ssstone said:
p!ssing myself laughing, oh my dear panthera,last time i looked iwas pulling beers and building stone houses not put in charge of the biggest CON ever inflicted on the peasants all the while spending thier hard earned to take even more money off them for a new RELIGION . :rofl :rofl
ps im still laughing at your post....................... pure gold .................
Calling this a con is an interesting position to take. Even more interesting that you believe that those who do not agree with you are looking to profit from it. I'm not an expert, I can only take my own look at things and call it as I see it. So here is my take.
The greater majority of scientists from around the globe believe that the earth is getting warmer, that it is human driven, and that the ramifications of it are very serious.
Generally, the sceptics (and their are some scientists in that group, but not as many, and generally nowhere as distinguished as the other group) admit the earth is getting warmer, that it is not human driven, but the more believeable ones also acknowledge that the ramifiactions are serious.
To me, the disagreement centres on whether you believe the earth getting warmer is human driven or not. I am not really sure I understand how those who think it is human driven will profit from this position. Yep, they might get a bit more research funding, but that is hardly likely to make you rich. There are undoubtedly some private interests out there who might provide low emission/renewable energy that might profit, but that technology at an effective level on a mass scale still seems to be a long way off.
But on the other hand, I can clearly see how those who say it isn't human driven can profit.
Consider the debate about smoking and health in this regard. Did those who said for years it was bad for your health really profit from it? As opposed to those who said it was safe? Suprisingly the people who said smoking was bad for health used credible scientific evidence that could easily be held up to scrutiny. It took them many years, because they were held up to scrutiny for their beliefs, whereas those who argued against them were basically full of sh*t. Those who said smoking didn't harm your health grandstanded blustered, attacked and when forced to finally started producing insignificant reports that were not peer reviewed in scientific journals. And when the scientific evidence became to great to debate, they started to implement technical legal strategies to minimise their exposure to compensation, and decided to target the poor and impoverished people of the third world instead.
So who eventually benefited in the smoking debate. The people who have or are likely to reap the greatest benefit from a reduction in smoking are, suprisingly enough, you, I and the general public. We might not see the money being saved directly, but economists, accountants and the like can show you the economic benefits. Which in my opinion is the best dividend.
So the bottom line is, the earth is getting warmer, and it keeps getting warmer while people debate about what is causing it. But it isn't a proper debate, because one group of people are saying it is caused by people based on scientific analysis and offer soultions, and the other side is saying it isn't and offer little. Those who are saying it is have recommendations on how to try and address the problem. I say try, because no one knows whether it will work. those who sya it isn't offer very little in the way of trying to stop global warming. I see little coming from the other side of the debate.
Science is not always right, and indeed can be spectacularly wrong. But right now I feel more comfortable going with an approach based on some sort of paradigm rather than the counter argument based on not much.
But lets face it. The best thing to do is make sure we are totally right about what the cause is before proceeding to try and deal with the problem. Just like we did with smoking. And how many people did that approach to that issue end up needlessly killing.
