Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
You believe what you believe and call any question of it ignorance.
|
You're missing an important point. Questioning it based on ideology, bad science, or a simple roll of the dice is what's bad.
Questioning it based on good science is an excellent thing to do. The problem is the amount of actual good science that questions it is actually very small.
People are welcome to make arguments based on science, post scientific papers, etc. However that almost never is the case, deniers seem to post links to newspaper articles, books, or blogs, which can say anything without having to actually support what they say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I can't count the number of times I've heard that "the vast majority of scientists agree that man is causing global warming"
|
That's because it's true. There's no national science organization anywhere that doesn't hold that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
as if the vast majority of scientist have never gotten something wrong.
|
This is a logical fallacy. Just because a scientist or group of scientists have been wrong in the past does not mean they are wrong now. Just because a group of scientists have been RIGHT in the past does not mean they are right now.
The majority of scientists say the earth is an oblate spheroid, but scientists have gotten things wrong before so they must be wrong about that by that logic.
No one claims infallibility, as always if there is contrary evidence it should be presented, science has proven it will change its position given contrary evidence.
I've changed my position on many aspects of science based on contrary evidence, including with AGW. I'm open to changing again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
There is a large scale denial of the influence money plays in the steering of research and the role human pride and ego plays into the blinding of even great scientific minds.
|
So you say, but most of the research around climate change isn't actually steered towards conclusions that support AGW because it isn't directly related to climate at all. Studying corals or trees or animal populations or crops or migration times or any of the thousands of other things aren't directly related to AGW, but support it.
But I posted a list of research grants available and no one linked to the ones where the big money was being given based on supporting preconceived results.
Without evidence of this, this is just a convenient claim to confirm a desired bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
If man is behind global warming then we are going to have to adjust to the consequences because there is no chance carbon fuel will be replaced until we run out of it or find a better producer of energy.
|
I wouldn't say no chance, but it will be very difficult yes. How easy or difficult has no relevance to the veracity of AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Carbon credits and other solutions just amount to a grab at wealth by politicians.
|
Maybe yes, maybe no, but again this has no relevance to the veracity of AGW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
They won't effect the amount of carbon being released. They just change where it is being released and who gains the economic benefit from it.
|
Well in theory if you say "from 2011 to 2031 the total amount inside the free carbon credit market goes from 100 tons to 80 tons", then yes it would. Assuming perfect reporting and enforcement, which obviously isn't realistic, but the question would then be is it good enough to still accomplish the goal.
And obviously someone will profit in a market, why is that good when it's one kind of market but not good when its another?