Global Warming Discussion (39 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hust
- Start date
Ad hominem, but Stefan Molyneux hasn't always seemed the brightst men on earth to me on other topics 
Like, it's the same guy who said this:
http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/
And honestly believes in anarchism.
Like, it's the same guy who said this:
http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/
And honestly believes in anarchism.
Ad hominem, but Stefan Molyneux hasn't always seemed the brightst men on earth to me on other topics
Like, it's the same guy who said this:
http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/
And honestly believes in anarchism.
Like, it's the same guy who said this:
http://time.com/2949435/what-i-learned-as-a-woman-at-a-mens-rights-conference/
And honestly believes in anarchism.
Anyway, I used to laugh at the idea of climate change denial, but I try to look at both perspectives now and it's not so clear cut.
Of course it's up for debate. The acceptance of climate change and global warming flies in the face of the interests of a majority of the major corporations on this planet. So in the best interests of their profit margins, those companies are going to spend a huge amount of money funding campaigns to deny it and funding extremely biased studies set to determine its falsehood before the study even starts.
Now, is the severity of climate change something that there should be an actual debate about? Certainly. And I think it's likely far less severe than some of the more ridiculous climate change proponents claim... But Corporate politics make that discussion impossible by turning it into a global warming vs no global warming debate exclusively.
Now, is the severity of climate change something that there should be an actual debate about? Certainly. And I think it's likely far less severe than some of the more ridiculous climate change proponents claim... But Corporate politics make that discussion impossible by turning it into a global warming vs no global warming debate exclusively.
If you have any belief at all in scientifical community and peer-review, yes.
Of course it is very much depending on what your definition of "scientist" is, and who counts when you put up statistics of climate change deniers, but if you start doubting every scientist's status when it comes to climate change, there's really no reason not to doubt the scientifical consensus in every single scientific field.
But tbh the peer-review process is in my eyes a very solid and relatively foolproof system.
Of course it is very much depending on what your definition of "scientist" is, and who counts when you put up statistics of climate change deniers, but if you start doubting every scientist's status when it comes to climate change, there's really no reason not to doubt the scientifical consensus in every single scientific field.
But tbh the peer-review process is in my eyes a very solid and relatively foolproof system.
If they would say exactly how it is, people will wager it against the bullshit propaganda, and people will take the middle ground, wich is not good enough.
You actually need these people to make a huge fuzz about it, so that your middle ground is how its ideally viewed.
Like when you are bargaining for an item. The buyer asks 4 times the value, you ask a 1/4th. In the end, 1/1 is reached.
It has been a general thing in wastewater engineering for example, to blow it a bit out of proportion, so when they talk it down the issue is taken as seriously as it is.
You actually need these people to make a huge fuzz about it, so that your middle ground is how its ideally viewed.
Like when you are bargaining for an item. The buyer asks 4 times the value, you ask a 1/4th. In the end, 1/1 is reached.
It has been a general thing in wastewater engineering for example, to blow it a bit out of proportion, so when they talk it down the issue is taken as seriously as it is.
How exactly does the bias come into effect for the climate change proponents? Big business doesn't support them, corporate politics don't support them, their views fly in the face of the immediate interests of most corporations and countries in this world...
This isn't to say they are 100% right... but there is hardly the incentive there. And most peer-reviewed science supports their position to at least some extent. Hence the reason the debate should be about the severity of climate change. Denial of its very existence is an absolutely idiotic position at this point.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree with you here Zach. It's just disappointing that it has to be like this. It means everything becomes are retarded polemic and it's irritating to sift through all the madness to figure out what the reality actually is.
This isn't to say they are 100% right... but there is hardly the incentive there. And most peer-reviewed science supports their position to at least some extent. Hence the reason the debate should be about the severity of climate change. Denial of its very existence is an absolutely idiotic position at this point.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree with you here Zach. It's just disappointing that it has to be like this. It means everything becomes are retarded polemic and it's irritating to sift through all the madness to figure out what the reality actually is.
After the early studies on climate change/etc. One side has been reactionary through the entire process, and attacking scientific studies throughout, and it's not the side advocating that climate change is a real thing. It's almost as bad as creationism vs evolution, and the idiots who actually make this out to be a real argument.
I live in a country with our last government being a climate change denier and therefore slashing environmental spending massively.
I live in a country with our last government being a climate change denier and therefore slashing environmental spending massively.