Bill Nye, Marsha Blackburn Debate Climate Change

53

Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") squared off with U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) Sunday in what was one of the most surreal and unlikely Sunday-morning television face-offs in recent memory.

The two — a children's entertainer and a sitting member of Congress — were debating the issue of climate change. And, not surprisingly, they didn't agree on much of anything.

Nye, who is not a climate scientist, has become something of a spokesperson for the scientific community on hot-button issues lately. Earlier this month, Nye debated a creationist about evolution.

On Sunday, he tried to convince Blackburn that scientists agree that man-made factors are contributing to the acceleration of climate change. Blackburn did not agree, saying there was "not consensus" in the scientific community about the causes of climate change. She later added that it was "unproven."

Blackburn also made the argument that it wouldn't matter what the U.S. did to address climate change, because it wouldn't make a dent globally. She said that the U.S. shouldn't make laws based on "unproven hypotheses."

Written By: Brett Logiurato
continue to source article at businessinsider.com

53 COMMENTS

  1. @OP – Blackburn did not agree, saying there was “not consensus” in the scientific community about the causes of climate change. She later added that it was “unproven.”

    Blackburn also made the argument that it wouldn’t matter what the U.S. did to address climate change, because it wouldn’t make a dent globally. She said that the U.S. shouldn’t make laws based on “unproven hypotheses.”

    Just the usual blithering, lying political ignoramus sitting in denial.

    There are a few details here for those who like to look at political posts and sponsorship issues:-

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/marsha-blackburn/400032

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003105

    Committee Assignments: – Budget, Energy and Commerce, Vice Chairman

    The facts about the scientific consensus are clear:-

    That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. – https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=1

    There is information about the liars and doubt-mongers here:-

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Attacks-scientific-consensus-mirror-tobacco-industry.html

    • In reply to #1 by Alan4discussion:

      @OP – Blackburn did not agree, saying there was “not consensus” in the scientific community about the causes of climate change. She later added that it was “unproven.”

      Blackburn also made the argument that it wouldn’t matter what the U.S. did to address climate change, because it wouldn’t make a d…

      I like the Science version. Thanks for the choice…..

  2. And more “news”

    Sharon Bachman, Republican Politician from the US, stated Obamas health care program will be eliminated by God.

    For more crazy crap stay tuned to the USA Republican Party, now in its last year of its appearance.

      • In reply to #17 by PERSON:

        In reply to #2 by alf1200:

        stay tuned to the USA Republican Party, now in its last year of its appearance.

        That’d be nice. It’s a bit optimistic, though. Last decade is more plausible.

        Let me have my fantasy, please?

  3. I just did a cost/benefit analysis on Marsha Blackburn’s usefulness to congress and came to the conclusion that she is fucking USELESS! I have no idea why people would want to deny climate change and negatively affect the future.

  4. I saw this and was trying to find my jaw on the floor after listening to the congress person. I’m sorry to sink this low, but that woman is a smug, ignorant-and-proud-of-it bitch. David Gregory seemed to be having a hard time being neutral. I imagined her getting into her chauffer-driven Hummer after the interview. Grrrrrrrrr…

    Steve

  5. Umm, Bill Nye…a children’s entertainer? I’m not so sure. Buffalo Bob was a children’s entertainer. Shari Lewis was a children’s entertainer.
    Nye strikes me more as an educator.

    The whole exchange reminded me of Richard Dawkins’ interview with Wendy Wright, where Wright had nothing but talking points for replies and all the while maintaining that frontal smugness and frozen look of willful ignorance.

  6. She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC. In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not corrupt puppets of big oil. They are scientists being true to the harsh standards of real evidence. Several of them are actually the heads of departments at major universities. Marginalizing them as ‘deniers’ is something I thought beneath the standards of this site.

    • In reply to #10 by Caz-PhD:

      She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC. In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not corrupt puppets of big oil. They are scientists being true to the harsh standards of real evidence. Several of t…

      Uh, No never. This is no longer a debate. It is a fact, recordable and testable.

    • In reply to #10 by Caz-PhD:

      She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC. In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not corrupt puppets of big oil. They are scientists being true to the harsh standards of real evidence. Several of t…

      For every one of your “skeptics” there are 99 scientists who do not agree with you or them.

    • In reply to #10 by Caz-PhD:

      She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC.

      You really should have read the links I put @1 instead of making a fool of yourself!

