8 ms·

There is money on both sides of the argument though. The following is from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-dangers-of-news-media-ove

There is money on both sides of the argument though. The following is from https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-dangers-of-news-media-overplaying-climate-change/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-d... As climate scientist William Briggs observes: “Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda. “You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.” There are also innumerable “green technology” companies, from solar and wind energy manufacturers, to battery makers and electric car companies, to lithium miners and biofuel farmers, that benefit handsomely from climate alarmism, and donate freely to the groups that will advance their marketing shtick. There is arguably more money in green alarmism than there is in skepticism.

Beltiras 7y ago
It took me a while to realize the conceit of this post. I took it seriously because you are absolutely right that there is money on both sides. The difference between the camps is that one has data supporting their argument while the other does not. Climate denial is supported by money and ignorance. Climate science is supported by a big grassroots efforts both by citizens and scientists AND the data. I hope in the long run this camp wins out because I would like my grandchildren to have a shot at correcting my generations mistakes. Here's Phil Plait tearing William Briggs apart [1]. If you can call him an authority on climate science, I can call the Bad Astronomer an authority on science discussion. [1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-briggs/#.XZNUnh_nhhE http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-b...
- Yetanfou 7y ago
  You use terms like climate denial and climate science as if they mean something. You also simply state that we are right and they are wrong as well as give an emphasized hint that the data supports your claims. If you read what these people (and many others with them) say you'd see that they also claim their position is staved by the data. They call for an opportunity to discuss these matters in public, without being shunned in the way you just did. If their ideas are as faulty as you seem to think they are your side would have nothing to lose by going into this discussion. This rhetoric is part of what makes the 'climate change' movement look like a religion. Blind discipline, a statement of fact which can not be discussed, shunning of those who dare to differ, making a clear us versus them distinction with terms like climate science versus climate denial. You can even buy off you sins by paying for climate compensation. Yes, the climate is changing as it has been doing for as long as there is a climate. Human activity has influence over the climate in many ways ranging from soot deposits on snow and ice fields (which warms them up) through local warming by direct emission to the emission of IR-active gases like CO₂ and CH₄. The role of CO₂ is disputable, it is not a strong 'greenhouse gas'. CH₄ is a strong greenhouse gas, as is water vapour. Condensed water (in the form of clouds) has the opposite effect by raising the planet's albedo (reflection coefficient). The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen since the end of the little ice age, partly due to human activity by burning fossil fuels, partly due to the increase in sea water temperature. How much of the rise is due to human activity is unclear, estimates range from 15 ppm (i.e. hardly anything) to nearly everything. The models used by the IPCC are incomplete (as all models are) and the predicted rise in global temperature turned out to be overstated by a large margin. In 1972 a group of scientists at Brown University decided the science was clear on the fact that (I quote) the present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing as the present pace and sent a letter to then-president Nixon to warn him of the consequences of a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind. They were right in that a new ice will come but they were not correct in their estimate on when that would happen - Nixon did not have much to worry over in that respect. There was no global public internet in 1972, there were no social media, there was no opportunity for celebrities to signal their social engagement and virtue by standing up and proclaiming that the time had come for all good men and women to act now or risk freezing in the impeding global climate catastrophe. The ice age scare largely was confined to a group of scientists with a few articles popping up here and there about increasing glacial masses and early winter snows. Had there been a global public internet in the early 70's and had Joan Baez, Sly and the Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell and all the others spoken up... who knows what this would have led to. Imagine a second Woodstock 'for the climate', the public chanting 'no snow no snow no snow' instead of their previous rain-obverse incantation. Just imagine. Also, don't treat this subject like a religion. It isn't. It is an important subject which should be subjected to all the rigours of the scientific method. That method does not tolerate dogma nor the shunning of differing voices. It is the observation which disproves your hypothesis you want to look for, not the opposite.

Beltiras 7y ago

It took me a while to realize the conceit of this post. I took it seriously because you are absolutely right that there is money on both sides. The difference between the camps is that one has data supporting their argument while the other does not. Climate denial is supported by money and ignorance. Climate science is supported by a big grassroots efforts both by citizens and scientists AND the data. I hope in the long run this camp wins out because I would like my grandchildren to have a shot at correcting my generations mistakes. Here's Phil Plait tearing William Briggs apart [1]. If you can call him an authority on climate science, I can call the Bad Astronomer an authority on science discussion. [1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-briggs/#.XZNUnh_nhhE http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-b...

Yetanfou 7y ago
You use terms like climate denial and climate science as if they mean something. You also simply state that we are right and they are wrong as well as give an emphasized hint that the data supports your claims. If you read what these people (and many others with them) say you'd see that they also claim their position is staved by the data. They call for an opportunity to discuss these matters in public, without being shunned in the way you just did. If their ideas are as faulty as you seem to think they are your side would have nothing to lose by going into this discussion. This rhetoric is part of what makes the 'climate change' movement look like a religion. Blind discipline, a statement of fact which can not be discussed, shunning of those who dare to differ, making a clear us versus them distinction with terms like climate science versus climate denial. You can even buy off you sins by paying for climate compensation. Yes, the climate is changing as it has been doing for as long as there is a climate. Human activity has influence over the climate in many ways ranging from soot deposits on snow and ice fields (which warms them up) through local warming by direct emission to the emission of IR-active gases like CO₂ and CH₄. The role of CO₂ is disputable, it is not a strong 'greenhouse gas'. CH₄ is a strong greenhouse gas, as is water vapour. Condensed water (in the form of clouds) has the opposite effect by raising the planet's albedo (reflection coefficient). The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen since the end of the little ice age, partly due to human activity by burning fossil fuels, partly due to the increase in sea water temperature. How much of the rise is due to human activity is unclear, estimates range from 15 ppm (i.e. hardly anything) to nearly everything. The models used by the IPCC are incomplete (as all models are) and the predicted rise in global temperature turned out to be overstated by a large margin. In 1972 a group of scientists at Brown University decided the science was clear on the fact that (I quote) the present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing as the present pace and sent a letter to then-president Nixon to warn him of the consequences of a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind. They were right in that a new ice will come but they were not correct in their estimate on when that would happen - Nixon did not have much to worry over in that respect. There was no global public internet in 1972, there were no social media, there was no opportunity for celebrities to signal their social engagement and virtue by standing up and proclaiming that the time had come for all good men and women to act now or risk freezing in the impeding global climate catastrophe. The ice age scare largely was confined to a group of scientists with a few articles popping up here and there about increasing glacial masses and early winter snows. Had there been a global public internet in the early 70's and had Joan Baez, Sly and the Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell and all the others spoken up... who knows what this would have led to. Imagine a second Woodstock 'for the climate', the public chanting 'no snow no snow no snow' instead of their previous rain-obverse incantation. Just imagine. Also, don't treat this subject like a religion. It isn't. It is an important subject which should be subjected to all the rigours of the scientific method. That method does not tolerate dogma nor the shunning of differing voices. It is the observation which disproves your hypothesis you want to look for, not the opposite.