5 ms·

In a vacuum, with no costs associated maybe. But we're talking about vast amounts of money being taken from people and redistributed, huge egos vying for politi

In a vacuum, with no costs associated maybe. But we're talking about vast amounts of money being taken from people and redistributed, huge egos vying for political power, and a host of other reasons that make it more complicated than if 2% are wrong or not. Even those 2% may not be doubting "man made global warming" but other aspects about it that make them want to act like...scientists, and question theories and findings and not jump into the global warming pool head-first like so many. Incidentally, and this is food for thought not an opinion of any sort, I'm almost 50 years old, and I've now been a part of 3 global climate scares. One cooling; one warming; now both after previously warming, but none of the predictions have come to pass, except the world has become infinitely friendlier to it than we were when I was a kid, which were the days of the crying indian commercial, 10 MPG behemoth cars, and a shiny new EPA.

jamesblonde 9y ago
3 global climate scares - none of which have come to pass. Please, fact-less nonsense. Global warming is coming to pass. That is a fact. The arctic is warming significantly. A fact. Not a scare story. The consequences are scary and uncertain. Have you ever heard of positive feedback effects? They can happen, we don't know. The release of methane in the arctic leading to runaway global warming - can we be sure it won't happen? References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-con...
- alphapapa 9y ago
  On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5, http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96....
mikeash 9y ago
That global cooling thing was a media scare, not science: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File%3APeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCoolingIn1970s.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File%3... The current climate change fear is, at worst, both.

jamesblonde 9y ago

3 global climate scares - none of which have come to pass. Please, fact-less nonsense. Global warming is coming to pass. That is a fact. The arctic is warming significantly. A fact. Not a scare story. The consequences are scary and uncertain. Have you ever heard of positive feedback effects? They can happen, we don't know. The release of methane in the arctic leading to runaway global warming - can we be sure it won't happen? References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-con...

alphapapa 9y ago
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. --Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5, http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96....

mikeash 9y ago

That global cooling thing was a media scare, not science: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File%3APeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCoolingIn1970s.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#/media/File%3... The current climate change fear is, at worst, both.