      In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not corrupt puppets of big oil.

      This is comical, after years of climate disinformation from Faux News and others, and the regular rantings of heavily sponsored PR. doubt-mongers.

      They are scientists being true to the harsh standards of real evidence.

      At least 95%+ of them are. Most of the dissenters are specialists in the wrong subject areas of stooges of the carbon industries following the “Tobacco Strategy”, or employed in that sector!

      Several of them are actually the heads of departments at major universities. Marginalizing them as ‘deniers’ is something I thought beneath the standards of this site.

      Science does not care about positions, claims of false authority, or posturing. It follows the peer-reviewed evidence which conclusively shows the present warming is man-made and damaging. It is standard review practice to debunk flawed research or claims from people in universities regardless of status. Those ARE the standards of science – well known to reputable scientists and scientific bodies!

      @12 – Maybe you should just ask us rather than speculating on our evilness. I can tell you that I am a skeptic who believes the forecasts of doom to be merely pseudoscientific mass delusions that feed on our guilt.

      Why would anyone ask you for emotive denial rhetoric, demonstrating the clueless use of low-grade media sources as information, when there is abundant evidence from thousands of items of scientific research?

      I think we would be far better off taking our guilt and our billions of guilt dollars, and throwing it at those two, very real, very dire problems.

      There’s a nice little side-tracking false dichotomy, which demonstrates an utter lack of comprehension of the big-picture. If we don’t tackle the CO2 acid seas problem there won’t be fish-stocks to manage.

      It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of the positive economic benefits of replacing obsolete polluting industries with modern alternatives.

      • In reply to #32 by Alan4discussion:

        Oh Alan, you are showing your ignorance for all the world to see. You think religiously. Why are you on this site? You love the priests, I see. I thought this site would have a higher standard of thinker, but lazy thinkers like you are everywhere it seems. You seem to be oblivious that the forecasts of doom announced by Mann, Hansen and Gore never arrived. Isn’t that power of prediction the ultimate scientific test? And the CAGW side has failed, failed, failed. The UK Met office a few years ago forecast consistent drought for the UK. The Arctic was forecast to be ice-free in 2013. The temperatures have no even increeased in over 15 years. And the oceans aren’t even acidic. (They are pH 8!) Now that’s what I call the end of debate.

      • In reply to #32 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #10 by Caz-PhD:

        She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC.

        You really should have read the links I put @1 instead of making a fool of yourself!

        In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not c…

        Don’t waste your time on this troll. He joined today apparently only to troll this very article. This character has been here before. He always spouts out a load of rubbish and then vanishes only to return a few months later with the same rubbish…

    • In reply to #10 by Caz-PhD:

      She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC. In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not corrupt puppets of big oil. They are scientists being true to the harsh standards of real evidence. Several of t…

      Name one

      • In reply to #50 by NearlyNakedApe:

        In reply to #10 by Caz-PhD:

        She is right. There is no consensus. It was invented by the political forces of the IPCC. In fact, there are many perfectly qualified skeptics, who do not get air time. They are not corrupt puppets of big oil. They are scientists being true to the harsh standards of…

        So, let me see if i understad Caz-Phd logic. A few skeptic climatologists are the honest guys (not paid by the Kock brothers). And the hundreds of others in the IPCC are lying rich mother F* paid by Al Gore.

        • In reply to #51 by groo:

          In reply to #50 by NearlyNakedApe:

          So, let me see if i understad Caz-Phd logic. A few skeptic climatologists are the honest guys (not paid by the Kock brothers).

          Very few, – if you deduct the ones retired and years out of date, and even fewer, if you deduct the geologists and engineers employed by mining companies, oil-drilling companies, and refining companies, who publish some largely unrelated credible stuff in geology and engineering journals.

          • In reply to #54 by Alan4discussion:

            In reply to #51 by groo:

            In reply to #50 by NearlyNakedApe:

            So, let me see if i understad Caz-Phd logic. A few skeptic climatologists are the honest guys (not paid by the Kock brothers).

            Very few, – if you deduct the ones retired and years out of date, and even fewer, if you deduct the geologist…

            Actually, the oil companies employ very competent geologists and other experts in the associated sciences related to global warming. To a man / woman, not one of them that I have met is under any delusions about climate change and what is causing it.

