Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
I don't actually discount the guy's financial acumen, but you lose a lot of credibility when you go against science.
|
This is the kind of flippant dismissal that has turned the global warming issue into just another black and white partisan litmus test.
It shall not be discussed is no way to treat any serious issue. Especially a science issue. The whole point of science is to relentlessly challenge every theory. Here are some perfectly rational questions that are worth asking regarding global warming.
1) How accurate are the models we're using to assess global temperature changes and projections?
2) To what degree are man-made activities responsible for any warming, and what other factors could be at play?
3) What is the range of effects that increases and decreases to carbon emissions are likely to have on climate?
4) How practical are alternatives to carbon-based energy sources in supplying the energy requirements of the planet?
Unfortunately, dogmatic zealots use 'the science is settled' to stifle debate. You have the Gaia religionists, who idealize pre-industrial living and who crave certainty and piety just as surely as any fundamentalist Christian. And you have anti-capitalist activists, for whom a theory that justifies ratcheting down global industry and taxing trade is a godsend. These groups make up some of the most passionate advocates for reducing carbon emissions, and neither is known for being especially literate in science, or for being open to empiricism or nuance.
So I chuckle when the issue is framed as a science vs ignorance debate. Last time I checked there was a tremendous amount of overlap between the anti-vax crowd and global-warming activists.
The science is settled on very few scientific theories, especially not ones as complex and difficult to assess as global climate.