Who Thinks the Earth is Flat?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Absolutely. Not suggesting in any way that Canadians aren’t on the naughty list when it comes to this situation. In fact, if you look at the Pew survey I referenced it clearly puts Canadian attitudes with the rest of the developed world, which tends to downplay the risks of climate change. One of the other key findings is that:

People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change.

Canada is one of the highest (if not the highest) per-capita users of energy. We’re just not as partisan about it (although more so than many other places).

The trouble with "findings" like this is the many other factors which are present in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions, many of which can also influence peoples' concerns about CC. Merely on its face it implies that those with the most to lose from lower energy consumption have the greatest incentive to resist the prevailing theories on CC. That may be useful politically, but doesn't necessarily follow logically. People from high energy consuming nations generally have better access to a wider variety of information, as well as better education & easier communication, and therefore perhaps have better tools for thinking independently.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by cyan

It bothers me that people often accept what they hear a scientist say, and believe it as doctrine without any critical thought of their own.

The Greek astronomers convinced people that the earth was the center of the universe. We look back and say they weren't REALLY scientists. Last century, scientists convinced us that the Big Bang was just like an explosion that Newton would understand, with everything slowing down, eventually to a stop, and probably imploding one day. Now we find that everything is actually ACCELERATING, obeying some mysterious magic rule we don't understand yet.

My point is that the next time you hear about an accepted scientific theory, don't accept it blindly. Think for yourself. This mistake happens over and over by humans and sheep alike.

Oh, and I do understand about 99.9% of what happens inside your computer, like many other embedded systems designers. Pretty sure.

In fact, you are blind to the problem, by overestimating what you know by undervaluing the parts you do not understand. I believe you understand the software. But that is a tiny part.

Please, tell me all you know about polymer manufacture, wastewater treatment, refinery safety, and battery chemistry. I bet it's waffer thin. And that is perfectly OK. I don't know much about programming (I did work as a programmer, 35 years ago). It does't bother me. I know lots of other cool stuff.

---

Always question. But at some point a reasoning person accepts a peer-reviewed norm, understanding there are levels of uncertainty, with one ear open for what comes next.

For example, beyond worthwhile discussion, the world is getting warmer. This is fact. However, why it is getting warmer and how humans have influenced that is not as well understood. Do we act on what we think we know, do we wait for better information that may come too late, and what is the cost/benefit balance of carbon reduction? That last one is a real bugger. It aint' zero, and it probably aint' $1000/pound. That is the thing we need to know, to know what to do, and I've not seen reasoned discussion. The second point is that if climate change not avoidable, at least in part because of what has been done and because man is probably not the sole cause. What do we need to be doing? That's far more interesting, to me, than discussions of carbon reductions or gloom and doom. How will we, as a globe, adapt? I see migrations in our future. It is the most natural long term response.