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

[PearlWatson]

There has never been a human civilization on a much cooler or warmer climate than we currently have. We may survive as a species, butthat doesn't mean our civilizations will survive along with it.

Your "covering the bases" speculation is oh so fascinating but so what?

 

[Gameface]

The problem is that Global Climate Change is not a scientific theory, it is a political movement connected with the environmental movement. There are many different areas ang specialties working on individual theories that tie into the Global Climate Change platform, but I have yet to be made aware of a universal Global Climate Change theory.

It is the political movement which uses environmental and climate issues to drive their agenda that cause many people to have a lot of skepticism regarding even the most basic environmental and climate issues. Then the reaction to this skepticism is that only brain dead morons would be skeptical, and if you don't fully accept these issues as real and in need of significant social and political action, it is because you're hateful and ignorant. Isn't skepticism the default position? Isn't it not only ok but encouraged to approach an issue like this and say, "I don't fully understand this issue, so I'm not going to assume what is correct."

From my perspective, the environmental movement makes individual rights impossible. It is the idea that we must all be controlled because if left to our own inclinations we would destroy the planet. So I reject the people pushing this movement. I think there is a better way to protect ourselves (the planet does not need protecting, nor does the environment, people need to protect their own interests, which is to say the global resources and conditions needed for our survival). I see these issues being used as a political tool to gain a devastating advantage over the opposition. If only everyone were convinced something HAD to be done to stop the threat of Global Climate Change we would see that the measures needed are not compatible with capitalism, consumption and individual rights.

So please understand that I don't think I'm smarter than climate scientists on this issue, but I'm not ready to take them at their word either, and I'm not likely to agree with their solutions. I'd rather the climate change than follow them down the path they've laid out for me.

 

[Agoxlea]

The problem is that Global Climate Change is not a scientific theory, it is a political movement connected with the environmental movement. There are many different areas a specialties working on individual theories that tie into the Global Climate Change platform, but I have yet to be made aware of a universal Global Climate Change theory.

It is the political movement which uses environmental and climate issues to drive their agenda that cause many people to have a lot of skepticism regarding even the most basic environmental and climate issues. Then the reaction to this skepticism is that only brain dead morons would be skeptical, and if you don't fully accept these issues as real and in need of significant social and political action, it is because you're hateful and ignorant. Isn't skepticism the default position? Isn't it not only ok but encouraged to approach an issue like this and say, "I don't fully understand this issue, so I'm not going to assume what is correct."

From my perspective, the environmental movement makes individual rights impossible. It is the idea that we must all be controlled because if left to our own inclinations we would destroy the planet. So I reject the people pushing this movement. I think there is a better way to protect ourselves (the planet does not need protecting, nor does the environment, people need to protect their own interests, which is to say the global resources and conditions needed for our survival). I see these issues being used as a political tool to gain a devastating advantage over the opposition. If only everyone were convinced something HAD to be done to stop the threat of Global Climate Change we would see that the measures needed are not compatible with capitalism, consumption and individual rights.

So please understand that I don't think I'm smarter than climate scientists on this issue, but I'm not ready to take them at their word either, and I'm not likely to agree with their solutions. I'd rather the climate change than follow them down the path they've laid out for me.

This is the best argument here by far. I happen to disagree and DO think we will destroy our planet if left to make all our own choices because environmental externalities are not accounted for in the free market system. However, I totally am fine disagreeing about that.

However, in response to the previous posters saying that Michael Crichton's opinion is more valid because of his advanced degree I will concede... If you will concede that the 97% of scientists (who have advanced degrees and are experts in areas related to Climate Change) should be trusted for that same reason. You made my point for me. A majority of us do not have PhD's and therefore it is reasonable for us to trust those that do especially if such a large percentage agree on a particular idea. Checkmate.

 

[LogGrad98]

This is the best argument here by far. I happen to disagree and DO think we will destroy our planet if left to make all our own choices because environmental externalities are not accounted for in the free market system. However, I totally am fine disagreeing about that.

However, in response to the previous posters saying that Michael Crichton's opinion is more valid because of his advanced degree I will concede... If you will concede that the 97% of scientists (who have advanced degrees and are experts in areas related to Climate Change) should be trusted for that same reason. You made my point for me. A majority of us do not have PhD's and therefore it is reasonable for us to trust those that do especially if such a large percentage agree on a particular idea. Checkmate.

But what if the 3% are right?

 

[Agoxlea]

But what if the 3% are right?

They may well be, however, none of us are experts in climate science and as such I think it is wise to trust the majority opinion especially if the majority is so large. The consequences both financially and to quality of life will most likely be very severe. Yes, there is a chance that our environmental actions are not the cause of the problem, but a majority of those who know much more than any of us do about the subject believe that we are in fact the cause. I don't think it is very wise to hope that the minority is right, because if they aren't we will have to deal with the consequences at some point in the not too distant future. Completely disregarding climate change there are other externalities caused by our poor environmental decisions that are not accounted for by the market. They result in health issues that cost taxpayers millions if not billions, decreasing our food supply which increases the cost of food, and a number of other things. So even if we have no impact on climate change, it would behoove us to act like we do. The analogy I'm going to draw is to religion. Specifically Pascal's gambit which is essentially that even if God doesn't exist, it can't hurt to be religious because you'd still be doing good, and if he happened to exists you gain even more. While I disagree with Pascal's argument that morality cannot be had without religion this is still an effective analogy. Even if we don't cause climate change, only good can come from acting like we do.