            What is different is the public presentation, which has nothing to do with the serious people that they employ, but rather with the spin doctors, the Lord Lawsons, and their publicists who put the oil companies preferred marketing based strategies into the public perception.

            Very few people actually do know more about climate change, and what is behind it than the oil companies. It is simply not in their interests to appear publicly to accept it. For an oil company, no matter what it may say out loud, to stick it’s head in the sand over global warming would be financial suicide. Behind closed doors, their discussions paint a very different picture.

            When you look at their long term investment programs in the Arctic and other places, and the money they are spending on internal global warming research, you realise very quickly that they are very aware of what is going on.

          • In reply to #56 by Sheepdog:

            In reply to #54 by Alan4discussion:

            Actually, the oil companies employ very competent geologists and other experts in the associated sciences related to global warming. To a man / woman, not one of them that I have met is under any delusions about climate change and what is causing it.

            It is well known that the companies and those following the tobacco strategy, simply ignore their own honest experts, and use charlatans as spokespersons.

  7. This is an interesting set up. A clearly leftie/statist moderator picking a tv personality to debate a politician over an extremely complex set of hypotheses: the climate overall is warming, this is overall bad, this is caused by human activity (at least partially), that human activity can put a stop to this, that the cost for this will be worth it…. Well, you get the idea. The pedigree of an idea is frequently interesting and embarrassing. About 1909 the worry was global warming, melting of the ice packs, death of polar bear and so on. I remember in the 70′s the scientific consensus was global cooling (pollution causing reflection of sunshine). The first Earth Day’s concern was a new ice age. Then it was global warming. Since by satellite telemetry what there was of global warming ended about 15 years ago. So now it’s climate change…..whatever happens proves my hypothesis. Isn’t that religious? Hasn’t the climate changed for billions of years? Perhaps some of the people commenting on this website haven’t heard of matched controls. In this case, there isn’t one, so you have to be very skeptical especially of corporate science academies with their snoot to the trough of government money. I find it discouraging that people who are quick to point out the influence of money from oil companies, turn a blind eye to the thousands of time greater amount of money for the global warming — now climate change– crowd. Remember, this is a useful crisis for high level government workers since scaring the public always increases their power and income. This kind of environmentalism seems to be the religion of secular humanists. Disappointing to see it on this website.

  8. In reply to #7 by aroundtown:
    Maybe you should just ask us rather than speculating on our evilness. I can tell you that I am a skeptic who believes the forecasts of doom to be merely pseudoscientific mass delusions that feed on our guilt. However, I do feel strongly about other environmental issues. Top of my list is over-fishing. Next is management of fresh water sources. I think we would be far better off taking our guilt and our billions of guilt dollars, and throwing it at those two, very real, very dire problems.

  9. Considering the importance of this issue it is a great pity some atheists show such contempt for climate science. It is certainly more important than any other issue facing us.

    Deniers are more dangerous and delusional than homeopaths, scientologists or the average cleric. They react similarly when their irrational nonsense is challenged, claiming that we’re mad or religious for not sharing their paranoid conspiracy theories. Most regrettable I reckon. Insane, functionally.

  10. In reply to #14 by aroundtown:

    In reply to #12 by Caz-PhD:

    In reply to #7 by aroundtown:
    Maybe you should just ask us rather than speculating on our evilness. I can tell you that I am a skeptic who believes the forecasts of doom to be merely pseudoscientific mass delusions that feed on our guilt. However, I do feel strongly a…

    Hear Hear!

  11. Comment #11 by Rad1

    The pedigree of an idea is frequently interesting and embarrassing.

    That’s true of your denier arguments, but not of the scientific consensus. Let’s look at why.

    in the 70′s the scientific consensus was global cooling

    That’s a lie. From 1965 to 1979, only 7 peer-reviewed climate papers predicted cooling, whereas 42 predicted global warming. That 6-to-1 ratio has become far larger in later times, due to new data.

    The first Earth Day’s concern was a new ice age.

