3 ms·

> critics of all these theories exist and we consider them still scientists. That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like, and are excluded and ig

> critics of all these theories exist and we consider them still scientists. That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like, and are excluded and ignored; the difference here is that these non-scientists are funded and backed by ideologues and the fossil fuel industry. Not all ideas are valid or scientific; in fact, most are not. The standards for being taken seriously, especially by scientists, are clear.

13years 10y ago
>That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like Not a term that is regularly circulated in scientific discussion. More typically these are labels around subjects in which politics has involved itself. When politics becomes involved, the stakes become much higher as money and power are involved and it becomes in ones best interest to silence opposition often by any means because the opposing opinion now is a direct threat to your career, business etc. Whereas beforehand opposing opinion was just that, an opinion with no more power to influence change and not threatening. We can see this precisely unfold with climate change. Prior to 1997 conservative and liberal views were more closely inline. However, 1997 was the first time a political solution was proposed that favored political world views of liberal vs conservative. All of a sudden now opinion matters and critics became more involved and vocal. I would suspect if the political solution favored conservative world views then the terms 'climate change deniers' would be originating from the right as opposed to the left. The left would have become critical if they felt the solution was an impact to their political world views. http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-climate-change.html http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-cl...
- hackuser 10y ago
  The policy and political solution most widely proposed is a conservative one: Let the free market work out the solution, by pricing GHGs based on their true costs.
  - 13years 10y ago
    1) Conservatives view the solution as a tax and method of wealth distribution. Couldn't be more anti-conservative from this view point. 2) Typical conservatives are free market only in their rhetoric. Most are crony capitalist and will intervene in the market as they see fit. 3) A true free market solution could only be based on property rights. True cost can't be calculated from damage done as in this case it is too abstract. But based on property rights companies could be required to be carbon neutral and in that sense what ever cost is required to achieve that would be required of the company.

13years 10y ago

>That's not true; many are called "crackpots" and the like Not a term that is regularly circulated in scientific discussion. More typically these are labels around subjects in which politics has involved itself. When politics becomes involved, the stakes become much higher as money and power are involved and it becomes in ones best interest to silence opposition often by any means because the opposing opinion now is a direct threat to your career, business etc. Whereas beforehand opposing opinion was just that, an opinion with no more power to influence change and not threatening. We can see this precisely unfold with climate change. Prior to 1997 conservative and liberal views were more closely inline. However, 1997 was the first time a political solution was proposed that favored political world views of liberal vs conservative. All of a sudden now opinion matters and critics became more involved and vocal. I would suspect if the political solution favored conservative world views then the terms 'climate change deniers' would be originating from the right as opposed to the left. The left would have become critical if they felt the solution was an impact to their political world views. http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-climate-change.html http://www.livescience.com/56396-americans-misinformed-on-cl...

hackuser 10y ago
The policy and political solution most widely proposed is a conservative one: Let the free market work out the solution, by pricing GHGs based on their true costs.
- 13years 10y ago
  1) Conservatives view the solution as a tax and method of wealth distribution. Couldn't be more anti-conservative from this view point. 2) Typical conservatives are free market only in their rhetoric. Most are crony capitalist and will intervene in the market as they see fit. 3) A true free market solution could only be based on property rights. True cost can't be calculated from damage done as in this case it is too abstract. But based on property rights companies could be required to be carbon neutral and in that sense what ever cost is required to achieve that would be required of the company.