On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/01/2013 9:55 PM, Mark Trickett wrote:
Just found, via G+, a link to an article about the finances of the climate change denial organisations. One major source is Koch Industries, who are heavily involved in the fossil fuel industry. They are funneling it through a "charitable" fund, getting tax deductability, and anonymity. The approaches are very similar to what the Tobacco industry tried, denial of real effects, and puppet "independent" voices.
The "I hate tobacco and I hate 'insert name here' so the 'insert name here' must be evil" association is just ridiculous.
It's not an issue of hating tobacco, in fact I don't even know whether Mark has any great objection to tobacco. But the tactics that the tobacco industry used to try and avoid responsibility for their actions are well known, the actions of the science denialists in regard to climate are much the same.
The same could be said of anyone. Example, "Most Linux users are socialists, and Socialism is a failed concept, so Linux is bad."
Actually some degree of government social support has been proven to be essential to a modern society. This has been shown to work so well that countries such as France have the Socialist Party as one of their major parties.
I've offered no proof, as Russell is fond of saying, "show me the money/reference!"
Please offer some "proof".
Unfortunately, they have less wealthy supporters who are severely misled and fail to have open minds.
So, now it's the poor that's problem?
No, it's ignorant people who believe in conspiracy theories.
The issue on earth is the increasing concentration. Things were stable, but we have "kicked" an otherwise stable system rather hard.
That's the billion dollar question. Can the climate scientists give us a real, tangible key point indicator? It used to be sea level rise, but we're still waiting. The 13mm from a previous post doesn't make an end-of-life-event.
Smart people don't wait for an "end of life event". They plan for the things that seem reasonably likely. If I smoked a packet of cigarettes a day for the next 20 years I might not die of it. But the smart thing to do is to not take the chance.
When climate change supporters put themselves and the theory through the same level of scrutiny they put the "disbelievers" through, they may gain some respect themselves. In the meantime it sounds more like a way to prove ones self value.
Actually the process of scientific research has a high level of scrutiny. The raw data is published and analysed by other scientists. Anyone who is shown to have falsified data loses their career immediately. Anyone who can show a better analysis of past data that proves something new or different is a hero. The idea that tens of thousands of scientists, lots of support staff, and major universities are all involved in a conspiracy is ridiculous. Any time when there are two groups of people who disagree and there's a possibility that one group is paid to take a position you should assume that the smaller group is being paid. Paying people without getting caught is not an easy task.
It is also true that Climate Infidels are just as zealot and should be scoffed at in equal measure. Until there is some mature debate and understanding, both sides just sound like different types of religious fundamentalists.
There is a mature debate between scientists. Climate denialists aren't involved.
I still suspect that both sides are tossers and both exaggerate to suit their personal beliefs.
Scientists risk their careers if they exaggerate. PR people and geologists who comment on climate science risk nothing. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/