NationStates

There's a question I have for people who believe that humans are not affecting Earth's climate. This has nothing to do with their arguments surrounding the reason why Earth's climate is changing. Scientists who believe in the existence of man-made global warming make up a clear cut majority. Is it even possible that an entire field is being paid off by an industry that has practically just left the womb? If this is not the case, then what is? Are they all stupid and gullible?

Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

I suspect they feel that the common opinion today is as wrong as that common opinion was then.

If you deny man-made global warming, then you are simply doing it for idiocy, or greed. There is no other options, as even if it wasn't true, then there is no harm in trying to prevent it.

I have a feeling people who deny man-made global warming (including scientists) are doing so because people don't like to believe in bad news. If there's a way out, a way to deny the bad news and believe it's all right and we can't do anything about what's happening, people are going to jump on it.

Metanih wrote:If you deny man-made global warming, then you are simply doing it for idiocy, or greed. There is no other options, as even if it wasn't true, then there is no harm in trying to prevent it.

Several trillions of dollars of harm, if we're looking for complete carbon neutrality. The possible cost of the modern economy.

Not that mind you the consequences of not acting aren't higher, sustainability should be our aim though, not stopping global warming, at this point, even if we could stop it, the actions required of us are far beyond our actual capabilities, with the science available today. Miracles may happen, so long as the science is focused that way, but actual requirements are so drastic very few could realistically implement them.

The Merchant Republics wrote:

Metanih wrote:If you deny man-made global warming, then you are simply doing it for idiocy, or greed. There is no other options, as even if it wasn't true, then there is no harm in trying to prevent it.

Several trillions of dollars of harm, if we're looking for complete carbon neutrality. The possible cost of the modern economy.

Not that mind you the consequences of not acting aren't higher, sustainability should be our aim though, not stopping global warming, at this point, even if we could stop it, the actions required of us are far beyond our actual capabilities, with the science available today. Miracles may happen, so long as the science is focused that way, but actual requirements are so drastic very few could realistically implement them.

So money (even in the triliions) suddenly becomes more important than the entire population (human and animal) of Earth?

Well?

There are a great many people who make a great deal of money by the way things are. They don't want to possibly loose that. They employ "spin doctors" to stave of possible changes.

Luckily; people in other nations are addressing it. The US will continue it's growing trend of catching up.

Galloism wrote:Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

Speak for your bloody self.

The Black Forrest wrote:Well?

There are a great many people who make a great deal of money by the way things are. They don't want to possibly loose that. They employ "spin doctors" to stave of possible changes.

Luckily; people in other nations are addressing it. The US will continue it's growing trend of catching up.

You have done a great job of posting what I believe in a way I didn't think of. I think all that's quoted above is true. It's like a cigar company using doctors to tell people cigar's aren't unhealthy.

Augarundus wrote:

Galloism wrote:Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

Speak for your bloody self.

Well, I did say "most".

I would say that, given there are a number of black combat pilots, they must be clearly capable.

However, this is not the topic of this thread.

Scientists aren't unbiased paragons of infallibility.

New Heathera wrote:

The Merchant Republics wrote:
Several trillions of dollars of harm, if we're looking for complete carbon neutrality. The possible cost of the modern economy.

Not that mind you the consequences of not acting aren't higher, sustainability should be our aim though, not stopping global warming, at this point, even if we could stop it, the actions required of us are far beyond our actual capabilities, with the science available today. Miracles may happen, so long as the science is focused that way, but actual requirements are so drastic very few could realistically implement them.

So money (even in the triliions) suddenly becomes more important than the entire population (human and animal) of Earth?

Money sustains the entire human population of the Earth. When I speak of "trillions of dollars of harm" I don't mean, us all collectively putting $10 dollars into the save the world fund. I'm talking about production dollars. As in, billions of dollars that once were spent on many things not just luxuries but indeed necessities will have to be spent instead on saving the earth.

