If the science is settled and their truly is no debate...?

D

David B

New member
...and disastrous consequences lay ahead then I propose a movement within the whole field of climate science to refuse any new funding under the stipulation the money goes towards the development of alternative energy sources and CO2 sequestration technology.

If global warming means imminent doom why waste time and money on conjecture and further redundant defining of the problem.

If it's as simple as high CO2=bad, low CO2=good, what further use do we have for climate scientists anyways? Do we need more and better predictions of catastrophic change? More model refinement? What's the point?
 
Right. And if the debate over the germ theory of disease is really settled, we don't need any more funding for medical research, either.
 
Yes, because the question of what specifically will happen and when couldn't possibly be of any importance.

It's not like 'their' is any debate going on as to what specific emissions targets should be set or anything...
 
I have a feeling you're going to get a lot of dumb, off topic, beat around the bush answers here like the first two already.

Besides, there isn't even agreement on the bad aspects of warmer climates like sea levels, hurricanes, droughts, disease, extinctions, etc.
 
there is no point other than people wanting to be lazy, people being afraid and making up fake reasons of it being fake, and governments being to scared to invest in the unstable alternate energies. they're all stupid reasons and i try to help as much as i can and even if global warming isn't real we should still be picking up the earth and making it better. It's like the universe, or creator, or whatever you people believe in has to threaten us to get us to save the beautiful planet it made
 
I think if you were following the research you wouldn't have asked this question. Most money is not going to answering the question of *if*. It hasn't been for quite some time.
There will certainly be some research involving the unanswered questions, but for the most part the scientific community has moved on.
 
No, the science will constantly be refined, but isn't the development of alternative energies and sequestration the realm of private enterprise? What you are proposing may be construed by the right of wing as an evil socialist plot.

Edit: Keith P, well said.
 
Good point, but I ma sure the scientist would make up a new reason for them to continue milking the system. Michael Mann makes a nice living mooching off the public dole.
 
No, the science is far from settled. Those agw alarmist scientists who use junk science to support their claims just want to be sure that they're included in long term funding while they play around and spend years (til retirement) looking for solutions. Now that they've created a "problem" they need assurance that they'll be needed to help find the "answer".

Of course whatever they propose and regardless how much it costs nothing will happen (by their design). Supported by corrupt politics, their ruse could last forever. It's all a means of job security for them, and furthering socialism by the politicians.
 
Back
Top