Yeah, I’m seeing an awful lot of ignorant drive-by jeering from the “climate change skeptics” here, but not much in the way of rational, evidence-based argument that the science of climate change is really being driven by religious-like faith rather than by scientific data and critical thinking.
You guys wouldn’t be trying to substitute ignorant jeering for rational criticism because you don’t really understand the issues, now would you? I’d hate to think that of you.
It’s probably just something having to do with free time. They’d submit posts with more substance, but you know they have lives or something.
Speaking of which, my lunch break is just about up. 
LilShieste
To be fair, I think that there certainly are politicians and activists who get rich by predicting exaggerated DOOM!, among whom, arguably, is Mr. Gore. While they are quite high-profile, the same process happens to many scientific discoveries that reach the public eye, and they don’t detract from whatever factual basis global warming has.
You have a point about the eternal marketability of exaggerated DOOM!. I would not attempt to argue that there isn’t a somewhat cult-like aspect in some parts of the climate-change activism movement. Any environmental or political scare story, be it illegal immigrants, toxins in plastics, Islamic terrorism, global warming, whatever, is going to attract a certain percentage of people who just swallow the most exaggerated claims hook, line and sinker without ever bothering to think critically about it.
However, I would need to see more evidence before agreeing that Gore is just cynically exploiting the easily-alarmed segment of the population in order to make a buck. It seems pretty clear that he’s been taking these issues seriously for quite a long time, and is willing to spend money on them as well as make money from them. (In fact, I don’t even know whether the net income he derives from his environmental activities alone is positive or negative.) Moreover, most climate scientists seem to agree that his presentation of the issues is on the whole scientifically responsible, though not impeccable in details.
See, now, this is one of the things I just don’t get about AGW skeptics. It’s constantly claimed that AGW is just made up so that some secret cabal of scientists will reap untold fortunes if we start scaling back our carbon production. However, we KNOW that there’s an entire industry which benefits if we don’t change our ways.
So on one hand we’ve got scientists who somehow stand to get rich off of cutting back carbon emissions… and on the other hand, a multi-billion-dollar industry which might make fewer megabucks if we pass laws limiting carbon emissions.
And the skeptics think the scientists are the ones making it all up?
I agree that this is a pretty absurd notion, but in fairness I don’t think it’s what athelas was saying. His/her point is not that climate scientists will get rich off carbon emissions controls, but that certain “politicians and activists” will get rich by exploiting the issue’s fear factor.
Even that may be somewhat exaggerated (how many politicians and activists are literally getting rich off of anti-global-warming activism?), but it’s not ridiculous.
Of course, the one difference that nobody has bothered to point out is that GW science does not suppose the existence of a vengeful or disciplinarian supernatural being. It’s strictly focused on natural, physical processes.
I probably wasn’t clear… I certainly don’t think that was what Athelas was saying- it’s just that it reminded me of the argument that every AGW skeptic and his dog uses.
They don’t like joke threads in the BBQ Pit and while there are a lot of opinions in this thread, there does not seem to be a point to many of them beyond “you’re a doodyhead,” so I am not going to burden the IMHO Mods watching this until it makes it to Pit status.
ralph124c or yahwc, if either of you would like to open an actual discussion regarding the validity of the science supporting or failing to support the concept of Global Warming or Anthropogenic Global Warming, you are most free to do so.
However, if you are going to restate the OP of this thread, I will expect to see actual citations of scientific papers that have been suppressed or reports of scientists being lynched or burned at the stake for their anti-GW or anti-AGW positions. Otherwise, open this sort of silliness in the Pit or IMHO so that other posters know from the outset that you do not wish to seriously debate the topic.
Everyone: When this topic resufaces, I want everyone to play nice.
[ /Moderating ]