there are other cases where the vast majority of scientists in a field agree. It's not always a sign that something is wrong. Not on all the details maybe, but on the broad outlines. When the basic science is done. Biologists agree on evolution. Geologists agree on plate tectonics. Climate scientists agree on AGW.
It is kind of adorable, when reading H.P. Lovecraft's At The Mountains Of Madness, to see this:
The changing state of the world through long geologic ages appeared with startling vividness in many of the sculptured maps and scenes. In certain cases existing science will require revision, while in other cases its bold deductions are magnificently confirmed. As I have said, the hypothesis of Taylor, Wegener, and Joly that all the continents are fragments of an original antarctic land mass which cracked from centrifugal force and drifted apart over a technically viscous lower surface - an hypothesis suggested by such things as the complementary outlines of Africa and South America, and the way the great mountain chains are rolled and shoved up - receives striking support from this uncanny source.
Fascinating to see it in the context of newly advanced science. In my opinion, anyway. ^_^
I actually got the definition directly...As an aside, and somewhat of a joke, I COULD see that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS (and specifically JUST those who have a specific degree in climatology ONLY) agree that climate change is occurring.
Well...at least 90% of them. Of course, if you understand what the degree of climatology actually IS...then you'd probably understand what the joke of the statement is.
(and in case you don't...a definition of climatology...
The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions. )
Whether that's global warming, cooling, combination of both...well...it's hard to get a consensus on ANYTHING in science. That's not even delving into the theories of what is causing such things.
But due to the very nature of what climatology IS, I COULD admittedly agree that 97% of climatologist DO agree climate change is occurring. I'm surprised it wouldn't be higher to tell the truth!
You got your definition wrong.
Climatology is the study of climate. Climate is defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time.
Climatology is not "the study of how humans change climate".
Also, the existence of climatology goes back several millenium. It's primary focus being the tracking of large scale weather patterns (weather conditions averaged over a period of time) to aid in farming. As a career focus, this was typically the job. As a scientific study, climatology was also something addressed by scientists from many fields, but typically not as a career or life's work.
It is true that it wasn't until evidence of large scale climate change that the science of climatology was really pushed into it's own discipline that became the major focus of some people's careers. For some reason you see this as evidence that climate change is fake?
I get it. You think that the wording of the survey was done to be scientifically clear, but intentionally misleading to the public. Let me clarify something for you.
A majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
97% agree that the surface of the Earth is warming
84% agree that this warming is caused by humans
50% agree that the temperature will rise another 2 degrees within 50 to 100 years.
Feel free to dispute that. I have no interest in trying to wage some sort of grammatical proof with you. I couldn't care less how your textbook words a definition.
But you know... what if... what the climate scientists want to do is not make molto dinero, but have grants enough to work, travel to interesting places, and have people listen to them? What if there are certain people who want massive international influence and do want the dineros? Isn't that enough profit to motivate people to toe the official line? And as for climatologists... from what I understand, it's a case of "If you want to publish a paper on squirrels, you can forget it, unless you write about how squirrels are impacted by MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING". Enough subversion of scientific journal boards would quite effectively strip any possibility of even publishing a dissenting account, and indeed make sure those who did not agree with the official line do not work as climatologists. And of course, the strategy of infiltrating and taking over boards of journals that do not follow the official line was confirmed in the Climategate emails. They called it "redefining the peer-review process", IIRC. And the obedient climatologists do get their grants today. And the certain people do have massive international influence today. And a dissenting opinion is impossible, because a) there are no journals left that would publish anything that questions the official line, and b) nobody remains working in climatology that doesn't toe the official line. I find 3% dissenting is a VERY high figure, given the above.
Very neat. And hey, it doesn't even require a massive global conspiracy, just a bit of tomfoolery through the climatology field's infrastructure. The scientists support the doomsayings and grabs of influence of the certain people, and the certain people provide for grants for the scientists, through various state administrations.
