Burn the Heretics?

[Tormentil]

One can understand a bit of sceptism when one thinks that since 1895, we have alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

[Mercadante]

No, a few previous media stories are not a good reason to be sceptical of a great mass of scientific research.

[Tormentil]

The media printed what, as they do now, scientists of the times predicted.

[coasty]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

One can understand a bit of sceptism when one thinks that since 1895, we have alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

I am somewhat in agreement . Although I accept absolutely that mankind needs to clean up his act. The greenhouse gas global warming issue has just become to political for my liking.

Lets be honest with ourselves here scientists are not always right. I can remember a few examples of that, Thalidomide was a safe drug apparantly or so the scientists said . I had a good friend who could give testimony it wasnt. Also I to remember all the ice age hype in the 1970s because the temp trends were heading that way and the scientists said it was gong to happen.

There are lots of questions that need answering for me, Many posed in the Times article. Trouble is people become so dogmatic there is either black or white. Never shades of grey. Perhaps because shades of grey cant be slotted in to some scientists nice computer model.

I admire the vigour that many on here use in defending their stance but my experience of life tells me that there is never a simple answer and I do worry that some of the measures that we rush into may produce more damage than the effect we think we are combatting . ie countries producing crops for bio diesel and forgetting to feed its people.

Lets hope we get it right.

[Mercadante]

Tormentil wrote: The media printed what, as they do now, scientists of the times predicted.

But not what a great mass of scientific research predicted. See the difference?
An odd scientist or two, here or there, has predicted just about any future you can imagine. It is not a good reason to be sceptical of what the evidence we have tells us.

[coasty]

Originally Posted by Mercadante

But not what a great mass of scientific research predicted. See the difference?
An odd scientist or two, here or there, has predicted just about any future you can imagine. It is not a good reason to be sceptical of what the evidence we have tells us.

However the scientists have generally been funded to find evidence to back the theory not to disprove it...

[Jez]

Originally Posted by eeyore

i don't think burning the heretics is the way to go - ignoring them and concentrating on educating the general public, so that they appreciate the facts and ignore the heretics too , is probably a better bet

How about dunking a heretic and see if it lives or dies. If it lives it's a heretic and if it drowns, ignore it? Ignorance is... and purging is pure? I agree also with RoseStones. So no ignorance, no burning

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by coasty

However the scientists have generally been funded to find evidence to back the theory not to disprove it...

that simply isn't true, certainly not at credible US and European universities. I don't know whether you have any experience of this, but funding by British research councils (v. similar across Europe) simply doesn't work this way.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said of a large proportion of the 'anti' climate change agenda, which is directly funded in the US by the oil and gas industry.

Matt

[Tormentil]

The faggots are being gathered ready to burn the heretics, it seems.

[eeyore]

I doubt it - if matt is as tired of the global warming is it real yes it is, no it isnt yes it is debate as I am (four threads, five, more ) , I doubt if we can even be bothered to light the match.

I'm quite happy for you to belive anything you wish and to agree to disagree.

but as someone said higher up - oil is a finite resource so look at it this way , if matt and I are right , burning less oil will have averted a global catastrophe , if we are wrong it will still have preserved a precious petrochemical resource - looks like a win win to me.