Quote:
Originally Posted by mykalberta
This is a 3 sided debate and the 2 largest sides are both motivated by politics and economics
1 side says it exists and the only way to fix it is to stop burning fossil fuels. They talk about the rape and pillage of the earths non-renewable resources, evil oil companies, and a redisitribution of wealth from larger nations to smaller all of which have nothing to do with a rise in the earths temperature.
2 this side says it doesnt exist
3 the scientific side only gives you the facts - sadly its very difficult to see a report that only has the facts as it likely wouldnt give much press.
If the GHG effect is what is causing the rise in the earths temperature then the solution put forward should be simple: reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by whichever means possible.
Either by reducing emissions or by finding a technology based way reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If I was a smart inventor that is what I would be trying to come up is a scientific way to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere instead of a socio-political game of shaming people to buy a crappy car. For this to work we need a % of good CO2 in the atmosphere - if the GH is a hypothesis then this number should exist somewhere.
|
While you may not like or may not agree with the surrounding message, side 1 generally has the science of side 3 behind its opinion on climate change. Because of that it is a more rational and tenable position to have.
I mean, it's possible the entire scientific community and its decades of research is completely wrong on this issue, but that's not a bet I'd take. I also think people are vastly overestimating how dogmatic science is. It can change on a dime if someone can posit a better hypothesis and have it stand up to rigors of review.
This is really no different than evolution arguments IMO. The effects cannot necessarily be seen immediately or reproduced in a laboratory so people assume that leaves tons of room for rational skepticism but that's really not the case. Someone would seem insane if they tried to sit on the fence regarding the "gravity debate" or the "flat earth debate" but many have no issue ignoring the mountains of one sided evidence for things like climate change or evolution. Skepticism backed by evidence is both acceptable and to be encouraged, but blind skepticism of science based on emotional reactions can be exceptionally problematic.