    The source of that is Newsweek, not peer-reviewed science. The whole cooling idea, Earth Day-related or not, was largely a media event. Earth Day 1970 did not represent scientific consensus particularly well.

    what there was of global warming ended about 15 years ago

    That’s also a lie. What you should say is, “if I look only at surface temperatures even though land absorbs a fraction of a per cent of thermal energy, and if I deliberately choose such endpoints as to compare El Nino and La Nina years in a warming-hiding way rather than using a period at least as long as one complete ENSO cycle (which is like pretending the Northern Hemisphere is getting colder over a 6-month period because you don’t understand seasons), and if I mix up statistical methods so that I look for whether there’s a statistically significant trend rather than a statistically significant deviation from the previous trend, then I can claim the warming since 1998 isn’t statistically significant, although I can’t claim 1998 is the hottest year as several years have bested it”. If you look at the separate halves of the last ENSO cycle, it looks like neither saw statistically significant warming; but over the whole cycle the warming has been not only statistically significant, but quite rapid.

    So now it’s climate change…..whatever happens proves my hypothesis.

    No; climate change is an umbrella term for the many local effects of the global energy imbalance known as global warming. The two terms are roughly equally old in the peer-reviewed science. “Climate change” was not invented because “global warming” wasn’t working.

    Isn’t that religious?

    Religion is “this book is right because it just is”, not “we have evidence but you can’t properly evaluate it if you haven’t spent several years having the mathematics explained to you because this subject is quite technical”.

    Hasn’t the climate changed for billions of years?

    No-one is claiming Earth can’t handle any change at all. But if you look at the pace of past changes, you’ll notice (a) the fastest ones coincide with mass extinctions (because evolution can’t keep up) and (b) recent changes are the fastest ever. And with a 40 % rise in atmospheric CO2 in a few decades, after it had never changed by more than a few per cent for hundreds if not thousands of millennia, can you be surprised?

    Perhaps some of the people commenting on this website haven’t heard of matched controls. In this case, there isn’t one, so you have to be very skeptical especially of corporate science academies with their snoot to the trough of government money.

    Scientists being paid low salaries coming up with conclusions governments don’t even like is hardly a reason to think these answers are bought. And as for matched controls, (a) we can predict what happens using basic physics, and our models are very accurate at both predicting contemporary warming and reconstructing the entire past climate of Earth (their main shortcoming is predicting how large the noise is, not the shape of the signal), and (b) we do have some matched controls because we can compare the current situation with many other events in the history of Earth and other planets in the Solar system. The science is a lot better than you seem to know.

    I find it discouraging that people who are quick to point out the influence of money from oil companies, turn a blind eye to the thousands of time greater amount of money for the global warming — now climate change– crowd.

    Thousands of times?! What on Earth are you talking about? Seriously, show me a source for some numbers in that ratio. I don’t think all the money in the world being spent on climatological research could do that. For what it’s worth, oil companies spend a lot more on undermining the consensus than is spent on the research that creates it. But let’s put the ratio issue aside and consider the point that “a lot” of money is spent on the science. Well, don’t you want lots and lots of science on this issue? That’s expensive! But then you pretend that money is somehow corrupting just because you don’t like what the data shows. If the science is a lie, debunk it in peer-reviewed journals to prove it. You’d be one famous scientist!

    this is a useful crisis for high level government workers since scaring the public always increases their power and income. This kind of environmentalism seems to be the religion of secular humanists. Disappointing to see it on this website.

    Firstly, disliking anthropogenic climate change is not limited to the secular. Secondly, even if climate change was a crock, this article would still be posted on this site because this site doesn’t just post what it agrees with. Thirdly, if you can credibly show how any “government worker” benefits from occasionally getting a climate treaty signed, only for it not to be obeyed very much, then I’ll reconsider what is technically a conspiracy theory. But you’ll still need to show the science is actually wrong from a scientific standpoint. There’s far more to be gained by insisting on economic business as usual (j.e. large oil sales).

  12. The other day I heard an exchange on the radio between Nigel Lawson and a Climatologist. The latter had given some figures which he said provided evidence that the extreme weather events were anthropogenic; Lord Lawson’s response was that they were speculation; the scientist explained that the information was based on measurements; Lawson repeated “speculation!”.

    When I told my daughter about it she said: “We’ll probably have to wait for his (Lawson’s) generation to die out.”.

    For our cousins “overseas”: Lord Lawson is a British Conservative MP.

    • In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

      The other day I heard an exchange on the radio between Nigel Lawson and a Climatologist. The latter had given some figures which he said provided evidence that the extreme weather events were anthropogenic; Lord Lawson’s response was that they were speculation; the scientist explained that the infor…

      This is the same Lord Lawson who came to preach his crap in Australia, and was gushed over by the then leader of the opposition, and now Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbot. Who now, from his new and giddy heights has seen fit to appoint a catholic cardinal who is not too convinced about this new fangled evolution theory, either, as “scence advisor.”