It can happen to a field. It has happened before. Call it a circle-jerk or a club of reciprocal admiration, it is what happens when no other lines are allowed. For examples, consider the field of Racial biology. If someone wasn't a racial biologist, they were of course not allowed to have an opinion, much less criticise the work happening in the field. It had political support in shockingly large parts of the West for several decades, simply because THEY WERE USEFUL to the politicians of the time, as justifications for declarations of crises. In Sweden, the idea of a genetic/ethnic crisis as cause for massive policy changes was not cleaned out until 1950, and even after this remained in various specific situations such as forced sterilization programs.
Science does not thrive on uniformity. Science thrives in an environment where differing standpoints clash and break against one another. Consensus is not and has never been a part of the scientific method.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you know... what if... what the climate scientists want to do is not make molto dinero, but have grants enough to work, travel to interesting places, and have people listen to them? What if there are certain people who want massive international influence and do want the dineros? Isn't that enough profit to motivate people to toe the official line? And as for climatologists... from what I understand, it's a case of "If you want to publish a paper on squirrels, you can forget it, unless you write about how squirrels are impacted by MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING". Enough subversion of scientific journal boards would quite effectively strip any possibility of even publishing a dissenting account, and indeed make sure those who did not agree with the official line do not work as climatologists. And of course, the strategy of infiltrating and taking over boards of journals that do not follow the official line was confirmed in the Climategate emails. They called it "redefining the peer-review process", IIRC. And the obedient climatologists do get their grants today. And the certain people do have massive international influence today. And a dissenting opinion is impossible, because a) there are no journals left that would publish anything that questions the official line, and b) nobody remains working in climatology that doesn't toe the official line. I find 3% dissenting is a VERY high figure, given the above.
Very neat. And hey, it doesn't even require a massive global conspiracy, just a bit of tomfoolery through the climatology field's infrastructure. The scientists support the doomsayings and grabs of influence of the certain people, and the certain people provide for grants for the scientists, through various state administrations.
It can happen to a field. It has happened before. Call it a circle-jerk or a club of reciprocal admiration, it is what happens when no other lines are allowed. For examples, consider the field of Racial biology. If someone wasn't a racial biologist, they were of course not...
Except for the fact that the people with the most disposable money are those with a vested interest in disproving global warming, and the only people they can find to publish refutations also worked on tobacco studies for cigarette companies.
It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.
I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.
Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.
Let me help you with that. The only people that the climate change insisters engage in poo-flinging with are religious people. That's generally what happens when religions conflict with each other.
I am an atheist, I believe the climate is changing all on its own as it is wont to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you know... what if...
No.
NoAnd hell to the
You do not get to just make up anything you want and cast aspersions on peoples integrity, honesty and intellect just because you add a "what if" in front of it. Its disingenuous, dishonest and despicable to degrade people like that with absolutely no evidence.
what the climate scientists want to do is not make molto dinero, but have grants enough to work, travel to interesting places, and have people listen to them?
Then they could be in the english or anthropology departments and program a computer to write random multisylabic dribble that passes for the real thing so well it gets published in peer reviewed journals.
What if there are certain people who want massive international influence and do want the dineros?
Influence to do what? Why? #(*$#$ and giggles?
How are the fossil fuel companies not countering a bunch of pranksters with PHDs with their own funds then?
And as for climatologists... from what I understand, it's a case of "If you want to publish a paper on squirrels, you can forget it, unless you write about how squirrels are impacted by MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING"
I have a biology degree. I assure you, there are more articles on squirrels and any other animal than you ever want to read in your life that do not mention global warming.
Enough subversion of scientific journal boards would quite effectively strip any possibility of even publishing a dissenting account, and indeed make sure those who did not agree with the official line do not work as climatologists.
Or as statisticians, or as grad students, or as cartographers, or as people running the satellites, fisherman, wildlife researchers, park rangers, sea captains, circus clowns, the navy, international diplomats,deep sea oil drillers, survey companies...
And of course, the strategy of infiltrating and taking over boards of journals that do not follow the official line was confirmed in the Climategate emails. They called it "redefining the peer-review process", IIRC.
You mean the climate gate emails, that somehow managed to avoid every mention of this alleged vast conspiracy?
