Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
i am wrong? "There is lots of grant money to be gotten by denying global warming. After all, the oil industry does not particularly like the idea of global warming." - sounds to me to be very much like another opinion and/or assumption stated as fact.
|
I am saying you are wrong about how there is no money to be gotten by being non-alarmist. Remember the tobacco industry, and the tobacco industry scientists publishing studies saying there was nothing to worry about?
Whenever an issue has such huge economic effects as this one, you can be sure that there is also money available for studies that might indicate that things are alright after all.
Here's an interesting link. I don't know how trustworthy it is, though, and it does look to be a rather partisan site.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...xon_chart.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
my point was that the issue by design, is set up to be biased and impossible. who is going to make the most noise? alarmists, or moderate people? what are the key words "global warming" - that implies that the climate shouldn't be getting warmer. then you move right into the obvious points that we are coming out of an ice age and idiots start slinging insults back and forth avoiding the real issue with is the possibly abnormally accellerated climate change.
|
Your theory that the system is biased towards alarmism, in my view, seems to be mistaken. Although it is certainly true in short-term cases concerning the media, in the long term, economic interests seem likely to make sure that research that possibly backs the other side also gets funded.
An important thing to realize about global warming is that what is often considered alarmism is, in fact, the moderate, most broadly supported view. There are quite a few scientists with much more radical theories concerning the issue of global warming (eg the idea that warming goes a self-inforcing feedback loop).
Besides that, any strong research showing a very likely cause for global warming other than human influence would be sure to get heaps of media attention, as the status quo has changed towards a point where human influence on global warming is now considered likely by most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
i agree that it makes sense to side with science. i agree that nothing is to risk in being cautious. i just think these discussions end up being so fucked up from the get go because of the extremism and the obvious problems in the arguments on both sides.
|
Yes, these discussions do end up rather badly, most of the time. The main cause for that, I think, is that people in general, on both sides of the argument, believe what they want to believe, not what is most likely looking at the available information. So you end up with two badly informed groups of people, pretending to be experts on an issue they know nothing about, engaging in utterly ridiculous discussions that don't even touch on the basic points of the issue at hand.
That always annoys me, but the people who go against the scientific community merely because they have a gut feeling that disagrees with science (eg "IllTestYourGirls") annoy me even more.
Science isn't perfect, but it's a much better way to deal with scientific issues than gut feelings
