Quote:Your very statement implies that doing nothing is not acceptable, so that's hardly a reasonable starting point. Until we know a lot more about this, it's best not to overreact. For all we know the CO2 might be staving off another era of glaciation. Heaven knows based on past events that we're overdue for one. And cold is a lot worse than hot for the biosphere.


 

I'm all for research into better technologies, even government-funded research, although I think the money would be better spent in the form of prizes. For example, the government could offer $10B to the first US person or company that builds a battery that has the, size, safety, and energy density of gasoline, with an average lifespan of 10 years (and some other requirements). It only costs the taxpayer if successful. A useful battery would make solar and wind viable.


 

I don't think there were many if any who have claimed no change at all. The climate is always changing. The question has always been how much. I agree the Warmist point of view is very politically biased. If one compares the science part of the IPCC reports with the 'summary for policymakers' section at the beginning, it's clear that the summary is way more alarmist than the science. No surprise that the summary was written by politicians, not scientists. Politicians seek power. That's why they became politicians in the first place.


 

I have seen first hand how important it is for scientists to get funding. It used to be "publish or perish." Now it's "get grants or get out." Do you really believe it's vilification to claim that scientists act like human beings and look out for themselves? On the other side, are you willing to look into where the 'big oil' money actually goes, or are you just going to accept the claims of the left?

When I say it's vilification, I am referring to the claims of conspiracy and agenda pushing. Now sure, it's not unreasonable to think there could be some corruption. What I take issue with is claiming that all of these scientists around the world are conspiring together to basically make something up for political and financial gain. There is funding money to be made whether they agree or disagree with the current proposed theories, although the way current GOP congress is going the funding for climate change research will be all but gone so it makes little sense for science to keep pushing in that direction (but I digress). One proposes something, it is reviewed and retested and on and on with more data aiding to coming to conclusions therefore to assume one is in for financial gain while the other is not does not sit well with me. I do not have a specific side in this. Again I am no scientists and do not claim to even understand most of the data nor how to interpret it. It would be very easy for me to say here I found this chart from a liberal view point so clearly this side is correct. All I want to see is the scientists working and trying to find an answer and solutions.

 

When I say something should be done I mean in a broad sense. Research in alternative energy, ecological preservation, protection of water supplies and limiting of pollution in general. The left pushes these things as solutions to climate change and the right pushes against them because they don't agree with climate change theory. My argument is both sides are stupid and short sighted in this particular argument. We should be doing those things anyways regardless of climate change. Clean water and air is good. Alternative energy is good. etc... etc.... 

---