- Messages
- 4,235
The problem with discussing issues such as anthropogenic climate change is that it's pretty much impossible for the sides to agree.
On one side, you have a preponderance of scientific evidence. It's not absolute, and there is debate about how much things are changing and about the timeframe of the change. However, the vast majority of scientists agree that it's happening - the debate is about the finer details. It's as though you've decided on a type of car, but you're still making up your mind about the alloy wheels and interior colour scheme.
On the other side, you have very few scientists, and lots of other non-scientists (or scientists who are not specialists in any climate-related fields). The people on this side tend to adopt one, or a combination, of the following arguments:
1. There's always been climate change, it's not caused by people, so it's natural and we'll deal with it.
2. There's no such thing as climate change - look at the weather - there's more snow than ever in the north-eastern US so what's all this rubbish about global warming.
3. Everyone pushing the "warmist" or "climate alarmist" argument is some sort of shill. Either they want to keep on sipping from the flow of that sweet, sweet scientific grant money, or they're a naive little girl like Greta Thunberg who has been manipulated by shadowy, behind-the-scenes people who want to push the climate alarmist argument.
People who believe in the third option also often tend to believe that climate change is a plot to get us to give up our rights and become one globalist, socialist state. George Soros, the Rothschilds, or other such wealthy people are often mentioned in these discussions.
The thing that fascinates me about this thinking is that it entirely ignores scientific peer review, except when it involves the few academics who argue against climate change.
It also entirely ignores the fact that large, shadowy interests involving incredibly wealthy people actually have much more to gain from maintaining the status quo (ie continuing to mine coal, continuing to pump oil, continuing to pollute), rather than changing things. In other words, it's actually much more likely that the shills and paid lobbyists are on the "status quo" side, rather than the "anthropogenic climate change is happening" side.
Anthropogenic climate change - lots of scientists and hippies
Status quo/everything is OK/climate change is rubbish - Oil companies, coal companies, large manufacturers
Which one of the above has large sums of money to spend and interests to protect???
On one side, you have a preponderance of scientific evidence. It's not absolute, and there is debate about how much things are changing and about the timeframe of the change. However, the vast majority of scientists agree that it's happening - the debate is about the finer details. It's as though you've decided on a type of car, but you're still making up your mind about the alloy wheels and interior colour scheme.
On the other side, you have very few scientists, and lots of other non-scientists (or scientists who are not specialists in any climate-related fields). The people on this side tend to adopt one, or a combination, of the following arguments:
1. There's always been climate change, it's not caused by people, so it's natural and we'll deal with it.
2. There's no such thing as climate change - look at the weather - there's more snow than ever in the north-eastern US so what's all this rubbish about global warming.
3. Everyone pushing the "warmist" or "climate alarmist" argument is some sort of shill. Either they want to keep on sipping from the flow of that sweet, sweet scientific grant money, or they're a naive little girl like Greta Thunberg who has been manipulated by shadowy, behind-the-scenes people who want to push the climate alarmist argument.
People who believe in the third option also often tend to believe that climate change is a plot to get us to give up our rights and become one globalist, socialist state. George Soros, the Rothschilds, or other such wealthy people are often mentioned in these discussions.
The thing that fascinates me about this thinking is that it entirely ignores scientific peer review, except when it involves the few academics who argue against climate change.
It also entirely ignores the fact that large, shadowy interests involving incredibly wealthy people actually have much more to gain from maintaining the status quo (ie continuing to mine coal, continuing to pump oil, continuing to pollute), rather than changing things. In other words, it's actually much more likely that the shills and paid lobbyists are on the "status quo" side, rather than the "anthropogenic climate change is happening" side.
Anthropogenic climate change - lots of scientists and hippies
Status quo/everything is OK/climate change is rubbish - Oil companies, coal companies, large manufacturers
Which one of the above has large sums of money to spend and interests to protect???