Someone wrote an anti global warming piece with bad statistics that got peer reviewed. "Hey, if someone is publishing something we have a lot of evidence against, maybe we ought to put it through the wringer a second time and make sure we carried the two" is a perfectly reasonable response- because someone forgot to carry the two.*
They did the same thing when that experiment seemed to break the speed of light.
And the obedient climatologists do get their grants today. And the certain people do have massive international influence today.
Who?
And a dissenting opinion is impossible, because a) there are no journals left that would publish anything that questions the official line, and b) nobody remains working in climatology that doesn't toe the official line. I find 3% dissenting is a VERY high figure, given the above
So the evidence of your conspiracy is... your conspiracy.
Most of the 3% believe that climate change is real but are not sure enough that its man made to say say.
.
Very neat. And hey, it doesn't even require a massive global conspiracy, just a bit of tomfoolery through the climatology field's infrastructure.
The scope of the people that would need to be involved is absurdly huge. If they were better than any other conspiracy group on the planet at this they could have gotten a lot more than a free trip to the arctic
Please put up some evidence for your conspiracy or don't advance it as evidence. This is an important decision for people to make and random aspersions with less rhyme, or more importantly evidence than a highschool gossip have no place in it.
*this is a metaphor
For those with at least a passing interest, have a look at longnow.org and see if anything grabs you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except for the fact that the people with the most disposable money are those with a vested interest in disproving global warming, and the only people they can find to publish refutations also worked on tobacco studies for cigarette companies.
Now that is what I'd call an inconvenient truth. ;-)
For those with at least a passing interest, have a look at longnow.org and see if anything grabs you.
That is amazingly cool.
Probably a cheaper way to do it with a quartz clock though, isn't there?
Science does not thrive on uniformity. Science thrives in an environment where differing standpoints clash and break against one another. Consensus is not and has never been a part of the scientific method.
If 99.99999999% of mathematicians agreed that 2+2=4, would you argue that because they aren't allowing for disagreement, they clearly aren't engaging in "good math"?
No one is saying you aren't allowed to disagree. Or that a scientist who disagrees is automatically wrong.
Rather the point is that there isn't a "scientific debate" on this topic. The debate is in the political sphere. The science is in and to the best of our understanding, it is well decided. I agree with you, people should be allowed to poke holes in current climate research all they want. The problem is that the holes are either very minor, or they're entirely dependent on the humans involved.
Basically, you'll never trust a scientist backed by the IPCC, correct? Does that sound like a very scientific thing for you to do? Wouldn't the correct response be to actually look at their research and see if it's valid? But you AUTOMATICALLY discount their science because of who paid for their research.
You're doing the EXACT thing you accuse of others.
And then people read arguments like yours and think, "Yeah, I was right. Scientists really are up in the air about climate change. It's all a scam."
Also, there are other cases where the vast majority of scientists in a field agree. It's not always a sign that something is wrong. Not on all the details maybe, but on the broad outlines. When the basic science is done. Biologists agree on evolution. Geologists agree on plate tectonics. Climate scientists agree on AGW.
actually at the last conference my wife dragged me too, that wasn't actually true.
Climate scientists DON't Agree on AGW (at least on how the media is portraying it). At least not how it's portrayed in this thread (97% is ludicrously dumb).
They agree on Climate change...two different things. the MEDIA agrees on AGW.
However, no one actually LISTENS to the scientists or what they say, they just listen to the quacks in the media.
Evolution is another thread entirely. It is TRUE biologists agree on evolution, but it is NOT the evolution everyone thinks of. Evolution is waaaay to broad a topic to be able to say something like all biologists agree on Evolution.
For example, you take a segment of evolution, that of apes to man...which has NOTHING really to do with micro evolution or other aspects of evolution...and even within that field you have a LOT of disagreements regarding the Western African theory, the South American Theory, the Eastern Africa Theory...which are the more prominent ones...and then you have lesser known ones (Asia, South Africa, and others). Just because the media subscribes to the Leakey theorums, that doesn't actually represent the scientific community at large.
AGW as portrayed by the media is ascribing too actually distorts a particular section of scientists and their ideas. (I suppose one could say it's simplified for the masses, but even the masses can see problems in the media's portrayal).