      Good Grief, what hope is there?

      • In reply to #28 by Sheepdog:

        In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

        The other day I heard an exchange on the radio between Nigel Lawson and a Climatologist. The latter had given some figures which he said provided evidence that the extreme weather events were anthropogenic; Lord Lawson’s response was that they were speculation; t…

        I don’t know if it was he, but, – and I’m going a bit off subject now Mods – I do know that he it was who circa 1980 as Chancellor of The Exchequer called for lessening of regulations of the financial services, and that he’s now lobbying for increased regulation of said services; make of that what you will.

        His party is now blaming the last administration led by son of Thatcher, Blair, for all our financial woes, while Joseph Stiglitz is maintaining that we are now reaping what was sewn in 1980 by the Reagan and Thatcher administrations; it catches the breath!

        Apropos of global warming, I’m not qualified to comment on the deniers’ motivations, but I suspect it to be a combination of greed and religious dogma.

        But, who knows, in the long run they may be proved to have been right, and the 97% scientific consensus to be wrong; but you know, I doubt it.

        S G

      • In reply to #28 by Sheepdog:

        In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

        The other day I heard an exchange on the radio between Nigel Lawson and a Climatologist. The latter had given some figures which he said provided evidence that the extreme weather events were anthropogenic; Lord Lawson’s response was that they were speculation;

        In this and another post, I made the statement without checking that Cardinal George Pell had been appointed by the Australian government as a science advisor. He may be many things, but he is not Tony Abbott’s science advisor. Unofficial spiritual mentor, declared, yes. Has Tony Abbott surrounded himself with climate change deniers in a variety of official positions, yes. Is George Pell one of them, no.

        My apologies to anyone whom I may have mislead. I will now go and ceremonially disembowel myself. Len Walsh, who is the source of the misinformation may like to join me.

        • In reply to #49 by Sheepdog:

          In reply to #28 by Sheepdog:

          In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

          My apologies to anyone whom I may have mislead. I will now go and ceremonially disembowel myself. Len Walsh, who is the source of the misinformation may like to join me.

          True. Humblest apologies to any readers mislead by my hyperbole. I was confident Sheepdog wouldn’t take me literally, being familiar with his fine wit and wisdom, so sorry to everyone.

          My source was The Loon Pond (link below) and I quote:
          Yep, there goes Tony Abbott’s chief climate science advisor (Pell), rushing over three mighty streams in a delirium of religious awe about god saving the world from an over-heated imagination.

          http://loonpond.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/either-meditate-on-these-parables-or.html#.UwLCyk1WHZ4

          Just below the cartoon ‘What would Jesus drive’ lies evidence I partially relied upon when I claimed Pell advised Abbott on science.

          Pell also addressed the Australian parliament, essentially repeating this speech delivered in the UK – http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/11/gwpf-cardinal-pell-lecture/

          The Australian reaction here – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/25/the-bureau-of-meteorology-figh/

          Many readers will be familiar with the Old Earth Creationist Ian Plimer, who famously lost a court case over Noah’s Ark, and who is the most influential to Cardinal Pell. Professor Plimer wrote a school text denying climate science – How To Get Expelled From School: A guide to climate change for pupils and another book known as the “denier’s bible,” and titled Heaven and Earth from which Pell quotes when attempting to refute climate science.

          Just half a dozen years ago Australians were prepared to implement policies addressing AGW. After the slogans by Abbott, relying on advice from Deniers, we’ve regressed 50 years.

          Sorry Sheepdog.

          • In reply to #53 by Len Walsh:

            In reply to #49 by Sheepdog:

            In reply to #28 by Sheepdog:

            In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

            My apologies to anyone whom I may have mislead. I will now go and ceremonially disembowel myself. Len Walsh, who is the source of the misinformation may like to join me.

            True. Humblest apologies to any…

            Oh it’s all OK, your shout, though. I am obviously way too prone to believe anything ridiculous of the mad monk.

            Cheers!

    • In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

      When I told my daughter about it she said: “We’ll probably have to wait for his (Lawson’s) generation to die out.”.

      The carbonaceous Luddites going bust, would move things along – and cut off their slush-fund money!

