the very future of science itself is threatened by these climate change monkeys.
No, Science isn't threatened by them. They're the symptom of a much worse societal cancer, a lack of good science education. People need to pay more attention is school and read a few books now and then. That will make it much more difficult for these climate change people (and other wankers) to pull this kind of shit.
There's just no way my lack of recycling (since it's not available in this area anymore) and driving around in my Chevy is going to kill the world.
Actually, I think people need to be more educated about what is actual science and what politicians/"the media" think are the necessary consequences.**
Funding research into climate change isn't going to bankrupt any society. However, some people seem to think that giving any validity to the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) must also include a "socialist" agenda of increased taxes and the like.
Believing that the theory of ACC is valid or not is vastly different from agreeing with any particular proposed social remedy.
Personally, I believe that the theory of ACC is by and large correct and we'd be much better off researching ways to cope with its effect than to discuss what might be done to prevent it. However, the latter point is one I espouse because I think that
politically, it is basically inevitable that most of the stored carbon (whether in oil, coal, or natural gas form) will be utilized. But I do realize that it's my
political opinion that nothing much will be done to either cap the carbon emissions altogether or at least stretch them out over a long enough time such that natural carbon sinks aren't overwhelmed to a significant degree.
IMO, we should by now largely* move on from a discussion of whether ACC is occuring to one where various means of coping with it are discussed from a financial and moral point of view (I include morals because while it may make financial sense to let everyone in Bangladesh drown, I don't think that's what is morally right).
Ie, does it make more sense to continue to utilize coal to a significant degree and spend the money on dikes and other measures instead to contain the downsides, or are we better off preventing change?
That is why my mind automatically tunes out whenever I hear references to Al Gore for example. He's neither a scientist researching what causes ACC, nor what might be done to convert human civilization into one that is tolerant of climate changes of such magnitude. He IS a politician, first and foremost.
* I say largely because there's of course, as always, the possibility to be wrong and I don't want to restrict science to majority opinion.
** One egregious example is the supposed threat of a new ice age in the 70s. Sure, some scientists worried about that back then, more worried about warming even then. However, that was almost 40 years ago, climate science has improved massively since then.
Quite often I think that the popular (as opposed to scientific) critics of ACC are criticizing the theories/hypotheses of decades ago, instead of the current research.
) is about to come crashing down. At least I hope it is -- the very future of science itself is threatened by these climate change monkeys.
