View Single Post
  #81 (permalink)  
Old 01-07-2011, 08:07 PM
Coyote's Avatar
Coyote Coyote is offline
Vole deMorte (the snack)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 14,492
Thanks: 11,549
Thanked 8,279 Times in 5,306 Posts
Default Re: Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog View Post
Try both sides this time, I think you're going to be surprised to discover there's always a supported argument to either side of the minutia of this argument.
What makes you think I don't try both sides? Because I'm skeptical of the skeptics?

I try to read on both, but I tend to gravitate to the opinions that I feel have the strongest scientific support and, despite a few anomolies, I believe in the scientific process and the peer review model as a good way to judge theories.

I think there's a third side. That would be my side. I think all these rock solid claims of absolute fact from either side are bogus. When you watch the 2 sides argue it starts to look like we really don't know that much about climate yet. These climate arguments become more like literary arguments of your favorite book.
I think, perhaps like you, there are many sides. I see this argument though as much like the argument on evolution. The majority of scientific opinion agrees in the theory of evolution - of life evolving from simple to complex. The questions arise in the matter of "how".

I think it's foolish to assume humanity is incapable of influencing climate. The evidence exists in matters as wide spread as light pollution visable from outer space to earthquakes caused by filling of Hoover Dam. We can do it, we have done it and we will, if we survive, continue to do it.

When you say: " starts to look like we really don't know that much about climate yet..." I agree. It's a developing science and it's a science comprised of many disciplines. That is probably why many models get proposed and then rejected - we just don't know. However that is the PROCESS of scientific inquiry - not mark of failure. I tend to agree with the majority opinion here - that humanity has played and continues to play a role in climate change. I think the evidence is pretty clear. What is not so clear is to what degree and, whether we can alter the changes by altering our industries. There are huge economic and political ramifications to this science, world wide. Addressing it in any meaninful way requires an incredible amount of international dialogue that is fraught with internal political and economic problems. It is that which is driving much of the climate change skeptic posturing. There are no easy answers and, it's much more convenient to bury your head in the sand then begin the long and painful process of change.

Now, do I believe that catastrophe is imminent? No, I don't. But I think we are better off addressing it now then in an emergency where the penalties could higher and more painful.

However, because we really don't know as much as we think we do, policy proposals become twitchy.
Surprise surprise...I do agree with you on this one

I don't at this point, know who's "policies" to follow....but I think it behooves all nations, partricularly those at low sea level, to take it seriously and prepare while preparation is still economically feasible. It will be more painful later on, if the theories prove true.

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.
Reply With Quote