3 ms·

Soros is quoted as stating "The science is beyond dispute" on global warming, and is prepared to invest $1 billion as proof of his conviction. Do you consider

by chrisb 17y ago

Soros is quoted as stating "The science is beyond dispute" on global warming, and is prepared to invest $1 billion as proof of his conviction. Do you consider the science beyond dispute? Do you think it is primarily caused by human activities or not? How much do you care, and what have you done about it - if anything?

chrisb 17y ago
For the record - I consider it way beyond dispute; mostly caused by human activities; I try to limit my carbon footprint (not driving, etc...). And I'm attempting to develop a "car conversion" kit to convert popular family cars to be plug-in hybrids. Very interesting project involving designing and building new wheel-hub motors + electronics and software. Having been in software all my professional life, the largest shock when moving into "real" manufacture is how slow it is to get stuff made - considerably longer than a compile.
- whatusername 17y ago
  Sounds fascinating - Any chance you can provide some links / Self Post / Reddit IAmA on your progress/challenges?
catzaa 17y ago
Call me extremely cynical but I am kinda skeptical. Soros' buddies is elected into power. Now he is investing in for-profit anti-GW companies (acting as if he is doing it out of charity). I suspect that those companies will get quite a lot of taxpayer funded dough and will be extremely profitable.
Alex3917 17y ago
"Do you consider the science beyond dispute?" The way that science plays a role in shaping public policy is by allowing us to ask, "What is our best guess as to the correct decision based on the evidence available." Whether or not the science is beyond dispute is irrelevant.
- camccann 17y ago
  Whether or not the science is beyond dispute is irrelevant. How does this follow? If a scientific question is largely unresolved, we don't even have a basis upon which to evaluate decisions yet. Generally, disputed science never even touches on the political sphere. Now, with global warming the science is in fact largely settled, and thus we've moved on to the stage wherein one political faction says "This science demands that I do a bunch of unrelated things I wanted to do anyway!", whilst the other faction says "This science is inconvenient to my ideology, thus I will stubbornly deny objective reality!". Ah, politics.

by chrisb 17y ago

chrisb 17y ago

For the record - I consider it way beyond dispute; mostly caused by human activities; I try to limit my carbon footprint (not driving, etc...). And I'm attempting to develop a "car conversion" kit to convert popular family cars to be plug-in hybrids. Very interesting project involving designing and building new wheel-hub motors + electronics and software. Having been in software all my professional life, the largest shock when moving into "real" manufacture is how slow it is to get stuff made - considerably longer than a compile.

whatusername 17y ago
Sounds fascinating - Any chance you can provide some links / Self Post / Reddit IAmA on your progress/challenges?

catzaa 17y ago

Call me extremely cynical but I am kinda skeptical. Soros' buddies is elected into power. Now he is investing in for-profit anti-GW companies (acting as if he is doing it out of charity). I suspect that those companies will get quite a lot of taxpayer funded dough and will be extremely profitable.

Alex3917 17y ago

"Do you consider the science beyond dispute?" The way that science plays a role in shaping public policy is by allowing us to ask, "What is our best guess as to the correct decision based on the evidence available." Whether or not the science is beyond dispute is irrelevant.

camccann 17y ago
Whether or not the science is beyond dispute is irrelevant. How does this follow? If a scientific question is largely unresolved, we don't even have a basis upon which to evaluate decisions yet. Generally, disputed science never even touches on the political sphere. Now, with global warming the science is in fact largely settled, and thus we've moved on to the stage wherein one political faction says "This science demands that I do a bunch of unrelated things I wanted to do anyway!", whilst the other faction says "This science is inconvenient to my ideology, thus I will stubbornly deny objective reality!". Ah, politics.