Sure, the majority of scientists could all be wrong. But in general the scientific process used in all areas of natural science work in the same way. If they got the right answer about atomic structure, evolution, plate tectonics, dinosaurs, the structure of the solar system, where the oil came from, medicine, etc. etc., then it is pretty good chance they are right about global climate change.
And of course you can criticism them. That's how the process works! But if you are going to actually change the science, you need to present the arguments that convince the majority of the scientists working on global climate change.
I think we should consider it like this instead of the endless non compromising debate.
Global Climate change that is human induced is certainly a possibility. Why not strive to reduce our possible impact, without letting it become the absolute obsession that drives emerging countries populations into poverty.
Actually many emerging countries have the advantage of being in a position to look at our history and not make the same mistakes we made due to ignorance.
While I agree completely with the idea that we, the developed nations, should lead the way to a cleaner atmosphere, I draw the line at radical life style changes that may or may not have proveable results.
On the other hand, the developed nations, with capital for research could go a long way to advancing the technological processes of energy use and consumption to set an example for others to follow.
Kind of a preventive maintenance philosophy.
Now I will probably get slammed by both sides .
regards
Mech
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
I think we should consider it like this instead of the endless non compromising debate.
Global Climate change that is human induced is certainly a possibility. Why not strive to reduce our possible impact, without letting it become the absolute obsession that drives emerging countries populations into poverty.
Actually many emerging countries have the advantage of being in a position to look at our history and not make the same mistakes we made due to ignorance.
While I agree completely with the idea that we, the developed nations, should lead the way to a cleaner atmosphere, I draw the line at radical life style changes that may or may not have proveable results.
On the other hand, the developed nations, with capital for research could go a long way to advancing the technological processes of energy use and consumption to set an example for others to follow.
Kind of a preventive maintenance philosophy.
Now I will probably get slammed by both sides .
regards
Mech
I 100% agree. Whether or not human induced climate change is real, there are a huge number of benefits to reducing energy consumption and moving away from burning stuff to get that energy.
The whole 'learning from our mistakes' idea seems to be falling through though, look at China and the "crazy bad" pollution there. If they had emission standards and tried to use energy sources other than coal, and banned the use of coal in the inner-cities (I recently read that many high rises in Beijing use coal for heating instead of natural gas or electricity), the people of China would be much healthier, carbon emission reductions would just be an extra bonus.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to tumnasgt For This Useful Post:
Sure, the majority of scientists could all be wrong.
I'm not too sure wether you fully realize that Climategate is all about keeping out / shutting down sceptic voices by keeping them from publicizing or reviewing GW advocacy articles ?
It's easy to create a majority of scientists that way.
Quote:
And of course you can criticism them. That's how the process works!
It's how the process worked, past-tense, with peer-reviews etc.
Once the GW advocates had started tampering with that, the sceptics were being driven from the scientific radar by lack of / bad peer reviews.
__________________
Strayed to the Dark Diesel Side
The controversy over the hacked emails at one research institute did not compromise the science. There have been at least three investigations of that situation and none of them concluded anything that affected the science. That was just one of many institutes, and the data still stands.
The research on global climate change has been ongoing for decades, and involves many disciplines. Ice scientists like Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State university:
Dendrochronologists and many others all are involved. You seem to think they are motivated by popularity or are only in it for the money; while I'm fairly sure that they are in it for the science itself. Lonnie Thompson has spent more time nearly freezing to death than almost anybody alive today, and his treasure is thousands of cylinders of ice in a freezer.
By the way, one of the best timing markers in ice all over the world is the radioactive fallout from all the atmospheric nuclear tests. In some places that layer of ice has now melted away -- why would that be, I wonder?
While I agree completely with the idea that we, the developed nations, should lead the way to a cleaner atmosphere, I draw the line at radical life style changes that may or may not have proveable results.
On the other hand, the developed nations, with capital for research could go a long way to advancing the technological processes of energy use and consumption to set an example for others to follow.
Kind of a preventive maintenance philosophy.
Now I will probably get slammed by both sides .
Not really. But it is naive of you to think that the impositions of the global warming agenda would be merely the voluntary setting "an example for others to follow". Realize that implicit in it is that we citizens in the Western world will be made to pay more for the advanced technologies or restrictions on traditionally used materials that will be made mandatory by our governments, while the developing countries will be given a "pass" and not be held to the same standards. They will be driving cars and polluting while we will be riding bicycles (as they used to do). The whole Leftist global agenda is to restrict and hold back the developed nations so the underdeveloped ones can arrive at some sort of 'equality' - a form of reverse discrimination or punishment, in effect.
This can be promoted as a type of global subsidy through exemption from the same standard. If we have to pay more or suffer austerity so others can benefit, in essence that is a form of international socialism.
In every other threat scenario, the US govt has spent gobs of money on efforts to reduce or eliminate the threat. Think homeland security and the cost over the last decade, as well as the sometimes disgusting invasions of privacy.
If the idiots are going to spend us into bankruptcy, then they could at least fund the various private R&D efforts to really change the status quo.
I have proposed before a Manhattan type project for energy independence where anyone with a potential solution could go through a screening process and once they had proven the viability of their concept then they could gain access to govt funded research.
Not for personal gain unless the research proved the concept, in which case they could form a cooperative agreement with the govt to universally promote or adopt their beneficial technology, bypassing the limitations of any Patent related restrictions.
Considering the money we are bleeding in balance of trade deficits it might actually prove to provide a real benefit far in excess of any initial funding.
Ingenuity is not exclusive to the intellectual elite. It's a daily occurrence when people find solutions to problems. I have learned of really ingenious methods of solving problems from people who are barely literate.
Having spent literally hundreds of hours and a lot of cash trying to get someone to rationally consider my own idea, I would be willing to bet there are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other people who have tried and had little success.
Do I have an agenda, sure, but a part of that agenda is to stop this country from bleeding our children's future financial health from rotten dinosaur goop that someone is pumping out of the ground for $2 a barrel and gouging us to the tune of $80 for the same barrel.
Chuck a fresh 300 bil in capital into our economy and watch a lot of issues disappear, while you cut vehicle emissions in half in the immediate future and potentially eliminate them in the long run.
Global Climate change that is human induced is certainly a possibility. Why not strive to reduce our possible impact, without letting it become the absolute obsession that drives emerging countries populations into poverty.
Actually many emerging countries have the advantage of being in a position to look at our history and not make the same mistakes we made due to ignorance.
...
This was a hope from 30 years ago. The idea was that third world nations would "leapfrog" over the mistakes of the industrial revolution and would use modern industrial practices in combination with sustainable/renewable energy resources.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
.
