I am new here (bought my Prius less than a week ago) but just by browsing this forum for a few minutes, I've already noticed a type of argument/line of reasoning that I believe should be discussed. This is something that I see not just here but throughout the larger climate change debate, and it worries me. Just for an example I'm going to pick on "nyprius" who posted the following remarks yesterday in the thread titled "Next decade may see no warming". First... The implicit assumption here is that there is more money to be had by lying about climate change than by truthfully confirming it. Even more dangerously, there is an assumption that people working to confirm the global warming hypothesis possess only courage, honesty, and good will and gain nothing financially. Rather than tackling this myself, I'd like to point you to something written by John Tierney whose blog runs on nytimes.com Global Warming Payola? In summary, there is a very strong argument to be made that because of the environmental/global-warming movement, far more money now exists for scientists and business people who embrace the idea of global warming. This is not to say that companies like Exxon-Mobil won't give money to researchers who want to challenge the conventional wisdom; it just means that you certainly won't be going broke if you jump on the bandwagon and, in particular, start selling products that try to address it. Second... This is a compelling argument. It's rational to ask "how can so many people be wrong?" I agree that it can't be a giant conspiracy. But we need to be wary of following this reasoning. As Tierney pointed out, even if the global warming theory is wrong, these scientists do not risk their careers by subscribing to it and trying to find more evidence that fits the hypothesis. The only scientists at risk here are the ones going against it - EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT. As "nyprius" says himself in the same post... In sociology and economics these are called social externalities and they can drive someone to make decisions that are less than rational. If you want to read a good book (unrelated to the environment), Six Degrees (by Duncan Watts) discusses it in a chapter called "Decisions, Delusions, and the Madness of Crowds". For a person in academia nothing, not even financial gain or loss, is more important than reputation and credibility. But what we're all saying is that if you raise your hand and express doubt about global warming, your reputation and credibility are immediately shot. If you turn out to be correct then you will be restored, sure, but not in this lifetime. I don't want to debate the validity of global warming in this thread. I'm holding my personal opinions for now. I just want to ask whether or not we can even have the discussion anymore or if it is already too late. Tim
What I find so funny on the whole debate/no debate deal, is that it has to be one way or the other, no middle ground. In all actuality, Global Warming/Cooling or whatever IS happening, its actually Global Warming in my view, but in either case its actually happening, there is enough proof. The question is, do we spend all the time debating as to who caused it, or do we at least improve ourselves and our country to potentially be partially prepared for any event. There are lots of things we could do, that not only would help our country in climate change brought about by cooler ocean waters and more CO2 in the air, that would benefit the country overall. Better roads, more roads and bridges, making the ability to get to emergency areas faster, maybe even a national water reserve, in case of severe droughts, national fire department, better border protection, to prevent people coming into the US in major droves from foreign countries devestated by climate change, maybe even major seawall construction projects. All good ideas, and good to have for major climate changes that will occure with ocean changes. Thats what we need to be discussing, not who or what is causing it, because WHO doesn't prepare, and WHAT is not going to be fixed.
Even if global warming was just a hoax (which it isn't)....what are the side effects of taking care of it? A cleaner environment?? Yea, I'll take that! And don't tell me about the $$ businesses would lose by becoming 'greener'. They've (literally) gotten away with murder for far too long, and it's about time they shaped up.
Again, I'm not here to argue that climate change isn't occurring. And I'm not arguing that we (on an individual consumer level) shouldn't be interested in conserving energy and finding alternative sources. I did buy a Prius, after all, and in a few years I'll buy whatever the next great technology is. If nothing else, it's a matter of economic sustainability. What I'm doing is raising a question about the damage that I see being done to real intellectual discourse. When someone engages in independent thought that goes against the mainstream, they should not be immediately accused of lacking integrity (being paid off to tell lies). And we shouldn't discount their ideas just because they are in the minority. That is the equivalent of saying "you're wrong because I (or someone else) said you are wrong", and it is simply intellectual sloth. My concern is that in the climate change debate, one side has already gone too far in this direction. Tim
Wow - what a breath of fresh air here. BTW, welcome to PriusChat. I hope you will join in this sort of discussion frequently since you have, in my opinion, a quite rational perspective on things. You make some very valid points in the original post. Also, I want to address what EJFB wrote - that there is "no middle ground". I have to disagree strongly. I get frequently disparaged on this board for expressing my view which I believe does represent a "middle ground". That is, I believe the following: All else being equal, increased CO2 will drive some amount of increased future temperatures. The amount of increased temperature resulting from likely increases in CO2 is at present time not fully understood, but it is probable it will be non-catastrophic. This is supported by recent temperature data as well as recent research on climate sensitivity and climate models from Douglass et al, Stephen Schwartz, and others. That said, I believe that many efforts to reduce CO2 are quite reasonable, particularly those that have other benefits that exceed the costs (for instance, reduced use of fossil fuels through conservation and improved efficiencies).
Perhaps it is the Native American philosophy that works best. Take care of the land, sky & water. Waste not. In the olden days if you killed a deer, you used the meat to eat, the hide for clothing or shelter, bone for tools. Nothing was wasted. Is global warming a myth? Perhaps. (I think not) but let's say for fun it is. We humans still need to do what we can to get the most out of all we use and to keep things a clean as we can. Adam was created to care for the garden. That same charge applies today.
I always have to chuckle when people scream about Exxon spending $19 million to counter global warming hysteria. I wonder how much the top 3 or 4 environmental groups, who have annual budgets in the BILLIONS devote to global warming alarmism. Certainly it's gotta make $19 million look paltry. On the same point, here is a former global warming believer turned skeptic who has an interesting perspective. He was a former carbon accountant and modeler for the Australian government who now admits "I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train."
The 2007 4th IPCC report finds climate change to be "unequivocable." Science is not a belief system, but a nonbelief system that must be based on falsifiable , testable, reproducible evidence. Efficiency is always more cost effective than "go get more." Double your efficiency and you double your profit, or cut your cost by one-half. We are at Peak Oil and the efficient will succeed, the inefficient will struggle and fail. Don't think so? View: "A Crude Awakening - the oil crash."
I agree and I touched on this in my second post. I bought a Prius because it makes sense from an economic standpoint. I know we are at (or near) Peak Oil and the prices can only keep going up. I'll buy into the next generation of technology too for the same reason. As an individual I'll continue moving towards becoming more energy independent and sustainable, and as a consumer I'll demand the products that help me to accomplish that. But all of this is a matter of economics. I have said nothing about needing or wanting to "save the planet". People on the Left complain about the fear tactics used by the military-industrial complex (terrorists are everywhere and they would have killed you AND your family by now if it weren't for us) in order to keep defense spending (and the taxes that support it) high. My worry is that the climate change "alarmists" (using TimBikes' word) are doing the same thing. And if they have it their way, we'll all end up having to pay these huge carbon taxes and such to the federal government, riding around with a carbon meter on our vehicles and paying for every gram that we output - potentially for no reason other than to feed a new political-environmental complex. Tim
Please keep in mind that high atmospheric CO2 levels do more than just increase the greenhouse effect... Plant growth and distribution, ocean and lake acidification, soil pH, etc.