For us Westerners, this is easy, and in the West, the targets for global warming reduction are achievable in a real sense, the cost would be mostly to our luxuries and only for a short time. However for the developing world, the sort of things that sustainability requires will mean that the less not more of the world's poor will have access to electricity, motor vehicles, regular food supplies, cheap and affordable commercial goods.

Unfortunately if only the rich developed world reaches our targets, the world will still be boiled by the poor developing nations. They can't realistically implement Kyoto, they can't realistically stop their emmissions without high, very high human cost.

West Vandengaarde wrote:Scientists aren't unbiased paragons of infallibility.

Without doubt. But, that's not a damning claim.

You make questionable claims and other scientists will jump all over you.

Augarundus wrote:

Galloism wrote:Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

Speak for your bloody self.

You don't think blacks can pilot a plane?

It's not really a question of whether or not we're contributing to climate change; it's a question of how much. The simple physics of emissions and the greenhouse effect say that we are undoubtedly doing so, and the amount of emissions we are giving off as a species is very high even in comparison to other events deniers like to say, such as volcanoes and wild megafauna, neither of which give off the same amount we do. We are additionally depriving the world of organisms that control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I draw my own lines.

I highly recommend State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He explains the many problems surrounding the issue and points out problems surrounding the measurements and explains why scientists have a vested interest in producing data that supports global warming even if it isn't really happening

Aersoldorf wrote:I highly recommend State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He explains the many problems surrounding the issue and points out problems surrounding the measurements and explains why scientists have a vested interest in producing data that supports global warming even if it isn't really happening

Meh. He makes for good fluff reading on a plane trip.

Is it the usual where he starts spinning a yarn and then it feels like he gets bored with it and rushes to finish the story?

Aersoldorf wrote:I highly recommend State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He explains the many problems surrounding the issue and points out problems surrounding the measurements and explains why scientists have a vested interest in producing data that supports global warming even if it isn't really happening

Crichton is a hack, and global warming is happening. No amount of conspiracy theory bullshit is going to change that.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Aersoldorf wrote:I highly recommend State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He explains the many problems surrounding the issue and points out problems surrounding the measurements and explains why scientists have a vested interest in producing data that supports global warming even if it isn't really happening

Crichton is a hack, and global warming is happening. No amount of conspiracy theory bullshit is going to change that.

Oh I don't know. Andromeda strain was ok.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Crichton is a hack, and global warming is happening. No amount of conspiracy theory bullshit is going to change that.

Oh I don't know. Andromeda strain was ok.

Clearly he needs to stick to fiction and avoid all allegory.

Trotskylvania wrote:

Aersoldorf wrote:I highly recommend State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He explains the many problems surrounding the issue and points out problems surrounding the measurements and explains why scientists have a vested interest in producing data that supports global warming even if it isn't really happening

Crichton is a hack, and global warming is happening. No amount of conspiracy theory bullshit is going to change that.

Gore is an oaf. Global warming is not happening/effected by man. No amount of socialist taxing schemes + hypnotizing in schools is going to change that.

Well, he's dead, so...

Bluth Corporation wrote:Well, he's dead, so...

So we can say whatever we want about him.

Trotskylvania wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Oh I don't know. Andromeda strain was ok.

Clearly he needs to stick to fiction and avoid all allegory.

Or he got lucky.

Like I said he is good fluff for long plane trips. Congo, sphere, jurassic park, eaters of the dead, twister, a few others. Something to read once and toss......

Nukeobis wrote:

Trotskylvania wrote:Crichton is a hack, and global warming is happening. No amount of conspiracy theory bullshit is going to change that.

Gore is an oaf. Global warming is not happening/effected by man. No amount of socialist taxing schemes + hypnotizing in schools is going to change that.

No one mentioned Al Gore until you brought him up bucko. Gore's oafishness has no bearing on the discussion, as he's a celebrity, not a scientist. The real scientists who study weather and climate have amassed mountains of data that point to one conclusion: climate change is happening and we're driving it. The only thing left is a discussion of how to proceed to mitigate the damage.