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis

      The so-called “carbon bubble” is the result of an over-valuation of oil, coal and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. According to a report published on Friday, at least two-thirds of these reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing internationally agreed targets to avoid the threshold for “dangerous” climate change. If the agreements hold, these reserves will be in effect unburnable and so worthless – leading to massive market losses. But the stock markets are betting on countries’ inaction on climate change.

      ..and the profiting, Luddites are doing all they can to obstruct and mis-direct investments!

      Stern said that far from reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn (£441bn) in 2012 to find and exploit even more new resources, a sum equivalent to 1% of global GDP, which could end up as “stranded” or valueless assets.

      Stern’s landmark 2006 report on the economic impact of climate change – commissioned by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown – concluded that spending 1% of GDP would pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy.

      • In reply to #41 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #27 by Stafford Gordon:

        When I told my daughter about it she said: “We’ll probably have to wait for his (Lawson’s) generation to die out.”.

        The carbonaceous Luddites going bust, would move things along – and cut off their slush-fund money!

        http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/a

        …”these reserves will be in effect unburnable and so worthless – leading to massive market losses.”…

        So, my Lord, what precisely were the reasons for your trip to Australia? Oh yes, I know about that.

        S G

  13. You have to wonder if the dinosaurs are laughing. They go down in the asteroid hit and the mammals survive. 65 million years later the mammals burn all the old forests the dinosaurs used to play in and choke themselves.

    Michael

  14. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. What we need are climate forecasts for the next 10 years. Take a 1,000 sites on earth and predict drought, flood, severe storms, heat waves etc under the best AGW models and using historic trends. Make sure everyone agrees on the historic trends. Release 200 to the public now, and make it “in their face” with a massive publicity drive. Encrypt the other 800 predictions and make the encrypted files publicly available. Challenge the deniers to do the same. In 10 years release the encryption keys.

    I bet the deniers will come up with the same predictions for the 200 but say the cause is anything but CO2. They will fail on the 800 unless they crack the encryption.

    BTW Caz-PhD, if you are attempting to imply you have a PhD and therefore we should defer to your authority, PhDs and equivalent qualifications are two a penny on this site. It is only the quality of your argument that counts. Anyone can claim to have a PhD on the anonymous web. It is only the quality of your arguments that backs a claim to have a PhD. If you make quality arguments your qualifications are irrelevant anyway.

  15. Rad 1

    So now it’s climate change…..whatever happens proves my hypothesis. Isn’t that religious?

    I guess you are always right.
    Maybe we are all a little religious about our views, but you are no different. Whatever happens proves my hypothesis? (sounds just like what a conspiracy theory nut would say). Yeah, right.

    My view is that we should be cautious and take seriously what the vast majority of climate scientists say. We should not forget, however, that science isn’t about absolute truth. It’s about testing hypothesis. Maybe everything will be allright, maybe millions will die.
    It’s a gamble. Considering the scenarios i think it’s better to play safe. There’s nothing religious or ideological about that. Just simple common sense.

    • I think you hit the nail on the head! No appeal to emotion on the effects of climate change on our offspring will change the minds of people willing to take a greater risk now and do very little about the current situation. It seems to all come down to how much risk individuals are willing to take now. The consensus on this thread is there is little tolerance for the associated risk of climate change.

      We all have different levels of risk tolerances. The skeptics ( except for the fanatical undereducated religiously motivated deniers) who state climate change is a historical fact we have little influence over obviously have a higher tolerance for risk (and are a bit fatalistic) than those who not only recognize the problem but think we are still in a position to do something about it.

      Personally I feel there are too many of us on this planet to sustain the current “western lifestyle” everyone is striving for, or has come to expect. Unless there is some technology out there not yet conceived there are simply not enough resources to feed cloth and sustain the current world population, and a mass extinction of homo sapiens is inevitable, be it through rapid climate change we can no longer cope with, disease, drought or a rouge meteorite is inevitable. Then, the problem will have fixed itself.

      So individuals like RAD and Caz-Phd just happen to be more risk tolerant and are exhibiting all the characteristics associated with the “selfish genes” we all do to a lesser or greater degree.jcw

      In reply to #43 by groo:

      Rad 1

      So now it’s climate change…..whatever happens proves my hypothesis. Isn’t that religious?

      I guess you are always right.
      Maybe we are all a little religious about our views, but you are no different. Whatever happens proves my hypothesis? (sounds just like what a conspiracy theory nut woul…

Leave a Reply