Climate Change Deaths

[Dave-W]

Yes I understand how peer review works and i also understand the power of peer pressure.

A good case study of this is when the theory of tectonic plates moving was finally proved in the late 1950s. This very office played a huge role in that. Prior to the young lady (her name escapes me) that first plotted out the mid-Atlantic ridge, anyone who suggested such a preposterous idea was fired and could never find another job in mapping or geology again.

 

[grasping the after wind]

wich most of it goes towards doing studies...and barly pays them for their jobs, who wants to do that? Who is going to prop a lie for barly minimum wage and still have to work? They are going to look for evidence. This idea that scientists get rich off of grants is stupid, because we know how many hedge fund and wallstreet bankers and such leaving their jobs to work as a scientist getting grant money because it's so much better paying.

I did not say anything about propping a lie or getting rich off grants. I know of no scientist on a project funded by a grant that is making minimum wage but if there are any would it be better for them to be unemployed? If one is a scientist wanting to do research one needs to get money from somewhere. Your mention of hedge funds and Wall street bankers is just way too off topic to take seriously.

 

[loveofourlord]

I did not say anything about propping a lie or getting rich off grants. I know of no scientist on a project funded by a grant that is making minimum wage but if there are any would it be better for them to be unemployed? If one is a scientist wanting to do research one needs to get money from somewhere. Your mention of hedge funds and Wall street bankers is just way too off topic to take seriously.

no it isn't your acting like scientist are motvated by money, there are far better ways to make money rather then propping a lie, there is no motivation even monitary to prop up a lie for the amount of money scientists get. The motivation for that is the guys that get paid by koch brothers and such that can afford them to give them realy big money. But a guy that gets a grant to test global warming? WHats their motivation? WHats their benefit? You can say anything, "Well they rather lie and have a job." guess what money in science isn't made on keeping the status quo, wether lying about it, or confirming actual evidence. Thats not something that helps a scientist get famous. So again beyond mere asertions that it's baout money or not losing their jobs what reason do we have to think thats what scientists do?

 

[grasping the after wind]

no it isn't your acting like scientist are motvated by money, there are far better ways to make money rather then propping a lie, there is no motivation even monitary to prop up a lie for the amount of money scientists get. The motivation for that is the guys that get paid by koch brothers and such that can afford them to give them realy big money. But a guy that gets a grant to test global warming? WHats their motivation? WHats their benefit? You can say anything, "Well they rather lie and have a job." guess what money in science isn't made on keeping the status quo, wether lying about it, or confirming actual evidence. Thats not something that helps a scientist get famous. So again beyond mere asertions that it's baout money or not losing their jobs what reason do we have to think thats what scientists do?

Everyone is motivated by money. I have not accused anyone of propping a lie. I did not even accuse the scientist that did the research on tobacco smoke for the tobacco companies of doing that. They most likely believed the false information they were disseminating. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Again if your vocation is scientific research you cannot do that without money. Scientific research is costly.

 

[loveofourlord]

Everyone is motivated by money. I have not accused anyone of propping a lie. I did not even accuse the scientist that did the research on tobacco smoke for the tobacco companies of doing that. They most likely believed the false information they were disseminating. Being wrong is not the same as lying. Again if your vocation is scientific research you cannot do that without money. Scientific research is costly.

yes, grant money is scarce and expensive, point towards global warming, whose going to waste money on yet again another study propping up global warming when there is no monetary benefit, what benefit is there to putting yet another study out towards proving global warming when it's already largly accepted if it's wrong? The goverment is cutting funds to Nasa, and many other things, do you think they realy are going to give grant money to continue a lie that provies no benefit?

And the scientists would still find out if it was wrong, many other countries arn't motivated by the US's money why are other countries that wouldn't have the same motivation to prop up global warming also accept it?

