|A Broader Discussion08-11-2014 14:12
|There is raging argument whether or not combined with the explosive growth in human population and the complementary growth in CO2 consumption is the result of this growth in population and that these two factors have been statistically linked to the growth in average Global temperatures since 1880, as stated by NASA from the Goddard Institute. This is not what I would like to discuss and I have two main issues:
1) Having been exposed to Climate Scientist skeptic Marc Marano and watched a segment of The Young Turks (a News team), it has become tangibly obvious that many Climate skeptics have been paid by those who would be harmed if we were to not consume as much of the resources that produce CO2 pollution. In Marc Marano's case his website is funded by two of the Scaife Foundations, these are not charities however, they are foundations dedicated to influencing public policy in America funded directly by Richard Scaife who received a sizeable inheritance that he grew through, among other things, oil and coal corporations. While I respect the point that people can be skeptics about public issues, people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Marc Marano repeatedly denied that the planet was getting warmer and referenced things like volcanic activity and the change in the Earth's axis as possible explanations for the upward trend in the Earth's temperature, when in fact that they had no correlation in statistical analysis. It seems that he dedicated his debate with Bill Nye to haggling over the explanations of the Earth's rising temperatures and claiming that the science was wrong, where it has been proved among peer reviewed science journals who are not funded by Greenpeace or any other corporation, wholly and fully preventing him from offering possible solutions to this grave issue into our future. What I want to know is are there any climate scientists not paid by individuals with vested interests in denying climate change?
2) The resources that we consume are in fact finite. The Earth's population is rising rapidly along with our consumption of the resources. Even if the majority of the scientific community are wrong and we are not the cause of climate change, what are we going to do when we run out of oil? We will have no alternatives to turn to and we will be stuck back in the stone age. While I acknowledge the fact that corporations will eventually catch on in pursuit of profits when this comes to fruition but will it be in time to cater to what can be argued an exponentially large population in that future? Why aren't we recognising that one way or another we will have to develop technical and efficient solar, wind and ocean power?
Why we are debating the explanation of the Earth's warming is beyond me as it is fruitless. If we cannot recognise that renewable energy is our future whether we like or not, we will in fact have forfeited our future.
Edited on 08-11-2014 14:54
We are debating the explanation of the Earth's warming because a vocal minority is challenging mainstream science's explanation and that is having a magnified effect on human's response to this slow-motion, very long term challenge. There was never much chance that we would respond to this issue as decisively, as dramatically and as promptly as stopping it would actually have required. The pseudo-doubts and false controversy the fossil fuel industries have created have given large numbers of people, particularly in the US, the excuse to put off till next year what should have been started in earnest a decade back.
|climate discussion nexus
|Dianne Feinstein's climate change discussion with schoolchildren gets heated
|The End of the Discussion?
|Seeking experts for discussion in VR
|Every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics