This isn't particularly aimed at you, J2k4, but you were probably the most vocal anti-climate change advocate here, and I was wondering what your views on the subject are now.
Printable View
This isn't particularly aimed at you, J2k4, but you were probably the most vocal anti-climate change advocate here, and I was wondering what your views on the subject are now.
The warming climate and its correlation to farming, energy production, and manufacturing processes is a lot less obvious than some of the other easily debunked beliefs out there. Therefore, many deniers have likely maintained that position.
Admittedly, I was a skeptic until about 2008 because I was aware of other trends that could explain the observations. Aware is not the same as being informed though, and I was convinced after actually going through many of the publications out there that did a great job of addressing my preconceptions.
A late response:
I do not deny climate change, but I do question the eventualities settled upon so firmly by the experts, as well as their surety that man is responsible.
Had a fellow recently trying - as many have - to strong-arm me on the subject, so I will ask you the same questions I asked him - he didn't even try to answer me, but, there you have it:
Were the scientists of 30-40 years ago inferior to those of today, relative to intelligence?
Less inquisitive?
Less intuitive?
During the period I refer to, scientists were concerned with global cooling, and were - at least - as convinced it was as inevitable as they are currently purported to be about global warming...with the same sort of modelling, too.
It was popularly believed that a few bombs exploding (Cold War) would bring about irretrievable Nuclear Winter, and we would all be doomed.
Given the precise same dynamic - relative to the unanimity and surety of each eventuality, and also that the currently popular historical evidence used to support global warming chronologically encompasses the period when it's climatological opposite was certain, well, how would you assess the science and the competence of the scientists of that period?
His reply:
"Technology advances, time advances, more data to study...I don't think the average human is any smarter today than they were 500 years ago. More educated for sure, but the intelligence capacity hasn't changed much, if at all. Evolution doesn't work that fast. (you do believe in evolution, right?)
Like I said, at the end of the day, why even take the chance? We have 1 planet, we can't afford to be wrong. Worst case scenario, you have cleaner air and water. The human element variable to the equation hasn't been around long enough to make a definitive answer either way, but I'd rather be safe than sorry."
To which I replied:
Your response indicates the mere passage of time and the accumulation of additional 'knowledge' was sufficient to solve the the mortal dilemma of global cooling, but with the unfortunate development we now refer to as climate change/global warming, yes?
Might I suggest we wait another thirty years for global cooling to come around again - as it surely must?
Well?
What about all that?
I subscribe to all logical and sensible cautions as re the environment; conservation has been a watchword all my life, but what I do not subscribe to is mortgaging our economic future to speculations proffered by ego-tripping 'experts' who have no skin in the game, yet favor one side exclusively over the other while also demanding they be allowed to referee the contest.
To prefer the latter stinks of intellectually lazy naivete.
"The warmest weather since the 17 hundreds", so it is nothing new.
When they start saying the warmest day since yesterday, then I will think about it. :)
Hello, Robert. :)
Hi Kev.:)
Hi Kev.
Hello, Steve! :)