There's been zero benefit for any scientist who wishes to get
funding to be contrary to it. There's no point in even trying.
I think there's exaggeration. Are the polar ice caps melting?
Sure. Thing is, I've watched the story get more dramatic through
the years, just as interest and funding also increased.
Best of Science in the 1980s was mixed on it. Global warming (I
forgot what they called it then - I HATE the constant name
changes for dramatic effect) was one of a few theories going
around. It wasn't the most popular one and the timeframe it was
speaking of was not within a single generation of people. it was
extended out hundreds of years.
Then by high school, the story began to change. It started to
become a little more popular (late 80s) Greenhouse gases was
increasing in popularity but we were repeatedly told, "Your warm
summer is NOT global warming!"
Over and over again.
Then the 90s. More and more and more about it. The movement grew
to a tremendous feverish pitch.
By the 2000s, it was all but a certainty and the time frame had
been reduced to within our lifetimes IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING
NOW.
A fringe opinion in the 80s becomes a global force in 2015.
Where's the opposing views?
Nowhere that's taken seriously.
Again, I think it's a "good thing" but having worked with data
many times, I've seen the results of bad data on top of bad data
with some good data, along with normalizations, corrections and
other statistical wizardry can customize reports to achieve
stated goals.
I have a nice formula somewhere that successfully shows an ROI
when there was a loss and it can be traced back and proven and
yet, it's a lie. Had to use it. Math tricks.
Maybe it's all perfectly true and correct. But nobody who checks
will be taken seriously. We've gone too far to go back now. Too
many players involved. Too much invested. We HAVE TO continue
this course and I'm ok with it. Mind you, I don't believe it's a
conspiracy. Not in the least. It's just one of those "ball got
rolling / avalanche" situations. And.. if I was in power,
President of Earth or whatever, I'd stand up there and declare
it's real, pat the Scientists on the back for a great job and go
about my day. I'm a pragmatist. Global Warming is pragmatic.
Well, no it's not a leftest agenda thing in my POV. Bringing up
the ROI trick was excessive. I'll provide a better example:
You have a great computer model. 27 likely outcomes.
Statistically "pick one". Doesn't matter which one. All more or
less equally likely.
Do you pick the one that most contradicts your original
hypothesis? It's equally likely as the one that best confirms
your hypothesis. So, you pick that one.
Doesn't matter which one you picked ultimately.
Repeat process many times. It's not dishonesty; the one you
picked doesn't matter experimentally. It's just as likely.
Multiply that times many times. Statistical creep.
I was being too harsh in my portrayal. What would convince me
we're nearly dead?
Seeing people dying around me.
Did global warming cause the Syrian refugee situation? Could've
contributed. Or was it a local drought that's right on its 200
year schedule? We don't know. Records are reconstructed.
How well? Don't know.
Is there a benefit to tying them together thanks to some
correlations of the data? Definitely. Is it possible global
warming was the cause? yes, it's possible. But there's no
contrary opinion worth taking seriously at this point to say
otherwise. 94% of scientists agree and all that. When has 94% of
scientists ever agreed on ANYTHING?
The thing is, the only valid choices from your list are:
1 or 2. The days of 3 and 4 have passed. There's a hole in the
Ozone Layer. I remember that one. They banned CFCs. It was a
good thing. But before the banning of CFCs was finished, the
hole closed up. Oopsie.
By then it was fixed in our mindsets as True. CFCs aren't good
for human beings. Fluorocarbons are nasty to the lungs if I
remember right.
[Fluoride eats through silicon - skin]
So was the hole correct? It was at the time, the cause for
greenhouse gases. But it wasn't and it's wasn't.
Maybe "this time it's different". Again, I support the efforts.
It's just hard to believe the sky is falling after a few
doomsday scenarios.
Maybe we fixed it just in time. Maybe it wasn't a problem at
all. There's no way to tell. Given the two choices, between
"just in case, let's do it" vs "Let's not bother in case we're
wrong", the "just in case let's do it" is the stronger of the
two.
