You are reading a single comment by @Seeds and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@Seeds
Hi Dammit, in case you're still reading, here is a list of common "climate skeptic" arguments and rebuttals. Worth running your doubts through there before coming to any definitive conclusions.
More generally, my acceptance of AGW has come by looking at who is arguing on either side of the debate: scientists working in the relevant field - or - established contrarians (mostly IT consultants who are also libertarians, for some reason. I have no explanation for this purely anecdotal observation) and former oil industry hacks, none of whom have never published anything related to climate science. Not forgetting talking heads in the media who make a virtue of their ignorance.
Then I look at this pattern and think *what does this remind me of? *I compare it to the creationism "debate", which is fuelled by a media keen to show "balance" by presenting "both sides of an argument" and enjoy giving press to the underdog. In each case, one side involves scientists who work hard to research a subject, and another side who wait for the scientists to publish something before making superficial criticisms, without offering any properly thought through alternative.
Or I think about whether the cigarettes I smoke really cause lung cancer, and wonder what the groups and individuals that used to "astroturf" for Big Tobacco are doing today (lobbying on behalf of the oil industry, in prominent positions in the "climate skeptic" movement, in case you were wondering).
Finally, on a related note, I try a thought experiment. If this is a huge, global conspiracy, who benefits? In every case where we can plausibly suspect a conspiracy, we see vested interests with some form of political power distorting the scientific or judicial record.
Who has an interest in seeing AGW proven? Well, everybody, if your definition of "everybody" is a few publically-funded scientists and people working in the renewables and nuclear industries (who don't seem likely to form a coalition of sufficient strength to run a global conspiracy, given their historical mutual antipathy).
And who has an interest in seeing AGW disproven? Well, nobody, if your definition of "nobody" is just about every person on the planet, in both developed and developing nations, who produce vast amounts of CO2 to sustain their lifestyle (whether comfortable or subsistence) and the companies who provide energy and goods to sustain these lifestyles, and the governments who rule by popular decree over these people and wish to prevent them from openly revolting against a standard of living which, to them, is unacceptably low.
Then I think about that.
Pleasing the last of my arguments has been better argued here and (much, much better) here.
And here's Ben Goldacre, doing my entire post more succinctly and better (with even more links!!)