However, to say Climatologists agree on AGW is to have never gone to a conference on the subject.
What I DO find is funny is you have actual information from climate scientists right here, and you have people saying....NO, the climate scientists who is speaking does not actually mean that and does not understand their field. While at the same time, people who's only exposure is the media are trying to say what the climate scientists are saying opposed to the actual scientists.
And THIS is why you have problems. The Climate scientists can tell you the truth all they want, but when it boils down to it, people will ignore the climate scientist in favor of their own bias and what they've read on the internets/media. This is probably why if there is AGW, the politicians stand a better chance at doing anything, because nothing the Scientists actually say is being heard, and when someone states what has happened, people try to disclaim the climate scientists and say they are wrong.
I understand that there are people who think that there is an ongoing conspiracy regarding climate change.
I happen to think they're right but they're looking on the wrong side.
If you want to look for a conspiracy, the usual advice for "following the money" is rather helpful. The Koch Brothers whose gigantic fortune is based on fossil fuels spend a good deal of money lobbying states to make illegal city ventures on solar, wind power and other large scale projects on renewable energy.
This article alone shows where the Koch brothers are making direct attacks on solar projects in four states.
Yes there is a conspiracy... and it's the one whose more than willing to trade your long term future for their personal short term profit.
I don't think there's a conspiracy of scientists involved with climate change.
What I think is that the media likes a story and the media is powerful.
For example, take the ebola story. The media almost portrayed it as if we all were going to die in the epidemic. Did we? Was that a conspiracy? Or was it sensationalism by the media. Even at the same time that Americans and Europeans had the Ebola story...how many died by the flu? Which one was more immediately dangerous to Western Civilization?
However, no one ever listens to what the scientists actually say, and in fact, (as I think this thread is now living proof of) you could actually have someone say what is up...and no one will listen. They prefer what the media has told them over what actually is stated.
It's ironic that people think those involved with Climate studies automatically accept Global Warming (And what exactly do you MEAN by that...the media's definition, or the scientific definition...in which case if you are going by science...which theory? Which idea? Science is NOT unified on this...and that's the problem. It's like trying to say all Christians believe exactly the same way? IN truth, trying to say all Christians are exactly the same, is similar to trying to put all those who study Climate under the same umbrella of Global Warming...or most other items. It does NOT work).
Most studies RECOGNIZE this, and the audience is the scientific audience rather than the media. The study is not necessarily going to ascribe to one theory or the other, and in most cases can be utilized by all sides of the spectrum.
The biggest problem with Global Warming? Things are NOT set in stone yet. It's constantly fluctuating. In that past 1000 years, with ESTIMATES (because we don't have hard facts for all of that time) the mean temperature has fluctuated FAR more than it has over the past few decades. What we are seeing could be a simple fluke...and most scientists RECOGNIZE this.
That is why when the media portrays this thing as certainty or definite or a fact...people can poke holes in it, because it's NOT a definite or a fact.
What it IS are trends. There is a trend that is occurring. There are things that could occur should these trends continue, and there are multiple studies showing what will happen if these trends continue.
This is what is being considered Global Warming by the media. If the trends occur, many could have dire consequences. That should not be in doubt and none of the scientists would contest that at all.
What they would contest is that it is set in stone and a definite thing. It's a theory and could have very real ramifications...but it is currently impossible to KNOW.
Just because the media portrays it as fact does not mean scientists do (and in fact...facts are not as numerous as many people think the facts are in science...how do you like that wordplay!). There are far too many variables. The holes people poke in it are the holes the MEDIA makes, not that science makes.
In fact, almost all the items people poke holes in are actually ADDRESSED in the studies and research...the science is actually pretty good.
However, to say that the scientists are like these media quacks is probably just as insulting as the idea that scientists are in some sort of conspiracy as well.
It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.
I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.
Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.
Let me help you with that. The only people that the climate change insisters engage in poo-flinging with are religious people. That's generally what happens when religions conflict with each other.
I am an atheist, I believe the climate is changing all on its own as it is wont to do.
