Thread: The eery silence that is ClimateGate

But many good things will likely have come out of it.

Are you sure about that?

Could we not argue that regardless of which energy system we decided to continue to use that significant advances would and will be made in that area? The area could be solar, nuclear, geothermal, coal, etc., etc.

It seems we rule out our current tech as somehow primitive when in all actuality it is anything but primitive. If there were a substitute we would be using it. I believe in the power of science and believe that significant advances can be made without alarmism and calling people believers and deniers. I'm of the Christian faith and we use terms like believer and denier to denote those who do believe in Christ and those who do not. I really do not think those terms apply anywhere outside of religion. Science is not about believers and deniers but about facts and various people questioning those facts to reveal new facts. Segregating out groups like believers and deniers for the purpose of science is not only unethical (to say one person's findings are somehow inferior to a common accepted 'belief' system in the scientific community b/c they do not agree with said 'belief') but does not get us anywhere.

Whether we like it or not, and both sides have to agree on this, our current so-called fossil fuel economy has gotten us to this point. We can't just throw it out over-night without a suitable realistic replacement. And sorry Toyota but it's going to take more than your Prius to get us there. We need realistic solutions. All I see is alarmism such as we are already too late and anything we do now will still be too late....and so forth. Hogwash. So do these people not believe what they are selling? That's not a good way to get people to act on something to say that no matter what we do (IE: no matter how much we spend) it probably won't help....but we should still do it just in case. Sorry, not buying that. Come up with some real solutions that extend beyond telling me to make sure my tires are fully inflated, my light bulbs are of a certain sort, and that I should cut down on my trips when the local airport here is filling aircraft with tens of thousands of gallons of av fuel to cart people to point A and back nearly four times a day or more. If we want to get serious then come up with some serious solutions. Otherwise it just looks to me like those idiot scientists on Armageddon who were coming up with solar sails and other ridiculous ideas that clearly would not work. We need answers long before we need political manuevering.

I'm confident that in the end we will come out understanding more about our planet, ourselves, and what we can do to make this a better place to live. I once thought we might be able to explore other planets but alas I will probably never see that in my lifetime and perhaps its a good thing. We have enough to figure out and study within our own atmosphere long before we have any business looking at others.

But the 'trekkie' in me is still hopeful.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Are you sure about that?

I think it is likely, but of course I'm not sure. While there will always be continual scientific advances, research costs money and if more money is spent and more incentives laid out for alternate forms of energy then it is likely that those things will happen sooner than they would otherwise. And while better use of oil or coal is not a bad thing, a cheap and easy to use alternative source of energy would be better than just better use of fossil fuels, since it would actually provide an alternative. The problem is that it will take a while to get those technologies to a point where they can be used on a large scale. If efforts are made to curb global warming and they turn out to be fruitless in that respect, at least they will have provided benefits in the realm of alternative energies that otherwise would have taken years longer. To me, that's much better than the flip side, ignoring global warming and possibly being wrong about it and having catastrophic events occur.

But later in your post you are asking for real solutions and real answers. Those things don't grow on trees. They take work, and they cost money. So you're asking for answers before spending money on the problem, but you can't get answers until you spend money on the problem.

And the thing is, what would you have these people do? They look at the science (and not just the hysteria) and it tells them that there will be major effects on humanity in their lifetimes. Of course they're going to work hard to make that issue known and of course they're going to be upset with people that try to silence them. What you call people being alarmists, they consider to be doing good work. It's not just Al Gore working on this, it's hundreds if not thousands of people. You only see it as alarmism because you're not convinced of the truth of their claims. But if they are convinced, why should they stop? The alternative for them is this:

Attachment 9514