 

[Gameface]

This is the best argument here by far. I happen to disagree and DO think we will destroy our planet if left to make all our own choices because environmental externalities are not accounted for in the free market system. However, I totally am fine disagreeing about that.

However, in response to the previous posters saying that Michael Crichton's opinion is more valid because of his advanced degree I will concede... If you will concede that the 97% of scientists (who have advanced degrees and are experts in areas related to Climate Change) should be trusted for that same reason. You made my point for me. A majority of us do not have PhD's and therefore it is reasonable for us to trust those that do especially if such a large percentage agree on a particular idea. Checkmate.

Here's the thing, I'm my own kind of extremist. I believe that liability laws could solve this problem for us. If someone's actions damage you then you should be able to hold them accountable. That is perfectly in-line with my concept of individual rights. Currently we have a situation where if your actions damage others (driving your car, for instance) you cannot be held accountable if your actions are specifically permitted buy law. Chemical manufacturers are allowed to dump by products into our air as long as they do so within defined limits. So the government is telling them that they can do a certain amount of damage to others without the people being damaged having any recourse. 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.

That is an extreme position and would wreck our economy if implemented tomorrow. I understand that. But in my opinion that is the correct solution to our environmental problems. To take it a little further, cars' exhaust is poisonous. If things were done the way I think they should be done we would need to capture and dispose of all by-products we produce or else be liable for the damage they cause, so driving a personal vehicle that burns gas would not be realistic unless technology was developed that allowed us to capture or abate all the harmful emissions. Unlike now where we can produce harmful emissions as long as we have our sticker saying we are harming others within the allowable limits provided by law.

 

[Agoxlea]

I'm totally ok with that, at least the idea of it. I don't think it could ever be fairly implemented or sold to the public, but kind of a cool idea.

 

[Surely]

I agree with Gameface that this has become more about control than about actually saving the planet. The fact that Al Gore owns (or is partners) the company that sells carbon credits (whatever they are) is very suspicious to me. Imagine if you could make every company, industry, and consumer pay you money for something that cost you next to nothing to produce (I'm totally speculating on how much it costs to actually produce a carbon credit, but I suspect it is close to $0). Now that is the gig I need to get in on.

 

[PearlWatson]

What stark, flaming ignorance (combined with the Galileo gambit). You build consensus in science by being right, and being able to demonstrate you are right. Pretending they are separate is just rhetoric. The germ theory of disease is the consensus because it is right. The rasioactivity of uranium is the consensus because it is right. Global warming is consensus because it is right.

That's the rub right there:

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.

 

[PearlWatson]

They may well be, however, none of us are experts in climate science and as such I think it is wise to trust the majority opinion especially if the majority is so large. The consequences both financially and to quality of life will most likely be very severe. Yes, there is a chance that our environmental actions are not the cause of the problem, but a majority of those who know much more than any of us do about the subject believe that we are in fact the cause. I don't think it is very wise to hope that the minority is right, because if they aren't we will have to deal with the consequences at some point in the not too distant future. Completely disregarding climate change there are other externalities caused by our poor environmental decisions that are not accounted for by the market. They result in health issues that cost taxpayers millions if not billions, decreasing our food supply which increases the cost of food, and a number of other things. So even if we have no impact on climate change, it would behoove us to act like we do. The analogy I'm going to draw is to religion. Specifically Pascal's gambit which is essentially that even if God doesn't exist, it can't hurt to be religious because you'd still be doing good, and if he happened to exists you gain even more. While I disagree with Pascal's argument that morality cannot be had without religion this is still an effective analogy. Even if we don't cause climate change, only good can come from acting like we do.

Pascal's wager has to do with personal and voluntary behavior. The problem occurs when consensus science is used to shape public policy. Great harm can and has occurred when we simply trust the guys in white coats and allow them to influence public policy. I don't care if YOU trust "the 97% of the most actively publishing scientists who accept global warming." (how many scientists is that and what exactly do they accept?).

 

[LogGrad98]

Pascal's wager has to do with personal and voluntary behavior. The problem occurs when consensus science is used to shape public policy. Great harm can and has occurred when we simply trust the guys in white coats and allow them to influence public policy. I don't care if YOU trust "the 97% of the most actively publishing scientists who accept global warming." (how many scientists is that and what exactly do they accept?).

This.

 

[Agoxlea]

Pascal's wager has to do with personal and voluntary behavior. The problem occurs when consensus science is used to shape public policy. Great harm can and has occurred when we simply trust the guys in white coats and allow them to influence public policy. I don't care if YOU trust "the 97% of the most actively publishing scientists who accept global warming." (how many scientists is that and what exactly do they accept?).

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?".