> In this case what many scientists agree on is that climate change is
> happening but the details still need to be worked out. When scientists
> critique a study it is seized upon by deniers as proof that the
> scientific community is divided. The community is divided... like about 99:1
Well, yes. But there is also the situation where the earth and
atmospheric sciences are dominated by like-minded individuals. Having
a bunch of letters after their names adds much credibility, but then
you ask what the sources of those educations are and we find that very
very few individuals have defined the context of the discussion. Other
opinions or even a different context is not welcome. (I'm not even
going to get into the subject of grants and funding).
An example of this is the search for "Big Foot". The context of
discussion from the scientific community is that Big Foot is a legend,
hoax and something to be associated with the tinfoil hat crowd. If a
respected scientist or researcher decides to even touch the subject of
Big Foot it is an immediate and total career killer. Is the subject of
climate science like that too, but only in reverse? If any respected
scientist or researcher decides to question the current scientific
thought is he/she a pariah? In this kind of toxic environment you will
have a 99:1 bias.
I'm not saying that the 1% guys are right, but what I am saying is
that we have a situation where we're working from a conclusion
backwards. The conclusion is that human behavior is destroying the
planet, therefore scientific research must be done to prove that
point, making sure that anything that doesn't support this conclusion
is avoided. If you can't avoid it, then destroy the messenger.
"Climate Change" is just the latest example of where this world-view
is residing. Each decade or two the subject changes, but the
world-view remains.
Behavior modification of the human race is actually very easy. Most
people don't like pain and they don't like to starve. We own a Prius
and a solar house not just because they are neat to have and we're
holier than the F150 crowd, but because they save us money. A LOT of
money. The average speed of semi trucks on Interstate 80 here in Iowa
used to be insanely high. Now, they all creep along usually below the
speed limit. Why? Because of excessive fuel costs. We can pass all
sorts of fleet efficiency laws, but the most effective emissions
control is high fuel costs. When companies like GM can't take the hint
that people are buying Toyotas and Hondas because of the 10 MPG
advantage, they deserve to go out of business. While GM is losing tens
of thousands of dollars on the reVOLT, Toyota is unable to keep up
with demand on its hybrids. My next SUV will most certainly be a
Hybrid Toyota. Sorry, Chrysler, but this Jeep fan has probably bought
his last (except for an ancient Cherokee Sport for the teenage
daughters to destroy), because I will no longer tolerate having
vehicles that get only 20 MPG.
AG (unreasonable at any speed) Schnozz
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|