5 ms·

> Even though we solved acidic rain and the hole in the ozon layer. You realize that these were situations that we caused, right? Messing things up and then cl

by pyre 12y ago

> Even though we solved acidic rain and the hole in the ozon layer. You realize that these were situations that we caused, right? Messing things up and then cleaning up our mess doesn't make us some sort of super race of benevolent beings.

teekert 12y ago
The point is that it should be ok to be skeptical but it seems that climate change has become a religious debate with believers and non-believers. the science is not all that black-white. And even if it were I'd still recommend people to be skeptical and wonder "from where the money comes." We know now that many of the published models overestimated the rising temperatures. The governments are changing policies based on these faulty models. There are real and bad consequences from these changed policies. Meanwhile politicians don't understand climate science at all. It is a dangerous situation. I just want to say that there is reason to be optimistic. In the 80s I had kids in class crying in their beds at night over the hole in the ozone layer. Images in my head of skin cancers everywhere... I'd rather put some nicer images in the heads om my children. Sure they should appreciate nature but it is better to work on nuclear fusion than spending energy on the banning of fossil fuels and get that ridiculous situation you have in the US where you waste precious soil on ethanol "bio"fuels. Or this situation in Europe where you can get monstrously large vehicles on the cheap (you pay less taxes) because they can drive some kilometers on a crappy electrical engine before switching to gasoline. Meanwhile I can't be a critic of climate change without getting a retard or f-ing republican stamp on my forehead (I see that that guy deleted his comment by the way).
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  > In the 80s I had kids in class crying in their beds at night over the hole in the ozon layer. Images in my head of skin cancers everywhere.. The Ozone layer is a shining example of success driven by a nearly identical discussion to today's climate change one. Scientists showed a clear mechanism for Ozone depletion, a clear (but expensive) fix for the issue by removing CFCs from all goods, and then worked over years to convince politicians to ignore the business interests casting FUD over their work and actually regulate CFCs. The Ozone layer didn't fix itself; massive, coordinated action by nearly every country on earth in the form of the Montreal Protocol did. A nice summary of the tactics taken by 'skeptics' that time around: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics... It just so happens there is much more money at stake with the Climate Change debate so the opposition is much stronger.
  - teekert 12y ago
    Ok, I agree, so climate change is different. The examples I gave (superstorm, failing models) point towards a more marketing than scientific approach from the anthropocentric climate change camp. To me that suggests money at stake from the pro camp as well. Like the increasing amount of money spend on climate scientists. I'm not very convinced of our role in climate change and I'm even less convinced of the the fact hat we can forecast climate changes by what ever means they are induced. I'm not saying clean energy is a bad long term investment. I'm saying some people are going to far and we should be careful that we don't trade welfare for predicted long term effects that actually have a very small probability of ever becoming reality. We should not base important decisions on models that are proving inaccurate. What we should do, from time to time is ask who is making these flashy climate change movies that the neuron rubbing guy watches. Who is funding those? Do people ever ask themselves that?
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      > What we should do, from time to time is ask who is making these flashy climate change movies that the neuron rubbing guy watches. Who is funding those? Do people ever ask themselves that? We do ask that. All the time. The information is publicly available. Two neurons guy saw the movie, "Dynamic Earth" which was produced by the following: Dynamic Earth is the result of a two-year long collaboration between Spitz Creative Media, the Advanced Visualization Lab at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois, NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio, and Thomas Lucas Productions, Inc. Produced in association with the Denver Museum of Nature & Science and NASA Earth Science. From here: http://www.dynamicearth.spitzcreativemedia.com/ http://www.dynamicearth.spitzcreativemedia.com/ Spitz Creative is a company that makes planetarium films, so the documentary was pretty much made NASA and the NCSA -- the two organizations that conduct the vast majority of climate modeling and research in the world. Literally world expert climate scientists. I challenge you to do the same for anti-AGW documentaries..

by pyre 12y ago

teekert 12y ago

The point is that it should be ok to be skeptical but it seems that climate change has become a religious debate with believers and non-believers. the science is not all that black-white. And even if it were I'd still recommend people to be skeptical and wonder "from where the money comes." We know now that many of the published models overestimated the rising temperatures. The governments are changing policies based on these faulty models. There are real and bad consequences from these changed policies. Meanwhile politicians don't understand climate science at all. It is a dangerous situation. I just want to say that there is reason to be optimistic. In the 80s I had kids in class crying in their beds at night over the hole in the ozone layer. Images in my head of skin cancers everywhere... I'd rather put some nicer images in the heads om my children. Sure they should appreciate nature but it is better to work on nuclear fusion than spending energy on the banning of fossil fuels and get that ridiculous situation you have in the US where you waste precious soil on ethanol "bio"fuels. Or this situation in Europe where you can get monstrously large vehicles on the cheap (you pay less taxes) because they can drive some kilometers on a crappy electrical engine before switching to gasoline. Meanwhile I can't be a critic of climate change without getting a retard or f-ing republican stamp on my forehead (I see that that guy deleted his comment by the way).

mikeyouse 12y ago
> In the 80s I had kids in class crying in their beds at night over the hole in the ozon layer. Images in my head of skin cancers everywhere.. The Ozone layer is a shining example of success driven by a nearly identical discussion to today's climate change one. Scientists showed a clear mechanism for Ozone depletion, a clear (but expensive) fix for the issue by removing CFCs from all goods, and then worked over years to convince politicians to ignore the business interests casting FUD over their work and actually regulate CFCs. The Ozone layer didn't fix itself; massive, coordinated action by nearly every country on earth in the form of the Montreal Protocol did. A nice summary of the tactics taken by 'skeptics' that time around: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics... It just so happens there is much more money at stake with the Climate Change debate so the opposition is much stronger.
- teekert 12y ago
  Ok, I agree, so climate change is different. The examples I gave (superstorm, failing models) point towards a more marketing than scientific approach from the anthropocentric climate change camp. To me that suggests money at stake from the pro camp as well. Like the increasing amount of money spend on climate scientists. I'm not very convinced of our role in climate change and I'm even less convinced of the the fact hat we can forecast climate changes by what ever means they are induced. I'm not saying clean energy is a bad long term investment. I'm saying some people are going to far and we should be careful that we don't trade welfare for predicted long term effects that actually have a very small probability of ever becoming reality. We should not base important decisions on models that are proving inaccurate. What we should do, from time to time is ask who is making these flashy climate change movies that the neuron rubbing guy watches. Who is funding those? Do people ever ask themselves that?
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    > What we should do, from time to time is ask who is making these flashy climate change movies that the neuron rubbing guy watches. Who is funding those? Do people ever ask themselves that? We do ask that. All the time. The information is publicly available. Two neurons guy saw the movie, "Dynamic Earth" which was produced by the following: Dynamic Earth is the result of a two-year long collaboration between Spitz Creative Media, the Advanced Visualization Lab at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois, NASA’s Scientific Visualization Studio, and Thomas Lucas Productions, Inc. Produced in association with the Denver Museum of Nature & Science and NASA Earth Science. From here: http://www.dynamicearth.spitzcreativemedia.com/ http://www.dynamicearth.spitzcreativemedia.com/ Spitz Creative is a company that makes planetarium films, so the documentary was pretty much made NASA and the NCSA -- the two organizations that conduct the vast majority of climate modeling and research in the world. Literally world expert climate scientists. I challenge you to do the same for anti-AGW documentaries..