QUOTE PatD I would agree that many, especially in America, are narcissistic. However the word I would use to describe those that subscribe to the faith of anthropogenic climate change is megalomania.They believe that we as humans have the power to change mother nature. There is a large body of evidence on both sides of the argument, but I have always subscribed to the concept of follow the money. The largest high profile proponents, and many less obvious ones, are proponents for one of a couple of reasons, power, money or both. Who of them, that you are aware of, do not contribute 10,000 time the carbon footprint of the average American, let alone the average world citizen? They expect everyone, except the ruling class or themselves, to reduce their standard of living to "fix the planet". They also make great profits by the fixes that they prescribe. This simply is not going to sell in 2nd and 3rd world countries that have seen what they can have on the internet and won't stop until they get it. I personally do everything I can to "think globally and act locally", however I am a pragmatist. The situation will eventually be resolved by mother nature. We as a species will survive or not depending on our personal actions. As a combat arms guy of 21 years I believe that when it's your turn, it's your turn and it is always your turn sooner or later, but you can try to leave things better for your contemporaries or those that follow. Do what you can personally and influence those close to you, it is the only way a movement actually starts. The ruling class is not your friend if money or power is at stake and I don't care what side of the political spectrum you come from. Sorry about the long screed, but I am really tired of the manipulation of major situations for benefit. End QUOTE
I always avoid the "what we need to do to fix it" topics on this forum. It never goes well. I limit myself to trying to discuss the scientific truth of what is happening, not what it means for the policy or politics. Questioning people's motives is also non-scientific. It's better to look at the facts and logic of what they say, not the motivation or "end game."
But if you want to talk about following the money with regards to the truth about whether or not global warming is happening, on one side you have the vast overwhelming majority of scientists saying that it is happening. What money do these scientists have at stake in making that case? What is their motivation? What drives them to say what they do? I've known scientists involved with basic research all my life. They don't make jack squat doing research. But they also don't make dirty money taking a side in a policy argument. They do research because that's what they like to do, and they sacrifice a lot to follow that calling. I personally believe the science is legit and not faked for profit.
Now if you choose to believe that scientists are motivated by money, they are corrupt, and they are willing to make up research to take a side in the global warming "argument", which side do you think would have the most money to offer? Would it be the side hoping someday to make money by offering a solution? Or would it be the side already making billions of dollars every single week selling fossil fuels, running power plants, selling cars, or running industries that benefit from the cheapest energy possible. Who do you think would have the most money to buy off corrupt scientists?
How much money do you think has been made in the past century from fossil fuels and the industry it drives? How many hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars of fossil fuel still are in the ground just waiting to be extracted and sold? Wars have been fought over these resources. People murdered. Governments overthrown. And even with all that power, you expect me to believe that somehow those fossil fuel interests have not managed to do a better job buying off some of the 97% of scientists who say global warming is real, and it's caused by burning fossil fuels? Somehow Al Gore and the other enviro-bogey-men have managed to buy off almost all the world's scientists with "carbon credits", and the oil and coal industry could not get the cash together for a better offer? All they have been able to afford is 3% of the world's corrupt, money-grubbing scientists? Seriously?
I decided to let this marinade for a while before I replied. Post in haste, repent in leisure you know.
I copied my initial post above yours so the context will be clear.
I must improve my communication skills. Perhaps you could point out where I denigrated scientists in general or climatologists specifically? Although obviously not as well versed as you, I have been following the climate change issue for years. In fact I believe the science reliably demonstrates that global warming exists and that there is a high probability that AGW is the major cause.
My issue is with the faith of AGW,as I noted in my original post, and those that profit from it (and I am not talking about the PV installer, one of whom I will be employing shortly). I believe in another post you called it "one of those identity politics issues where I think people wear their beliefs like some kind of identity badge to show what "tribe" they are in. It's part of their identity group.". Since you brought up Al Gore, 20 foot sea rise in his "documentary"? I believe at the time the IPCC was predicting a worst case of 2.6 feet in a century (yes I know that would be catastrophic for most coasts). People like him use hyperbole to separate the sheep from their fleece. And the hypocrisy of Gore,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/06/29/is-al-gore-a-fossil-fuel-industry-mole/ . Of course many on that side don't care if he lies, cheats and steals as long as the cause is moved forward. The problem of identity politics, particularly in the U.S., in my opinion has become an impediment to rational reactions to a host of issues. I believe from your posts that you would agree that the vast majority of people with an opinion are either to lazy to do their own research, improperly educated on the issue or ignore facts contrary to their beliefs.
One issue I have with the science of climatology is that some of the participants, not necessarily pure researchers, appear to have moved to the "faith" side of the issue. One example I found in a casual search was that of Judith Curry. Links to her blog and articles she is referencing found here
https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/ . She is referred to as a heretic and the consensus as dogma in a Scietific American article submitted by a ClimateCentral journalist. Yes I understand that this is five years old and the writer is not a noted researcher; it is just an example but I doubt the attitudes have changed since. She had the temerity to question the issue of uncertainty because it was essentially treated cavalierly at the time in her opinion. She also had the bad judgement to engage with people on the "denier" side of the discussion. Basically she was open to questioning the IPCC and improving transparency in the climate change field and was excoriated for it from some in the field. Granted others were puzzled at the uproar over the issue. The upshot is, how do you get 97% of the vote? Kill all the dissenters. Same concept.
On the subject of "pure of heart" researchers only interested in the science. The recent release of a non-peer reviewed paper by Jim Hansen essentially predicting a >5 meter rise in sea level within the 21st century would appear to be designed to influence the COP21 talks scheduled for this fall, specifically the 2% limit issue. It has since been somewhat modified after the outcry within the field. Kinda the flip side of the CRU issue prior to COP15 which most on the AGW side of the discussion decry as an attempt to sabotage the talks. And yes I know the result of multiple investigations into that situation.
Of course these things I bring up as my concerns will not interest you because they are issues of human nature, not strictly scientific truths as you stated. The problem with that, in my opinion, is that the scientists, policy makers and general population are human. They are subject to the foibles of the human race. Good and bad decisions, policy making and profiteering are all part of the human equation in this issue.
If you want to discuss the petro-chemical industry, that is a whole other can-o-worms. I was involved in one of those wars you refer to, giving me a slightly different view than the majority. In brief I think that the influence you noted is based on a number of things. Crony capitalism, self enrichment and strategic concerns by the ruling class are high on the list. I won't go further down that rabbit hole right now.
It is obvious that you are very well read on the science of climate change. I am pretty well versed in people and a competent jack of all trades in a number of subjects. Both of these are why I waited to post. "screw you, you angry ass, that's not what I said" probably wouldn't advance the discussion in a civil manner.
Presentation does make a large impact on the way people perceive the message you are trying to convey.
You have a great evening. I will look forward to additional posts from you on this and other issues.
