Name: Anonymous 2010-01-17 15:19
First, Global Warming is taught and promoted as some sort of absolute truth, and it puts the responsible parties at odds with science.
Indisputable science doesn't exists: science is merely a model of our world. It gets replaced with new theories and questioning the theory
leads to improvement and discovery. Global Warming is a politically charged campaign which denies such questioning as "Global Warming denial". I won't dispute any facts collected about climate. The interpretation of these facts can be questioned.
Models have flaws and are corrected: Global Warming campaign treats them as some incorruptible scripture.
Second, the proposed "solution" for Global Warming tends to be purely economical schemes which essentially simplify the problem to "pay for warming" and the result is predictably a rent-seeking behavior applied to normal economy. The people responsible for this don't
bother with science, they are interested in money and the science for them is "indisputable".
Third, such Global Warming periods aren't that rare, it the worldview restricted to last few centuries that makes it seem significant:
climate changed without any human intervention during many epochs. Periods of ice ages and interglacials come naturally.
People adapted to changing climate: they didn't wait for kings/UN/governments/shamans/etc come and solve their problem.
Fourth,the hype: normal pollution which reduces quality of life and is far more significant hazard, is given far less attention than global warming, especially in the developing world. People don't see that little by little they poison themself with expanding arsenal of chemicals and think the pollution is a smaller local problem in comparison with Global Warming.They miss the idea that ecosystems eventually distribute pollution much further than their local problem scale suggests(e.g. Pacific Garbage Patch).
Fifth,people that think of Global Warming solutions which involve geoengineering, have exotic and grandiose schemes to force the climate
to cool down with many risky and unproven strategies which could backfire more harshly than the problem itself. They often require continuous investment to balance out the Global Warming. It not that hard to destroy the entire planet's ecosystem with such misguided attitude, which is analogous to doctors which treat the symptoms instead of the disease("pay for global warming" or "overpower the global warming"). In my view, this leads to zero credibility for the GW promoters and the whole concept.
Indisputable science doesn't exists: science is merely a model of our world. It gets replaced with new theories and questioning the theory
leads to improvement and discovery. Global Warming is a politically charged campaign which denies such questioning as "Global Warming denial". I won't dispute any facts collected about climate. The interpretation of these facts can be questioned.
Models have flaws and are corrected: Global Warming campaign treats them as some incorruptible scripture.
Second, the proposed "solution" for Global Warming tends to be purely economical schemes which essentially simplify the problem to "pay for warming" and the result is predictably a rent-seeking behavior applied to normal economy. The people responsible for this don't
bother with science, they are interested in money and the science for them is "indisputable".
Third, such Global Warming periods aren't that rare, it the worldview restricted to last few centuries that makes it seem significant:
climate changed without any human intervention during many epochs. Periods of ice ages and interglacials come naturally.
People adapted to changing climate: they didn't wait for kings/UN/governments/shamans/etc come and solve their problem.
Fourth,the hype: normal pollution which reduces quality of life and is far more significant hazard, is given far less attention than global warming, especially in the developing world. People don't see that little by little they poison themself with expanding arsenal of chemicals and think the pollution is a smaller local problem in comparison with Global Warming.They miss the idea that ecosystems eventually distribute pollution much further than their local problem scale suggests(e.g. Pacific Garbage Patch).
Fifth,people that think of Global Warming solutions which involve geoengineering, have exotic and grandiose schemes to force the climate
to cool down with many risky and unproven strategies which could backfire more harshly than the problem itself. They often require continuous investment to balance out the Global Warming. It not that hard to destroy the entire planet's ecosystem with such misguided attitude, which is analogous to doctors which treat the symptoms instead of the disease("pay for global warming" or "overpower the global warming"). In my view, this leads to zero credibility for the GW promoters and the whole concept.