| ??? 05/06/07 03:27 Read: times Msg Score: +1 +1 Good Answer/Helpful |
#138680 - Ok Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Craig Steiner said:
That's not accurate. While the media may be reporting it more sensationally lately, there have been a lot of people that have been arguing this for more than a decade. Christoph Franck said:
In that case, you're just confirming what I said. The Kyoto protocol was opened for signature a decade ago. Discussions on how to reduce the effects of global warming started well before that. The energy companies were well aware that any attempt at combating anthropogenic global warming would negatively impact their bottom line in the early 1990's, and that was when they started fanning the "controversy". I guess you can spin it any way you like. There has never been an over-abundance of fair reporting in the media regardless of what you think the oil companies did or didn't do. In short, by following the media, you'd pretty much think there wasn't controversy. But there is and always has been, and not just because of the oil companies. Heck, the IPCC was formed in 1988. That was two decades ago. And it was formed because most scientists agreed that there was a trend of increasing average temperatures which needed to be investigated. I guess we'll have to disagree on the reasons for IPCC being formed. And before you mention global cooling - that was a media fad. So is global warming as far as I'm concerned. The science went out the window when the politicians added themselves to the equation. It was never taken as a serious trend by climate scientists, even though there actually were a few years of dropping temperatures superimposed on the long-term trend of increasing temperatures. Indeed. A long-term trend since the end of the Little Ice Age. Freedom is never absolute. Your freedom ends exactly where you start negatively impacting the lives of others too much. I believe that most of the global warming proposals do exactly that and with little or no concrete answer as to how much impact we can really expect. Craig Steiner said:
There's something very suspicious about the whole thing. Christoph Franck said:
I find the blatant lies that the oil companies' cronies are spouting much more suspicious. I'm far less suspicious of the oil companies, who's motives are known and are simply trying to make a buck, than of certain global warming proponents that seem to be hell-bent on reducing my freedoms and engaging in massive wealth transfers--commonly known as socialism. Christoph Franck said:
Also, from the point of view of scientists who are out for grant money - wouldn't it make much more sense to never even come close to a consensus (like we have now) ? If they just split into even camps and went on arguing for decades, they could get grants from all sides during that time. I don't think it's an organized conspiracy. I don't think the scientists got together and decided to engage in groupthink so I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to get together and plan how to split up and get more money. But the groupthink is in progress, those that disagree are maligned in the press, and there are governments worldwide handing out grant money to research something that, real or not, has the potential for a frightening amount of political leverage. Craig Steiner said:
I reject proposals that drive us to alternative energies that aren't ready yet Christoph Franck said:
So, let's crash really, really hard first and then pick up the pieces ? I'd rather avoid that type of transition. That's Richard-type worst-case expectations. It is far from certain tha we will "crash hard." We have a bunch of scientists (and, in some cases, psuedo-scientists) engaging in groupthink, obtaining power and influence that scientists don't usually have, bringing in grant funding, and using models that--while more accurate than a decade ago--are still only our best guess at how the very complex system which is our atmosphere will react to changes in a lot of variables, some of which we don't have any control over and which nature could decide to play around with all by itself. In short, I'm not convinced we're going to crash hard. That's the whole point. Craig Steiner said:
Those that do it sooner rather than later will probably have an advantage at some point. Christoph Franck said:
Unfortunatley, those who do it sooner are a very tiny minority. Laziness, inertia, convenience, shortsightedness and encouraged ignorance will ensure this. Or critical thinking and careful consideration which leads people to believe that the scaremongering global warming crowd is completely overreacting. It's insulting when people in the global warming crowd mock those of us who don't believe their theories blindly and call us lazy, shortsighted, and ignorant. Sure, some probably are. But some of us have looked at the same research you have and are simply not convinced. Christoph Franck said:
"The market" does not work. Thank you. That's the attitude that far too many global warming extremists believe and is exactly why I need far more compelling evidence before turning over my wallet and wellbeing to these people. Regards, Craig Steiner |
