From: PDX (and now) London, UK
We all agree that good environmental policy and progress is the objective. The problem is that a significant portion of the funds spent on the Global Warming idea could've been fruitfully spent on the real threats (assuming GW or Climate Change is a fallacy, as I believe). I'd rather have spent $5 billion on cleaning up the ocean or landfill alternatives or recycling than in promoting things that were flawed or wrongheaded. I don't think the climate change folks understand that if CC is wrong, we've had a massive and hurtful misallocation of funds and brainpower. Not everything was a waste, but a certain significant percentage was.
What $5 billion are you talking about and what was it spent on? Some details might help understand if that indeed was a waste or not.
Alternatives to oil and fossil fuels have many benefits beyond lowering carbon emissions, right?
Not all scientists are jerks or intentionally wrong, of course. Many in good faith accept the teaching of others. But CC has become "fact" rather than "theory" and, as Hans stated, there is an element of religious fervor to it. The CC proponents are willing to go to extremes to silence dissent. They have been calls to decertify skeptical scientists. There have been calls to criminalize skepticism (I'm not making that up). There is serious discrimination in education against those who disbelieve. So the scientific world has veered into a weird state where they perpetuate their own theories, deride and ignore those in opposition, and have no interest in entertaining further consideration of alternatives.
I'm not sure how many scientists you know personally, but both through personal knowledge and professional affiliation (in addition to research) I can say that most scientists are in fact incredible sceptics of all knowledge until they are able to see demonstrable evidence. As a lawyer I'm sure you can appreciate that.
The large majority of scientists are simply scared by what they're finding, how so little is being done to change our practices, and yes, they do become passionate about what they believe will give their own children as well as everyone else a better future.
NASA, like most agencies and universities, is ostensibly neutral politically. However, over the years it has become populated by the majority who won't tolerate dissent. So they perpetuate their beliefs, true or not. That's the culture in science today because of their certainty they are right and the dissenters are dolts/crazy/misguided/dangerous. Re-read MindMessing's comments and you see the extent of his passion. He believes in what he believes so strongly that he is openly contemptuous of those he disagrees with. He doesn't realize it because of his good faith passion. That's exactly the culture we see in universities and agencies.
Actually, he's simply asking you to back up your arguments, as he he ha done with his. If you're not able to do that and keep asserting your position while saying he's acting contemptuously, it's simply frustrating that neither you nor Hans has actually responded to any objective portion of this argument or questions with anything that can back up your assertions.
You are in fact the one being contemptuous, my friend!
As for the hockey stick graph, that was pretty much discredited many years ago.
This graph is one of the most steadfastly believed pieces of contemporary climate science for good reason. The past results are corroborated by many sources including ice cores, tree ring data, and many other verifiable climate data points. In fact most who discount climate change actually reference the past data to support natural fluctuation in climate.
The jump since 1950 is also corroborated from many sources, and recognised even by the US govt (and virtually every other government in the world) in spite of it's wavering position on climate change policy.
The part I don't understand, (and this is the central question keeping me writing here), is why the various solutions to help the climate stabilise are sen as negatives and wastes of money? Everything that is actually being done now is positive, like limiting the kind of pollution and the amount that can be released over time in a scaled manner to give governments and businesses time to adjust. Is that bad?
How is lessening our reliance on fossil fuels a negative when technologies exist that provide cheaper and cleaner energy?
< Message edited by obvert -- 11/2/2019 8:23:13 PM >
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill