Quote:
|
Originally Posted by z12358
MNBoxster:
Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think.
More often than not science deals with probabilities. Predictions produced by a hypothesis don't have to be spot on (in both level and timing) to raise credible concerns. Consider also the risk management aspect. Even if there was only a 20% chance that we're causing global warming and that we're close to (or beyond) the tipping point with signifficant and unforseeable consequences if true, can we -- the mankind -- afford to disregard that risk? If a doctor tells you: "I can't yet prove it for sure, but there is 20% chance that you have lung cancer right now." -- would you continue smoking until the proof showed up? Would you refuse to invest in further tests and research, so that you can have the $$ to buy a new suspension for your car, as you planned?
But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?...
Arguments like this are very presumptious and USA-centric. Presumptious because they perpetuate the myth of a liberal media and liberal science, and USA-centric because they assume the whole world (scientists, media, and politics) is engulfed in it. Are you claiming that the GWB administration is actually arm-twisting USA scientists into raising the global warming issue? Sorry to say it, but it borders on the delusional. Why would a country like Norway that is extracting so much of its revenue from oil production and sales be interested in perpetuating a "myth" or signing a treaty (Kyoto) that would negatively affect its revenue stream? Could they be onto something that's far more important than the $$ they are about to forgo?
Z.
|
Hi,
I totally agree with you that Science works with probabilities, but in an effort to prove them. So far, this has not been done with respect to Global Warming and so for the Society (Public, Industry, Media, Govt's., etc. ) to make such changes, spend the billions etc. on unproven theory just makes no sense, even if the theory is later proved to be correct.
Personally, I believe that we will find that we have altered the Planet, perhaps even with longstanding or permanent consequences. All I'm saying, is that it is only a belief, it has not, and may not, ever be proven to be the case.
Make no mistake about it, current Energy Saving and Hybrid technologies have nothing to do with warding off Global Warming nor are they some sort of Corporate Benevolence, enlightenment or responsibility, they're all about making money. Truth is, every Hybrid Car currently produced has a more negative impact on the overall environment (over it's total lifetime) than the worst offending Internal Combustion Car. So they ain't doing it to save Mother Earth, but rather to make $$ and gain Market Share.
So far as your USA-Centric points, I'm not following this logic at all. I don't see where discussing the validity of the Science involved has any cultural or geographical perspective, at least not one which is germane to the topic...
Happy Motoring!... Jim'99