Cable Forum - View Single Post - Global warming

**Damien** · 09-02-2010, 11:10

I think it's part of a tendency for anti-Establishment and the sceptics have successfully painted Global Warming as the tool of the government, organisations and the rather fanciful 'big science' to make money. They ignore the mass amount of money energy companies stand to lose from alternative fuels. It would appear the economic gain is all one-sided and there is never a better way to undermine a opposing viewpoint than assigning it an economic motive.

Many groups have been harping on about Global Warming for years including all those pesky, no-nothing, 'scientists' who have been researching this for more than 30 years when there was no real funding to do so. Counter to the argument some have made that the scientists only follow the money.

Of course Science in most cases, UEA aside, is a process which is self-evaluating. It is not a dogmatic insistence on any one theory or ideology and there is no annual meeting where all scientists gather and decide what to believe this year. The sceptics are encouraged to do science, they can do research and publish papers and if the evidence against man-made global warming is good or the evidence for is proved to be unreliable or wrong then the scientific consensus will switch.

The problem is the sceptics don't come up with that,they can up with disingenuous arguments. They cite natural warming periods without the surrounding context (time those periods last, the consequences to life on the planet during those moments, and the differing variables this time around i.e deforestation and pollution). They will confuse climate and weather (zomg! it's cold! so much for Global Warming) or they will just attack the motive of the people doing the research.

Until they have more reasoned arguments I cannot take them seriously.

09-02-2010, 11:10	#19
Damien Cable Forum Team Join Date: Mar 2004 Age: 25 Posts: 16,857	Re: Global warming - beyond debate? I think it's part of a tendency for anti-Establishment and the sceptics have successfully painted Global Warming as the tool of the government, organisations and the rather fanciful 'big science' to make money. They ignore the mass amount of money energy companies stand to lose from alternative fuels. It would appear the economic gain is all one-sided and there is never a better way to undermine a opposing viewpoint than assigning it an economic motive. Many groups have been harping on about Global Warming for years including all those pesky, no-nothing, 'scientists' who have been researching this for more than 30 years when there was no real funding to do so. Counter to the argument some have made that the scientists only follow the money. Of course Science in most cases, UEA aside, is a process which is self-evaluating. It is not a dogmatic insistence on any one theory or ideology and there is no annual meeting where all scientists gather and decide what to believe this year. The sceptics are encouraged to do science, they can do research and publish papers and if the evidence against man-made global warming is good or the evidence for is proved to be unreliable or wrong then the scientific consensus will switch. The problem is the sceptics don't come up with that,they can up with disingenuous arguments. They cite natural warming periods without the surrounding context (time those periods last, the consequences to life on the planet during those moments, and the differing variables this time around i.e deforestation and pollution). They will confuse climate and weather (zomg! it's cold! so much for Global Warming) or they will just attack the motive of the people doing the research. Until they have more reasoned arguments I cannot take them seriously.