 

[durangodawood]

Cold weather is more lethal than warm weather, so allowing a little (or big) Ice Age to happen could be a bigger problem than hotter weather. It seems to me that it is difficult to avoid deaths no matter what one does. The weather will always cause deaths, whether it is too hot or too cold, and possibly even if it is "just right".

Plus, the poverty caused by economic intervention to save lives may cost lives.

So, how do we calculate moral culpability out of this? It strikes me as very difficult.

And does this require a commitment to utilitarian approaches to ethics?


eudaimonia,

Mark

What is really deadly is environmental change that runs faster than human economic patterns can adapt. Thats what we are beginning to cause with the changes we make to our atmosphere.

Also, I find that the ideological divide on this issue absolutely dwarfs any scientific divide. That to me is telling.

But I do agree that we need to be very careful with collective approaches to reducing pollution.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm sure the drowning victim would appreciate knowing that you could have helped him but had more important things to do.

I didn't say I wouldn't help a drowning person. What are you talking about?

I'm saying you should help a drowning person.

 

[Paradoxum]

You're playing at the weakness of men in being inactive when someone is in dire need of help.
~tread carefully~

Okay?

 

[Paradoxum]

Sure. Easy to do, if you don't look closely at "the facts" because you don't look hard.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

I can't read that without subscription.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why would anyone want to help someone drown? Euthanasia?

I said about helping someone who is drowning, not helping someone to drown.

Of course that poster is not in any position to stop the climate from changing. So the poster is correct in the analogy. The poster cannot stop the multiple causes of climate change anymore than the dinosaurs could when their climate changed.

I would say one person is responsible for all climate change, but what you do, and how you vote does have some effect, and so you are potentially a tiny big responsible for the deaths and extinctions to come.

And refraining from being conned into thinking so by those that want to use the bogus idea that people have the ability to stop the climate from changing in order for them to force their agenda on economic fairness upon us is only a reasonable position to take.

It isn't some crazy worldwide conspiracy. Perhaps you should consider why you believe what you believe, when you believe in such conspiracy theories.

I don't see how denying climate change is any different from denying heliocentrism in the past. Is it generally a good idea to be on the side opposing the scientific consensus?

Also, I'm not sure how some people think combating climate change will lead to a left-wing utopia. If we slow or stop climate change, I don't think society will be any fairer because of it.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The only way we're going to fix climate change is by being able to manipulate the weather and alter the atmosphere. According to some futurists, that technology is about a century away.

The green taxes or whatever they are called are just money rakes, and the Left loves it.

 

[durangodawood]

The only way we're going to fix climate change is by being able to manipulate the weather and alter the atmosphere. According to some futurists, that technology is about a century away.

The green taxes or whatever they are called are just money rakes, and the Left loves it.

How about if it was a revenue neutral replacement for income tax. Then would you consider it?

 

[Albion]

I didn't say I wouldn't help a drowning person. What are you talking about?

I'm saying that what an individual is capable of doing is one thing, and what he would like to have happen but has no power himself to bring about are two quite different matters when it comes to ethics or morality.

 

[Strathos]

I'm saying that what an individual is capable of doing is one thing, and what he would like to have happen but has no power himself to bring about are two quite different matters when it comes to ethics or morality.

Good point.

 

[AtWhatCost]

Funny how leftist sights are called scholarly articles and publications that allow for dissenting opinions are called wingnut sites. I believe the stupidity of man has reached new heights. Now instead of seeking different viewpoints and making up their minds people prefer to follow the propaganda sources and attack anyone who tries to bring news instead of rhetoric.

I guess I'm done talking politics with the willingly indoctrinated. Their minds are closed and inoperative. They believe only what Big Brother tells them. Orwell was right. The only thing he had wrong was the date.

Rather why I picked the WSJ -- can't claim it's right winged or left winged. lol

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm saying that what an individual is capable of doing is one thing, and what he would like to have happen but has no power himself to bring about are two quite different matters when it comes to ethics or morality.

Yeah I know, I'm not even arguing that.