Um . . . why would an environmental study group be biased in that way? Their job isn't to find out that there is man-made global warming -- it's to find out IF there is man-made global warming.
The 3% of "scientists" who disagree are entirely funded by industry groups who have a vested interest in disproving it. But there's nobody who has a vested interest in PROVING it.
We know that people who would be required to make expensive changes have a reason to want to disprove it.
Who has a reason to want to prove it? Who makes money on that?
The billion dollar environmental industry; the many political issues that are driven by environmentalism; the many organizations that rely on environmental-minded people donating money to them. Those people want to prove it. Those people make money on it
( ... )
Me, personally? 1982 or so, when I was eight years old. And, yeah, I saw a bunch of the evidence, presented in ways that were appropriate for third-graders. But even by that time, I had a pretty good bullshit detector -- I'd realized that the DARE stuff they were trying to teach us was bullshit, but this stuff wasn't.
Jokes aside. You learned about global climate change as a child. I can't think of a better word so forgive the strength of this one: you were "indoctrinated".
Learning things as a child, especially if your parents confirm it (don't know if yours did or didn't), is where core beliefs come from.
For instance, I am overly patriotic. Too much so. I logically know that I'm too much so, but my core belief nags me every time the issue comes up. On any dispute, my gut reaction is "America is right, you're wrong," and it takes deliberate, rational, logical thought for me to conclude otherwise.
I believe that sort of "core belief" is the reason there is so much "altruistic" environmentalism out there. (I define altruistic environmentalism as being environmental stances that are not driven by a desire to better people's lives). And I believe it is responsible for skewed science.
I think you're confusing environmental study groups with environmentalists. It's the job of environmental study groups to look at collected data and draw conclusions; it's the job of environmentalists to chase whaling ships in rubber dinghies and scream about how every technological advancement of the past hundred years was spawned directly from the festering groin of Lucifer himself.
It is my (subjective and unproven) belief that environmental study groups are comprised of environmentally minded people. Not crazy people who chase whaling ships. Normal, reasonable pro-environment folks. How else do you end up on an environmental study group?
And while I believe they are reasonable, rational people and good scientists on the whole, I think they go in to it with a pre-set conclusion. I don't think they're up to anything or being sneaky. I just think their bias clouds their science and they concloude what they believed before the study began.
I, too, have problems with what I refer to as the "hubris" model of climate change (it's man-made because we are in complete control). Please don't think I'm making light of what may become a very serious problem. I'm not. But I am unconvinced by what is, for the purpose of scientific conclusion, an extremely small data sample. We don't have comprehensive records far enough back in time to form even strong opinions about the causes of global warming, let alone to make declarations of fact. The statistics and the science are below any reasonable standard for cause and effect conclusions.
That being said, I'm all for any mind-set that leads to pollution control, even hubris. :) I also think we could be spending some of our energy and resources on planning for contingencies like rising sea levels, just in case we don't have control over the planet after all.
Yes, I agree totally. There's all sort of environmentalism I'm in favor of. If someone can demonstrate to me than mankind, or some subsection of it, will benefit from an environmental law, I'm all for it.
I like parks. I like nature preserves. They are places I can go and see nature and enjoy them. That benefits mankind in my opinion.
I like emissions laws. I'm a big fan of breathing and want to do it as easily as possible and emissions laws help me in that way.
I also *love* the idea of alternative energy. Not just because it means the air I breathe will be cleaner, but also for unrelated political reasons that are fairly obvious: I don't think we should be reliant on a resource that is controlled by unstable and sometimes infantile Middle-Eastern governments.
There are accessible climatologists working for the NOAA, NASA, and major universities, as well as climatological study groups outside of the USA. They certainly have opinions on the topic.
I'd suggest looking at Real Climate as a starting point, and the Nasa page on Global Warming. If you have an interest in the topic, that's the place to start.
Comments 13
The 3% of "scientists" who disagree are entirely funded by industry groups who have a vested interest in disproving it. But there's nobody who has a vested interest in PROVING it.
We know that people who would be required to make expensive changes have a reason to want to disprove it.
Who has a reason to want to prove it? Who makes money on that?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Jokes aside. You learned about global climate change as a child. I can't think of a better word so forgive the strength of this one: you were "indoctrinated".
Learning things as a child, especially if your parents confirm it (don't know if yours did or didn't), is where core beliefs come from.
For instance, I am overly patriotic. Too much so. I logically know that I'm too much so, but my core belief nags me every time the issue comes up. On any dispute, my gut reaction is "America is right, you're wrong," and it takes deliberate, rational, logical thought for me to conclude otherwise.
I believe that sort of "core belief" is the reason there is so much "altruistic" environmentalism out there. (I define altruistic environmentalism as being environmental stances that are not driven by a desire to better people's lives). And I believe it is responsible for skewed science.
-ATW
Reply
Reply
And while I believe they are reasonable, rational people and good scientists on the whole, I think they go in to it with a pre-set conclusion. I don't think they're up to anything or being sneaky. I just think their bias clouds their science and they concloude what they believed before the study began.
-ATW
Reply
That being said, I'm all for any mind-set that leads to pollution control, even hubris. :) I also think we could be spending some of our energy and resources on planning for contingencies like rising sea levels, just in case we don't have control over the planet after all.
Reply
I like parks. I like nature preserves. They are places I can go and see nature and enjoy them. That benefits mankind in my opinion.
I like emissions laws. I'm a big fan of breathing and want to do it as easily as possible and emissions laws help me in that way.
I also *love* the idea of alternative energy. Not just because it means the air I breathe will be cleaner, but also for unrelated political reasons that are fairly obvious: I don't think we should be reliant on a resource that is controlled by unstable and sometimes infantile Middle-Eastern governments.
-ATW
Reply
I'd suggest looking at Real Climate as a starting point, and the Nasa page on Global Warming. If you have an interest in the topic, that's the place to start.
Reply
-ATW
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment