"If some people don't believe in global warming, OK, it's a shame and probably anti-social, but so be it."
I'm not a believer. I'm more of a thinker.
Since when is not believing in something a shame and anti-social ?
"But could they at least avoid taking the piss out of people trying to be careful with our common resources."
Why ? Are those people so sensitive or insecure as to how their actions are perceived by others ? Poor sods. But maybe you're right. It's not fair to fight a battle of wits with the unarmed. Maybe I'm just too harsh because I feel everyone should (have the right to) take the piss out of anyone else. And be the victim of taken the piss out of.
Another point. What makes you think that those 'non-believers' are not careful with resources ? I consider myself to be part of the group of non-believers that is careful with resources. Don't even get me started on the believers that are NOT careful with resources. A.k.a. 'hypocrites'.
"If I were to gatecrash a financier's forum to state my view I doubt I'd be tolerated at all."
If you are insecure and care about people's opinion of you, and derive part of your self-esteem from how other people perceive you, then you'd better not do that. Those of us who don't care much for how others perceive them (I consider myself to be like that) don't mind voicing a different opinion than what is common in that (sub)group.
"Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth." (attributed to Dr. Goebbels)
Once, most people believed that Jews were the root of evil (not just the Germans; basically entire Europe was generally anti-semitic). Most of Europe once believed in god. Most of Europe once believed the earth was flat. Most of Europe considered women to be a lower class of citizens.
In 50 or a 100 years, we will add 'Most of the world believed in man-caused global heating' to that list.
Just because 'everyone believes it to be true' doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.
A detail: 'Global warming' doesn't exist, outside of the media. Global climate change exists. Whether it's man-made (man-caused) I seriously doubt. The climate has been changing for as long as this earth existed. As recently as 400 years ago, we had a small ice-age here (The Netherlands).
Why does man, in its infinite arrogance, think itself so important and powerful ?
The climate has changed for as long as this earth has existed. Everything is dynamic. Nothing is static. Except the S/N-ratio in some discussions.
Question: why is it so hard to -conclusively- proof that man is the cause of global heating ? Irrefutable, conclusive, hard, 'there you have it!' evidence. The kind that would convince people and stop the debate ? Why is it so hard to produce that evidence ?
At best, what I see is correlation... 'since men started doing XYZ, temperature has been going up/down'. Correlation doesn't imply a causal relationship. Everyone knows that people with big feet are better at math than people with small feet. Yet this doesn't mean that big feet cause math geniuses. Why can't the general public get it into its thick skull that correlation doesn't equate causation ?
Oh wait. Most people still believe in god. And read their horoscopes. And avoid walking under ladders. Or staying in hotel room #13. Andr getting married on a friday the 13th.
Never mind. I think I just answered my own question.
I can think of several reasons why our current way of living in the West is not sustainable in the long term. Global climate change has nothing to do with that.
Peter.
(who, if anyone else will say that the sea level will rise because of the melting polar caps, will come around with a baseball bat to beat some sense into that person. 95% of the rise of sea level is caused by expansion of the water at higher temperatures. But hey, melting polar caps gives a much more dramatic image than the thermal expansion coefficient of water, doesn't it?)
