"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[Gameface]

Define environmentally friendly. The environment is many things and usually when you improve one area you hurt another. A big part of my problem with the environmental movement is that the goals are often vary vauge and usually the idea is just to get people to act in a certain way, even if what they're doing actually isn't good for them or anyone else at all.

Is the process involved in recycling paper envirnomentally frinedly? Is the transportation of used paper to the recycling facility environmentally friendly? Is the manufacture of an electric car and it's batteries environmentally friendly?

It seems to me that the goal of environmentalism is to arbitrarily say that the way things are now, or they way things were 100 years ago, is the way the environment is supposed to be and we now need to take extreme measures to freeze those conditions in time and keep the environment that way forever. The environment on Earth has never been static. It has always changed. Now, however, we have arbitrarily determined that it is changing too fast and we need to put a stop to that change regardless of the cost.

I just don't know that there is any value in that.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

The debate really is standard "consensus" meteorology vs. solar activity and the phases of the moon. The latter's predictive record is much more impressive. And since circulation patterns have nothing to do with CO2, there isn't any value in adhering to imperiling strictures.

Never mind the whole Club of Rome depopulation agenda. Because that's the reason climate change has any public spotlight in the first place.

 

[Agoxlea]

Define environmentally friendly. The environment is many things and usually when you improve one area you hurt another. A big part of my problem with the environmental movement is that the goals are often vary vauge and usually the idea is just to get people to act in a certain way, even if what they're doing actually isn't good for them or anyone else at all.

Is the process involved in recycling paper envirnomentally frinedly? Is the transportation of used paper to the recycling facility environmentally friendly? Is the manufacture of an electric car and it's batteries environmentally friendly?

It seems to me that the goal of environmentalism is to arbitrarily say that the way things are now, or they way things were 100 years ago, is the way the environment is supposed to be and we now need to take extreme measures to freeze those conditions in time and keep the environment that way forever. The environment on Earth has never been static. It has always changed. Now, however, we have arbitrarily determined that it is changing too fast and we need to put a stop to that change regardless of the cost.

I just don't know that there is any value in that.

You're right, and that is a vague term. I used it often in my previous post and what I actually meant, but only said once is: reducing CO2 emissions. There are many other things that we should be doing/not doing, but maybe not in relation to this discussion.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I for one am extremely surprised that this thread is still breathing.

 

[PearlWatson]

How about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? This is made up of scientists from over 130 countries. Also the Academies of Science of 32 countries including the United States all have stated there is between 90%-99% chance that climate change is caused by humans. I understand Pascal's Wager applies to a voluntary behavior, but that is pretty irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Let's say making environmentally friendly choices is voluntary which it is. Then the argument can be made that because of the benefits that have nothing to do with climate change, it still would be the most beneficial choice to be environmentally conscious. You seem to be opposed to policy being made that forces people/businesses to make those choices, which I am not. That is an entirely different argument where you have more ground to stand on, because that is just political preference. The mistake is denying that it is likely that mankind causes climate change just because you are opposed to what we should do about it. It is very difficult to argue that it would not be beneficial to reduce CO2 emissions. What isn't as concrete is whether or not it is economically beneficial to make these decisions. I believe in the long run that the economic impact of our climate problems will outweigh the economic problems that certain policies would cause now. This is an entirely different debate in which I think you have a very compelling argument that I happen to disagree with, but denying that climate change is most likely man made is what I find a little terrifying. The denial of this fact skews peoples' weighing of the pros and cons of the real issue which is: "What should we do about climate change?".

A politically motivated panel of scientists creeps me out.

How many scientists make up this group of "most actively publishing scientists?" They could just be a dozen *** kissers who say what the publishers want to hear.

I haven't denied any so called "fact" and why would it matter if I did? I have no influence over public policy.

I take Crichton's warning to heart though:

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

 

[PearlWatson]

Now back to the original topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnLqoRtUAVg

 

[One Brow]

So you can say what you want, but I take Crichton's opinions regarding science more seriously than a layman's.

I take the opinion of a dozen scientific organizations much more seriously than that of any individual scientist. That's what consensus is. It is inconsistent to say our positions are invalid because we lack authority, but that Chrichton's is valid despite authority.

Pretty sure that guy has a clue.

Based on the quote he gave from Crichton below, I'm pretty sure not.

It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “...consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).

Spoken like a man who has never argued with a relativity-denier or a flat-earther. That's exactly what you have to say when you discuss science with these people. It's not so different than with global-warming-deniers.

 

[One Brow]

Michael Crichton tells us about the poor track record of consensus among scientists:

So, absent a mechanism for puerperal fever, pellegra, and continental drift, scientists were skeptical. Good, that what scientists should be. For every Goldberger there are a ten or more other people putting forth different theories. It's very easy to go back in history and cherry-pick after you know what the mechanism is, and who was right.

Of course, we know the mechanisms behind global warming. That's why scientists are no longer skeptical of it. We're not trying to run around and figure out why the planet is warming, we already know the reason.

However, I wouldn't expect such a minor a difference as not knowing the cause in one case, and knowing it in the other, to keep a troll from treating such things as being equivalent.

 

[One Brow]

In my opinion a truly free market would say first that you can manufacture whatever you'd like, but you take 100% responsibility for your actions and if anyone anywhere is damaged by your actions then you are fully liable.

When the pollution is caused jointly by 20 different companies and 30 million car drivers, it is realistic to expect the courts to to be able to address it?

 

[moevillini]

I for one am extremely surprised that this thread is still breathing.

it's running on fumes...





I just couldn't resist that one

 

[One Brow]

That's the rub right there:

Exactly. Scientists have signed off on global warming in part because it is the conclusion of verifiable experiments conducted by multiple researchers. Tha'ts why it is consensus.

 

[One Brow]

(how many scientists is that and what exactly do they accept?).

You could start by reading the relevant releases of the AAAS and the NAS, if you actually cared to find out how many that is and what they accept.