Scientists Revolt Against Global Warming Fearmongering

[Sqrl]

NJ5 said:

MontanaHatchet said:
It's really sad that the environment is a political issue, and people will go to any means to deny something significant. Let's just say that global warming is false. Should we really continue doing the things that cause it? Is polluting some kind of pro-conservative way of life?

I completely agree. The safe thing to do is to assume global warming is real... even if it's not, good things will come out of it.

 

See this depends on what you want to do to prepare...

If you want to prepare by massively cutting carbon emissions and thus reducing the productive output of the major industrialized nations ..well then you're insane and this is frankly a terrible idea.

If you want to focus on reducing energy consumption by increasing the efficiency of appliances, switching to nuclear power to supplement our coal addiction, and in general maintain and continue to boost our productivity to use that productivity as a tool then I'm on board.  My objection to the use of the precautionary principle by AGW advocates is when it is used to advance the idea that we should cripple ourselves and demand that others do so as well.  If we truly are facing a crisis I would much rather have the productive engine of our society well oiled and at full power to combat the problem than to get rid of it and hope its enough.

People seem to forget that they don't instanly melt on a hot summer day.  Every analysis I have seen says that adapting to a changing climate is significantly cheaper (as in like 1/100th or 1/20th the cost) than trying to stop it.  It also has the additional benefit of not halting the world's economic engine.

Either way this is phase 3 of the debate.

• Phase 1 - Is the earth warming? And to what degree?  Is it signficant enough to be a concern for human existance?
• Phase 2 - Are humans causing it?
• Phase 3 - What should we do about it?
• Phase 4 - How do you dole out the responsibilities once we decide what to do?

Doing something in step 3 or 4 now is fine so long as it doesn't cut off other options. This is the precautionary principle applied correctly.  The way many try to use it in this debate is essentially like walking through a jungle - getting a large gash while on your hike and returning to town to have it amputated just in case it got infected....maybe we should take some steps to reduce the chances of infection, clean the wound, and bandage it....BEFORE we simply lop the thing off "just to be safe".  Similarly we should produce more efficient appliances, move to nuclear power instead of coal, and wait to see if "the infection" is even there.