Global Warming advocates, step inside...

[ck_taft325is]

The point isn't that scientists are wrong for being curious and studying climate change, global warming, whatever have you. It's that they expect the rest of the world to wait on their every word and new discovery and change their lives accordingly. Sorry, but that's no the real world and very few people beyond the incredibly wealthy can just on a whim change their entire structure of living much less their way of life.

It's this totalitarian perspective some of the GW advocates have taken that throws the monkey wrench in genuine scientific study and analysis. These (*gasp*) "religiously fanatical" GW advocates are just plain scary.

[Bill 84 318i]

The point isn't that scientists are wrong for being curious and studying climate change, global warming, whatever have you. It's that they expect the rest of the world to wait on their every word and new discovery and change their lives accordingly. Sorry, but that's no the real world and very few people beyond the incredibly wealthy can just on a whim change their entire structure of living much less their way of life.

It's this totalitarian perspective some of the GW advocates have taken that throws the monkey wrench in genuine scientific study and analysis. These (*gasp*) "religiously fanatical" GW advocates are just plain scary.

I think this statement is inaccurate. I don't think scientists have such high expectations or are compelled to control the actions of anyone. They investigate and report things. Their findings are published in journals that are way over the heads of laymen, and even scientists in other fields. I'm curious where you got this impression.

The people that scream the loudest are the media and bloggers and people like that. Personally, I wish scientists were more vocal when it comes to policy matters and science education of the general public - the world could use more Carl Sagans and fewer Koch brothers.

It's one thing to be skeptical, and it's another to believe it's all a conspiracy.

[CorvallisBMW]

the world could use more Carl Sagans and fewer Koch brothers.

It's one thing to be skeptical, and it's another to believe it's all a conspiracy.

QFT on both counts.

[ck_taft325is]

I think this statement is inaccurate. I don't think scientists have such high expectations or are compelled to control the actions of anyone. They investigate and report things. Their findings are published in journals that are way over the heads of laymen, and even scientists in other fields. I'm curious where you got this impression.

The people that scream the loudest are the media and bloggers and people like that. Personally, I wish scientists were more vocal when it comes to policy matters and science education of the general public - the world could use more Carl Sagans and fewer Koch brothers.

It's one thing to be skeptical, and it's another to believe it's all a conspiracy.

Who said it's a conspiracy? You have far too much faith in scientist if you truly believe this. Because they are scientists they are not exempt from being human which means they do feel/know/think/can prove that their agenda is paramount to other's. Especially when you're talking about "the fate" of the world.

I do believe vocal scientists would be beneficial. But then again, most prefer to be in their field of study than on the TV. And those that wish to be on the TV are hardly scientists, yeah?

[CorvallisBMW]

Who said it's a conspiracy?

joshh
Vedubin1
mrsleeve
gwb72tii

[Bill 84 318i]

Who said it's a conspiracy? You have far too much faith in scientist if you truly believe this. Because they are scientists they are not exempt from being human which means they do feel/know/think/can prove that their agenda is paramount to other's. Especially when you're talking about "the fate" of the world.

I certainly agree that scientists are human and would never say that 100% of them are without bias, ulterior motives, and immune to financial temptation. But I will say that I think scientists are a self-selective group who under go a kind of training that promotes integrity and objectivity in a way that other professions do not. Too much faith? Maybe. But I think there's truth to that statement. And bleh, another edit: not to mention that by very definition, science is self-correcting.

On the conspiracy thing, you kind of implied it by saying that scientists "expect the rest of the world to wait on their every word and new discovery and change their lives accordingly" - maybe I misread that. But if not you, there are certainly others in this thread suggesting such things - like sleeve's "Alternative means to the ultimate goal of wealth redistribution form the rich countries to all the poor ones. And also from those individuals that have to those that dont" (I've come to expect such things from him regardless of the original topic, but even this caught me by surprise).

I do believe vocal scientists would be beneficial. But then again, most prefer to be in their field of study than on the TV. And those that wish to be on the TV are hardly scientists, yeah?

I totally agree. Maintaining true to your passion and being a public figure is a difficult balance to maintain. Feynman was another good example, and I'd say that Neil deGrasse Tyson currently holds the torch.

Edit: not "totally agree" - I want to add to it. In general, I don't think the public cares enough for there to be money that goes to such things - they find the flaming piles that comes out of people's mouth like Sarah Palin's far more interesting. Just look at the programming on TLC, History, and Discovery over the past few years - they're all going to shit, because that's what people would rather watch. /tangent

[87e30]

But if not you, there are certainly others in this thread suggesting such things - like sleeve's "Alternative means to the ultimate goal of wealth redistribution form the rich countries to all the poor ones. And also from those individuals that have to those that dont" (I've come to expect such things from him regardless of the original topic, but even this caught me by surprise).

I don't think he was talking about all scientists but moreover the political movement of global warming.

There is the potential for wealth/power re-distribution in global warming propaganda. That potential is what alarms many of us, and is what makes us skeptical of the science behind it. It's a tremendous amount of power.

[joshh]

I don't think he was talking about all scientists but moreover the political movement of global warming.

There is the potential for wealth/power re-distribution in global warming propaganda. That potential is what alarms many of us, and is what makes us skeptical of the science behind it. It's a tremendous amount of power.

This man is on again. Although just part of it.

I don't think it is a conspiracy from every Scientist. Or the whole idea of GW. Just a huge group of retards banking that it is true without proof...like Christianity (not meant as a direct insult to the Christians here). That's part of the reason it's joked about as a religion.

[z31maniac]

Is it possible to decouple the "pollution" (not just "CO2") from the man made GW debate?

I'm all for the taking care of the first, unless it means cripping economies of the "developed world."


So what's the realistic middle ground?

[joshh]

I think this statement is inaccurate. I don't think scientists have such high expectations or are compelled to control the actions of anyone. They investigate and report things. Their findings are published in journals that are way over the heads of laymen, and even scientists in other fields. I'm curious where you got this impression.

The people that scream the loudest are the media and bloggers and people like that. Personally, I wish scientists were more vocal when it comes to policy matters and science education of the general public - the world could use more Carl Sagans and fewer Koch brothers.

It's one thing to be skeptical, and it's another to believe it's all a conspiracy.

That's just not what's happened. I have yet to see a Scientist come out and try to calm people down about GW. People bought it and the Scientists behind it are pushing it not telling people to chill out. Wrong angle...

[kronus]

Joshh, why the hell do you capitalize "scientist"?

[e30e]

Global warming/climate control, sure keeps a lot of scientists, professors, and colleges/companies funded; I can see the conspiracy aspect of it.

However, all east of the Mississippi used to be all trees and its not now; hard to say that hasn't impact that climate.

[joshh]

Is it possible to decouple the "pollution" (not just "CO2") from the man made GW debate?

I'm all for the taking care of the first, unless it means cripping economies of the "developed world."


So what's the realistic middle ground?

Who's definition of pollution? The EPA's....lol.

I'm glad companies have been held up to scrutiny and made to pay (many times) for their destruction of people and the environment. But that's the key, where to stop and still allow business to actually do business. But still have a clean environment

[joshh]

Joshh, why the hell do you capitalize "scientist"?

I use too much toilet paper as well. Shit happens....

[Massive Lee]

Joshh, why the hell do you capitalize "scientist"?

What? Scientists are not Scientologists?