Live Earth 7/7/07 gentlemen start your tivo

But what if they're right? The near unanimous consensus of scientists who read the evidence as clearly showing that our planet is in big trouble due to humanly created pollution? Of course not ALL scientiss agree that this problem is humanly created, but the VAST OVEWHELMING MAJORITY do. ALL scientific projections regarding the future involve statements of PROBABLITIES rather than absolute certainties; and science thrives on debate and skepticism. But at what probablity point do you environmentalist bashers think it MIGHT be worth doing something -- especially when the stakes are as high as the scientific community is convinced that they are? Would absolute 100% certainty and agreement of all be required to be worth getting concerned? 90%? 50? Even if there is only a 20% chance that this majority of scientists are right, might it not be worth being concerned?

It is true that concerns about the enviornment have been taken more to heart by liberals than conservatives -- and we all tend to take on the positions of those we like and to disdain the positions of those we dilike. But should political beliefs let us ignore a scientific near-consensus when the CONSEQUENCES involved are this high?

The probablity of a terrorist attack, and the level of agreement among those who spend their lives trying to predict such things, is MUCH lower than that of the environmental calamities predicted by the scientific community. And although such possible future attackes would indeed by tragic, this would pale in comparison to even the mildest projections of the scientific community regarding global warming. Yet many of us are VERY worried about this problem and willing to take action -- on both sides of the political divide.

Should political ideology lead us to ignore this problem? Again, at what point of certainty should we take this problem seriously?

I normally prefer these threads to focus on music, but since so many anti-environmentalist have used this forum to express their views, I just have to ask -- what if the near-consensus of scientists (and, yes, most liberals, but also many conservatives) is right?

There is no near consenus and no near majority, those numbers have been scewed (like all numbers are) in favor of the promoters of certain death.

Chad -- Yes, there are a small minority of scientists who disagree (most of whom are funded by the energy industry or by the current administration), but that is a TINY minority. Yes, if you listen to Rush, Coulter, and others, you might get the impression that there is nothing to worry abou and that those who are concerned about this are crazy evil people. Do you really believe that it is a MINORITY of scientists who believe that our planet is in dire trouble, due to humanly created pollution? I've never heard anyone claim that the majority of the scientific community doesn't believe in humanly caused global warming before; although I do acknowledge that the consensus is not at 100 it is getting close to that and is certainly a clear and overwhelming majoirty (more than half).

No one is promoting certain death -- the goal of environmentalists is to AVOID THAT.

Again, my question is, given the large majority -- that most environmental scientists refer to as a NEAR-CONSENSUS -- why not take action? If they are wrong and we try to clean things up, we end up with cleaner air and less dependence on oil from the Middle East (meaning less money going into the coffers of those who don't like us very much). If they are right that the planet is in trouble, and we ignore them, where does that leave us? Given the possible consequences, how likely does it have to be that nasty things will happen before it is worth taking this issue seriously. If it is even somewhat (or even remotely possible) that the majority of scientists are right about the climate issue, isn't it worth trying to do something, given the potential costs?

Please help me understand why anyone would not be concerned about a potentially tragic turn of events -- even if it is not and absolute certanity and merely MIGHT happen.

So, the climatologists who disagree are "mostly funded by the energy industry". So that means they must be wrong.

And some of the guys who are so CERTAIN what the future will bring are the same guys who can't predict the weather accurately 7 days out.

Look, I'm not being negative about people caring. I care, and I'm environmentally conscious as well. But what we are seeing these days looks very nearly RELIGIOUS in it's zealotry. And just because the majority of "scientists" agree on this doesn't mean they have the answer. Google "Eugenics" and get back to me. Nearly every eminent scientist, politician and celebrity of the age endorsed it as scientific fact- including Adolf Hitler.

Forget liberal or conservative- look at this movement with open eyes and healthy skepticism. Carbon credits are paid to the company Al Gore is a member of. Incentive for the movement? Well as the old saying always goes, "follow the money".

Yet these people- again with a near-religious zealotry- abhor nuclear power as some great evil. Nuclear power can do more to reduce CO2 than nearly anything we can do. Yeah, there's waste. It can be dealt with if you drop the hysterics and deal rationally with the issue.

Other alternatives to fossil fuels suck. Wind power is very inefficient and kills thousands of birds. Wind Farms have been referred to as "The Cuisanarts of the Air" by The Sierra Club- no conservative organization by any means. Solar power sounds great, but is best used on a personal basis, not for grid power. And think about the caustic battery storage systems required to store solar energy. Not too green there.

So it's great to have a cause. But don't say the I am the knuckle dragger with the closed mind. When any group of people tell you "the debate is over", it's time to be very afraid.

Time to re-read George Orwell.

Nice Danlib............great post!