It's true. There are other kooks besides the religious ones in on this. Pseudo-science kooks come up in all fields and they're not all religious. But the framework is always the same. There's a massive conspiracy among all the official scientists keeping the Truth down.
Libertarians are the other main source for climate change opposition. Because any steps to deal with it are likely to require government interference in their precious, perfect markets.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't actually know any libertarians. I'm betting everything you "know" about libertarians has been stuff read or heard about secondhand. But that's usually the way it goes. All of the ones I've ever talked to admit there is no perfect market scenario.
Are you complaining mostly about media portrayals?
Biologists agree on evolution. As I said, "Not on all the details maybe, but on the broad outlines."
On AGW the consensus is also broad, but there's plenty of disagreement on the details. Consensus: The world is heating up. This is largely due to human activity - greenhouse gas emission, mostly. This is going to get bad very quickly in geological terms - quicker than most things can adapt.
The details of how the icecaps are going to melt or what the timeline looks like or what cities are going to be underwater when are definitely matters of debate.As for listening to climate scientists right here, who is one? Are you talking about listening to you because you know some people working in something close to the field? It's not clear exactly what they do and I still can't tell what you're saying they don't agree on, so listening to you doesn't help.
Taking what you've said at face value, it still comes across as "Scientists really don't agree that global warming is real. So don't worry about it." I don't think that's actually what you mean, but I really can't tell what you do mean.
I'm complaining because though I am not a climate scientist, my spouse is heavily involved with the stuff and I can talk to her right here (and she was the one that pointed out the joke about the 97%. POint blank, saying 97% is about GW is wrong...as per the climate scientist in the room).
I can say all I an from what she or other relatives said, but it's talking to a blank wall here. It's okay...it happens in real life too.
People would rather listen to the media and take it as fact than listen to those with the background.
AS for Conservation Biology, Animals and habitats are being HEAVILY influence by the impacts of the changing climates. Not all are college professors (in fact, many have real life jobs in the real world and have to deal with the actual impacts of climate change, which is where a LOT of the studies, research, and items go and come from. IT's not people being paid off by politicians, it's people trying to figure things out and solutions to them, such as what happens to the animals when a necessary plant to their diet has vanished from the area due to the changing climate, how do they preserve the wilderness and habitat as well as that animal in those changing situations)?
If you listen to her, there is no other field which has been more directly impacted currently by Climate change then Conservation Biology...BUT...on that I WILL SAY...she is heavily biased.
I'm not saying don't worry about it, I'm saying that taking media statements (and that's what it is) about 97% of climate scientists agreeing Global Warming is real is false. IT has background that it is based off of, but it is sensationalized and perverted to say something that actually was never said at all in any study.
That's not a Global Warming is real or not, that's simply saying, that statement is completely off the wall and off kilter, as is saying all Climate Scientists believe in Global Warming (which is also not true...evolution is actually more accepted as a whole than the scientists in the field in regards to Global Warming). Of course, you have to realize the LARGE diversity of the field when one is stating things like that. However, even then, the statement is waaaay too broad as Global warming as a topic is far more diverse and large than anything I've seen the media portray. Global Warming is currently the MEDIA Darling (and the MEDIA's portrayal of it as seen by people is STRONG in this thread), but it's hardly the singular entity that people are feeling it is. The first step one would have to ask, is if all Meterologists (who though may not be specialized in climatology itself, in essense are part of the community of climatology and climate science) agree Global Warming is real. They are just a small segment of the group people are referring too, and I'm pretty certain you'd find that there are a sizeable number of them who do NOT agree with the basic premise itself (much less other items).
Meterologists are a small number overall compared to all those involved in the field, but if you can't get them to agree...(or on Saturday's next forecast for that matter....that's a joke by the way)...you're going to have a hard time getting that all climatologist accept Global Warming is real type thing.
this isn't to say Global Warming is real or NOT, what I'm saying is that the statement that it is universally accepted by scientists is actually a false statement.
That's not what the point of my things are. IT may seem some go against the grain, but it's not against Global Warming, but pointing out that this entire media portrayal of consensus in the community is actually just a bunch of balony.
