hamburger wrote:foxfire writes :
Quote:And one of the fallibilities of humankind is that once the die is cast and there is a great groundswell of acceptance of a flawed assumption presented as fact, it is terribly difficult to get people to admit they were so completely wrong. They know when they do, they'll be quoted for decades as an example for the next flawed theory presented as fact that comes along. And it's a pretty safe bet that there will be a next one.
this would apply to both sides equally , wouldn't it ?
those that claim no appreciable changes are being caused by human action want to hang on to their beliefs /theories , and those that claim human action/inaction causes major climate change are out to prove their case .
somehow there will probably a meeting of the minds - at least of the majority of scientists of both camps - at a certain point in time .
There are also those of us in the middle--that might be most of us--who admit they are incapable of researching climate (or most other scientific matters) themselves and who are dependent on scientists telling them what situations exsit but who also resist the herd instinct that is the basis for what many humans choose to believe. Those of us who have studied that 'herd instinct' among scientists of old and more recently--scientific consensus has frequently proved to be seriously flawed--are quite convinced that science itself is pure and infallible. Scientists, however, are not.
Those of us 'in the middle' are willing to look at both sides of the global warming and AGW debate and look at the scientific opinion on both sides. We are not willing to make major, inconvenient, and costly lifestyle changes based on what is very likely to be flawed scientific opinion. I think all of us are willing to be convinced that such changes are necessary, but we are not convinced that the case for AGW is yet sufficiently convincing.
Quote:it also seems to me that science hardly ever stands still . there are new developments on a daily basis - some will be correct and useful to humankind others will be proven as wrong and fade away .
some that may have been discarded may actually be re-surrected later and be shown as being useful after all .
others that have been put into practice may after a period of time be shown to be useless and even harmful and will be discontinued .
science is in a constant flux imo as a layperson .
No argument here. Some scientific consensus has provided the world with some major wonders and marvels. I also look at the millions of people who have been seriously sickened or who have died because of flawed scientific opinion. Almost all of it was well intentioned and, because humans, even scientists, are fallible, there will be more mistakes among new discoveries yet to come.
At this point, however, I think the weight of what we KNOW scientifically re global warming should be pushing us to mitigate the damage to the poorer people of the world, and we certainly should not be implementing policies, rules, regulations, etc. that discourage the poorest in the world from improving their lot in life even if they have to go through the less environmentally friendly stages to get there as we all have done. The planet is resilent enough to withstand that I think.
Quote:it seems to me that large corporations unwilling to change or admit to harmful practices in the past , may use undue influence to either prevent and certainly delay change since it would no doubt undermine their leading positions in certain industries .
as an example , some chemical companies have continued practices harmful to the environment and humankind simply to avoid the costs of changing their production methods - and governments have often played a role in allowing those practices to continue .
i think almost all chemical companies have been guilty of certain harmful
production processes at one time or another - and , of course , these practices are not restricted to chemical corporations only .
Big corporations as well as small businesses change when it becomes more profitable to change than not change. Some of that comes through government regulation assessing large fines or foreclosure for those who do not comply, law suits for damages, and/or the force of public opinion. In my lifetime I have seen horribly polluted air, rivers, soil, food supply etc. cleaned up to near pristine conditions. When I was a kid, polluted water and food supplies caused all manner of illnesses, skin eruptions, etc. etc. etc. that are almost non existent now.
There is no force compelling environmentally sound policies and conditions stronger than prosperity. The more prosperous people are, the more they demand clean air, clean water, beautiful surroundings, etc. You don't see poor people out demonstrating to save a wild river.
The most important thing we can do to make humankind more environmentally responsible is to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Putting ill advised policies to combat AGW ahead of that is like trying to stop a tank with a potato gun while pushing the poor people in front of the tank.
