3 ms·

I'd trust a layperson as much as a scientist. Which is to say, not at all. Global Warming seems to be a political distraction, driven by some businesses looki

I'd trust a layperson as much as a scientist. Which is to say, not at all. Global Warming seems to be a political distraction, driven by some businesses looking to get special favors (carbon trading). Let's just ignore the problems we face now, like pollution and resource depletion, dubious food quality, inhumane factory farming...

Oletros 13y ago
What has to do a climate scientist with "some businesses looking to get special favors (carbon trading)" Are you saying that they are part of a conspiracy?
- triangleman 13y ago
  No need to be deliberately obtuse--there are many people in industry and government who stand to benefit from carbon trading. There are also many scientists who research climate change. The two groups do not have to be intimately connected for them to benefit from each other. Were all the loan originators at Countrywide part of a conspiracy to sell bad loans, or were they just "following the money"? Why would grant-seeking scientists be immune to the same incentives?
  - Oletros 13y ago
    The OP has said that he doesn't trust scientists. So, is he saying that scientists are part of a conspiracy. And before calling others obtuses, read what the OP has said.
- penguindev 13y ago
  After spending a good deal of time reading about government funded nutritional 'science' over the last 50 years, in which high-carb hysteria took over (making many of us much less healthy, but making certain large businesses much richer, edit: and making food price inflation appear low), it's quite easy to make a case that research institutions dependent on government grants will absolutely not want to upset the status quo, and junk science is the result. Let's also look at how many economists said "nobody could have seen the debt crisis coming". Clearly, skepticism that would harm the elites is not welcome in respectable academic institutions. Let's say a democratic government does 99% of what rich or connected people want it to do. (Perhaps that's marginally better than a dictatorship) But the government wants to prove 'scientifically' it's doing the right thing. So it funds nutritional scientists and economists (and I will assume climate scientists) that see the 'right things' and give the policies legitimacy. You say conspiracy, but the supreme court would disagree - this is just 'free speech' - corporations are people too! I'm sure you've heard "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
TheCraiggers 13y ago
People will always seek to make money from a perceived opportunity. Whether the opportunity is the climate changing or people mistakenly afraid that the climate is changing does not in any way change whether or not the climate is actually changing. In other words, an increase in umbrella salesmen does not any any way prevent the sky from falling. Frankly, I don't know if global warming is true. Having examined some of the claims and by using my own intuition, I think it probably is. But its validity shouldn't matter to you if you truly care about the problems you listed. For example, let's look at two of the other problems you listed that we are supposedly currently ignoring: pollution and resource depletion. Both of those problems are usually tied to the burning of fossil fuels, which just so happens to be the suggested cause of global warming. The suggested fix of global warming is typically burning less fossil fuels, which would in turn reduce pollution and lower our resource consumption. If you truly feel that those problems are what we should be focusing on, you should encourage people to believe global warming is a problem that needs fixed as it would further your goals. Personally, I don't care if somebody makes a mint off solar power. I'd rather have money go that direction than the oil conglomerate. Even if both groups were equally "evil", I'd still vote for solar because I believe it's better for the ecosystem.
- penguindev 13y ago
  >you should encourage people to believe global warming is a problem that needs fixed as it would further your goals.< Not sure if you missed a /sarc on that? Anyway, I think the root cause is clearly 9 billion humans on the planet, thus I got myself 'fixed' after having 2 kids (2.1 is the replacement rate), but I'm not going to lie to people about some warming to make my point... in fact, that would probably distract yet again from seeing the underlying problem. It's quite depressing that people can't see three basic things: 1) exponential population growth is unsustainable (e.g. more than 2.1 kids) 2) resources per capita goes up when capita goes down (a good thing) 3) make a better world (technology, etc.) before increasing the population size... don't make it your kids' problem.

Oletros 13y ago

What has to do a climate scientist with "some businesses looking to get special favors (carbon trading)" Are you saying that they are part of a conspiracy?

triangleman 13y ago
No need to be deliberately obtuse--there are many people in industry and government who stand to benefit from carbon trading. There are also many scientists who research climate change. The two groups do not have to be intimately connected for them to benefit from each other. Were all the loan originators at Countrywide part of a conspiracy to sell bad loans, or were they just "following the money"? Why would grant-seeking scientists be immune to the same incentives?
- Oletros 13y ago
  The OP has said that he doesn't trust scientists. So, is he saying that scientists are part of a conspiracy. And before calling others obtuses, read what the OP has said.
penguindev 13y ago
After spending a good deal of time reading about government funded nutritional 'science' over the last 50 years, in which high-carb hysteria took over (making many of us much less healthy, but making certain large businesses much richer, edit: and making food price inflation appear low), it's quite easy to make a case that research institutions dependent on government grants will absolutely not want to upset the status quo, and junk science is the result. Let's also look at how many economists said "nobody could have seen the debt crisis coming". Clearly, skepticism that would harm the elites is not welcome in respectable academic institutions. Let's say a democratic government does 99% of what rich or connected people want it to do. (Perhaps that's marginally better than a dictatorship) But the government wants to prove 'scientifically' it's doing the right thing. So it funds nutritional scientists and economists (and I will assume climate scientists) that see the 'right things' and give the policies legitimacy. You say conspiracy, but the supreme court would disagree - this is just 'free speech' - corporations are people too! I'm sure you've heard "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

TheCraiggers 13y ago

People will always seek to make money from a perceived opportunity. Whether the opportunity is the climate changing or people mistakenly afraid that the climate is changing does not in any way change whether or not the climate is actually changing. In other words, an increase in umbrella salesmen does not any any way prevent the sky from falling. Frankly, I don't know if global warming is true. Having examined some of the claims and by using my own intuition, I think it probably is. But its validity shouldn't matter to you if you truly care about the problems you listed. For example, let's look at two of the other problems you listed that we are supposedly currently ignoring: pollution and resource depletion. Both of those problems are usually tied to the burning of fossil fuels, which just so happens to be the suggested cause of global warming. The suggested fix of global warming is typically burning less fossil fuels, which would in turn reduce pollution and lower our resource consumption. If you truly feel that those problems are what we should be focusing on, you should encourage people to believe global warming is a problem that needs fixed as it would further your goals. Personally, I don't care if somebody makes a mint off solar power. I'd rather have money go that direction than the oil conglomerate. Even if both groups were equally "evil", I'd still vote for solar because I believe it's better for the ecosystem.

penguindev 13y ago
>you should encourage people to believe global warming is a problem that needs fixed as it would further your goals.< Not sure if you missed a /sarc on that? Anyway, I think the root cause is clearly 9 billion humans on the planet, thus I got myself 'fixed' after having 2 kids (2.1 is the replacement rate), but I'm not going to lie to people about some warming to make my point... in fact, that would probably distract yet again from seeing the underlying problem. It's quite depressing that people can't see three basic things: 1) exponential population growth is unsustainable (e.g. more than 2.1 kids) 2) resources per capita goes up when capita goes down (a good thing) 3) make a better world (technology, etc.) before increasing the population size... don't make it your kids' problem.