Edit: And of course, that entire conspiracy thing always sets me off. My spouse is awesome and IS NOT part of any conspiracy. It burns me to have people talking about some vast conspiracy when there is none...unless you think my spouse and relatives are part of some major illuminati plot...in which case...actually for once I'll refrain on saying my opinions on that...
Meterologists are a small number overall compared to all those involved in the field, but if you can't get them to agree...(or on Saturday's next forecast for that matter....that's a joke by the way)...you're going to have a hard time getting that all climatologist accept Global Warming is real type thing.What most people call "meteorologists" are just a specialised form of news anchor reading off a script. When it comes to the people of doing the actual donkey work in weathercasting they are in generally large agreements on wide scale weathermovements.
Keep in mind though that on the short and small timescale, there's a significant chaos factor that can change the small details such as how long New York City will get hit with a rainstorm after it hits Jersey City, but the big scale, it's pretty predictable.
The weather thing was actually a joke.
To be more serious instead of joking in regards to meterology....
In truth, meterology has made impressive strides. Currently, they've been spot on about the weather for some while for me at least. There does seem to be slight differences between the weather I get when in the West US and the East US. IN the Western Mountain areas where I'm at, they are so good that they can normally even nail down when it will rain to the hour! In the eastcoast, they've been a little more spotty than that for me, and occasionally get some things off.
Seriously impressed with most meterologists these days (talking about meterologists here...NOT the weather girl...can't even recall the last time I sat down and watched the weather girl...though I DO have a meteorologist relative that used to work out of SLC, he's pretty good on his forecasts as well and he actually WAS on the news and was a legit meteorologist as well).
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't actually know any libertarians. I'm betting everything you "know" about libertarians has been stuff read or heard about secondhand. But that's usually the way it goes. All of the ones I've ever talked to admit there is no perfect market scenario.It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.
I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.
Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.
Let me help you with that. The only people that the climate change insisters engage in poo-flinging with are religious people. That's generally what happens when religions conflict with each other.
I am an atheist, I believe the climate is changing all on its own as it is wont to do.
It's true. There are other kooks besides the religious ones in on this. Pseudo-science kooks come up in all fields and they're not all religious. But the framework is always the same. There's a massive conspiracy among all the official scientists keeping the Truth down.
Libertarians are the other main source for climate change opposition. Because any steps to deal with it are likely to require government interference in their precious, perfect markets.
Personally, only a couple. Mostly my experience has been in online arguments where they try to shoot down anything that involves the government doing anything beyond a bare minimum.
Like for example, trying to limit carbon emissions to deal with climate change.If pressed, many will admit, or claim to admit, that markets aren't perfect, but often will continue to argue that anything the government does will make things worse....
If there's one thing you can count on, it's that governments are most likely to find the most inefficient way to deal with a problem. And that's assuming that there is a problem that government is even capable of fixing. Relying/Counting/Waiting on governments to solve a problem is a sure way to doom the problem to failure.
/notalibertarian
So...government is mysteriously efficient at finding the most inefficient solution to a problem?
Makes perfect sense.
So...government is mysteriously efficient at finding the most inefficient solution to a problem?
Makes perfect sense.
There might be a dumber way to say this, but I can't for the life of me think of what that might look like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's one thing you can count on, it's that governments are most likely to find the most inefficient way to deal with a problem. And that's assuming that there is a problem that government is even capable of fixing. Relying/Counting/Waiting on governments to solve a problem is a sure way to doom the problem to failure.
That completely overlooks the great gains we have made in society through government including ending child labor, labor safety laws, minimum wage, ending slavery, public education, food health and safety standards, drinking water, sanitation, air quality improvements, automobile safety restrictions, the national highway system, airports, civil rights, species conservation and protection, banning ddt, womens rights...
Its easy to complain that is not perfect. To point at flaws in the system where it went awry and exagerate that to the point of absurdity, but thats not a fair, legitimate, or honest comparison.
Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Yes, government is an imprecise blunt, uncaring lumbering beast that you only set on a problem when you've crossed the Godzilla threshold:
Are the actions of one individual going to harm another?
