3 ms·

I would be suspicious abount anything published by "one of the Conservative think tanks funded to overturn the environmentalism of the 1960s, central to promoti

I would be suspicious abount anything published by "one of the Conservative think tanks funded to overturn the environmentalism of the 1960s, central to promoting climate change denial"[1]. The article is also clearly written in bad faith, with their so-called "counter-arguments" being a case of selectively choosing the information that supports their agenda and discarding everything else. Having said that: that article cites about one scientist a year, while we are currently getting one warning a week. No scientist in their right mind would deny that global warming is real and it's here [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institu...

CodeGlitch 5y ago
> environmentalism of the 1960s, Unfortunately is was those very environmentalists who fought hard to stop the nuclear industry - and now it may be too late even with the explosion of green-technologies. > global warming I believe "climate change" is a better term to use these days.
- Delk 5y ago
  Many environmentalists have been wrong about nuclear power and nuclear industry, and still are. That doesn't really make the opponents of environmentalism any more right. If the opponents had focused on pointing out e.g. contradictory or irrational goals (e.g. nuclear power) or on genuinely questioning environmentalist claims without having an agenda of their own, you could say they were right in some cases. But that certainly doesn't describe most of the opponents of environmentalism, and definitely not the staunchest ones.
ghufran_syed 5y ago
No, more of an existence proof - the fact that people have been saying similar things since at least the 60’s should make us at least consider the possibility that the reason for the current warnings are similar to the reason for the previous warnings. Sure, maybe all those other warnings were in good faith and happened to be wrong, while the current warnings are also in good faith and might turn out to be correct. But if you can’t even consider the possibility, then we’re in the realm of religion, not science. Here’s a climate scientist who agrees about climate change, but disagrees about the urgency and nature of the actions justified, hopefully that doesn’t define him as “not in his right mind” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  More realistically, all of those warnings were actually quite right, and catastrophic global warming is well on its way, with almost all recent years being the hottest that we know of. And about this Lomborg individual, I have no idea why anyone would listen to economists (people whose entire field is predicated on models which assume no major changes in the world) about what is necessary to combat catastrophic climate change - this what his think tank is all about.
- kossTKR 5y ago
  Lomborg is not a climate scientist! Besides that he's been funded by the oil industry. No one agrees with him besides industry people. Don't post disinformation.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

> environmentalism of the 1960s, Unfortunately is was those very environmentalists who fought hard to stop the nuclear industry - and now it may be too late even with the explosion of green-technologies. > global warming I believe "climate change" is a better term to use these days.

Delk 5y ago
Many environmentalists have been wrong about nuclear power and nuclear industry, and still are. That doesn't really make the opponents of environmentalism any more right. If the opponents had focused on pointing out e.g. contradictory or irrational goals (e.g. nuclear power) or on genuinely questioning environmentalist claims without having an agenda of their own, you could say they were right in some cases. But that certainly doesn't describe most of the opponents of environmentalism, and definitely not the staunchest ones.

ghufran_syed 5y ago

No, more of an existence proof - the fact that people have been saying similar things since at least the 60’s should make us at least consider the possibility that the reason for the current warnings are similar to the reason for the previous warnings. Sure, maybe all those other warnings were in good faith and happened to be wrong, while the current warnings are also in good faith and might turn out to be correct. But if you can’t even consider the possibility, then we’re in the realm of religion, not science. Here’s a climate scientist who agrees about climate change, but disagrees about the urgency and nature of the actions justified, hopefully that doesn’t define him as “not in his right mind” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

tsimionescu 5y ago
More realistically, all of those warnings were actually quite right, and catastrophic global warming is well on its way, with almost all recent years being the hottest that we know of. And about this Lomborg individual, I have no idea why anyone would listen to economists (people whose entire field is predicated on models which assume no major changes in the world) about what is necessary to combat catastrophic climate change - this what his think tank is all about.
kossTKR 5y ago
Lomborg is not a climate scientist! Besides that he's been funded by the oil industry. No one agrees with him besides industry people. Don't post disinformation.