Is there another level of organization that can [and here's the hard part) will do the job?
Do the risks? possible ramifications of government messing things up outweigh the risks? Is the trade off for new regulations necessary?
Global warming is the very definition of a problem too big for any other organization to handle. It effects everyone, not just the people profiting from it. You can't make a profit by cutting greenhouse gasses, so no private organization has any will to do it. Charity and environmental groups don't have enough resources or control to do it, it HAS to be the government. There;s no ifs, ands or butts about this one.
Saying "American* government can't do anything" is one of those blandly sensible lines that people agree on around the water cooler that doesn't actually hold up. Government does a lot of things poorly, but it's not as consistent about screwing up as people think. Things do get managed. Sure, cougars are getting shot, but wolves are no longer all-but-extinct, and sage grouse are getting protected now. It's in bits and pieces.
*I clarify "American" because this conversation is pretty America-centric right now. ;P
There might be a dumber way to say this, but I can't for the life of me think of what that might look like.
Clearly that's because you don't work for the gubbermint.
Not "all but extirpated from america" , The canadian population alone would keep me off the endangered species list.
But yes, the wolf reintroduction to yellowstone went ahead of scheduel and under budget. Would the population have more protections if they weren't considered and experimental population? Sure. But you can go to Yellowstone now and see them.
For those who didn't want links.
Not "all but extirpated from america" , The canadian population alone would keep me off the endangered species list.
Yeah, I was being "expedient". :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been striking me recently how odd it is that every climate change denier I've personally ever heard speak is also religious, usually a conservative Christian.
I've even heard Catholics say that the pope agreeing climate change is real is more evidence of how out of whack he is.
Although maybe it's just a Republican thing, who happen to be often conservative Christians, not sure what other link there is between the two beliefs.
Let me help you with that. The only people that the climate change insisters engage in poo-flinging with are religious people. That's generally what happens when religions conflict with each other.
I am an atheist, I believe the climate is changing all on its own as it is wont to do.
I'm glad to hear an atheist deny climate change, you have expanded my horizons sir.
Not sure what you mean by the religions conflicting remark though. Are you saying people who accept what science informs us of constitute a religion?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, you can't bring "climategate" emails into this and expect to be taken seriously. You're only proving the scientists point because they were worried about one bad study or one wonky data point being that's inevitable in any science being taken completely out of context and blown up into a media storm and thats exactly what happened.
Yes, they're trying to make it as simple and clear cut to the public as they can because unfortunately policy decisions are made by people that can walk outside and say "Oh look its snowing! Therefore climate change is malarky!". Do you really think you're going to explain to those people how data is collected and used.
The usual caveats that scientists use when talking about, well, anything, are seized on and exaggerated as the entire story. Yes. someone is politicizing it: the anti global warming crowd. Do you honestly expect the scientists NOT to notice that? Its no wonder that they have to come up with some ideas on how to get other scientists to realize that they're talking to the public and not just other scientists in these papers.
You went through their dirty laundry and not only found it was pretty clean but STILL didn't find any rhyme or reason to this alleged global conspiracy. despite multiple opportunities you're unable to articlate ANY reason why people are doing this.
What is happening is that the vast majority of scientists working in the area accept that human activity is causing the climate to change. 25 years ago this wasn't so, there was less evidence, but today that has changed.
On the other side are not a team of scientists, but the fossil fuel industry and their public relations people. The fossil fuel industry has huge financial and political power and public relations people play by completely different rules to scientists. Scientists are required to be objective, public relations people are paid to promote a point of view.
The last time a similar public debate took place was over whether smoking caused cancer. Some of the same individuals who supported the tobacco industry are now "experts" reading from the fossil fuel industries script.
Obviously a scientist can't be an expert in two unrelated fields, but for a public relations consultant that is no problem at all.
On the mass extinction question, the last mass extinction was 65 million years ago and killed off the dinosaurs [except birds]. If you imagine someone looking at the fossil record 65 million years from now, it would look like a mass extinction. And i am pretty sure this is true even of species sent extinct by human action before anthropogenic climate change became a significant factor.