Burt Rutan - Is Climate Change caused by Mankind?

[RobertG]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

When one side says A, and the other says B, the truth is usually somewhere in the between.

This may be how politics works, but it is not how science works. As an example take the "debates" over whether vaccines cause autism. Even though the science shows the that there is no link, the media will, or used to, find someone to support the other side. The presence of an opposing viewpoint does not affect an argument's veracity.

Also, I have heard multiple times on the NPR station I listen to that a carbon tax and rebate would be more effective than a cap and trade system. The cap and trade system can be gamed because it rewards reductions in CO2, not the actual amount released, so some businesses might increase their emissions before implementation so that they can later "reduce" them.

Taxing carbon at a rate too low, however, could actually increase emissions, or decrease any current reductions, because it turns the problem of climate change from a social problem(save the planet for our children) to an economic problem(we need to save money be cutting our emissions). The analogy I heard was of a plate of ten cookies. If ten people each want ten cookies, and if the cookies are free people will be mindful and only take one cookie. If, however, the cookies are five cents each, then the first person to find the plate will buy all of them, since he or she thinks that by paying for them he or she does not think he or she is hurting anyone.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by RobertG

This may be how politics works, but it is not how science works.

Unfortunately, global warming and how to stop it have been pushed into the political realm.

The three things I'd most like to see in the entire debate are:
1) Complete data for as far back as there are accurate records of any kind--nobody's been willing to provide that, that I've seen, on either side of the debate
2) As complete data as possible showing how humans and their activities are involved in the warming/cooling/whatever it is
3) A science-based solution, not some apparently random governmental regulation. And by science-based, I mean one that looks at all sides of the issue if possible.

Guess what I have no hope of ever seeing? Yeah, that's right, #1 and #2 above. #3 is a little more hopeful...if the politicians can figure out which one to implement this year.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by RobertG

This may be how politics works, but it is not how science works. As an example take the "debates" over whether vaccines cause autism. Even though the science shows the that there is no link, the media will, or used to, find someone to support the other side. The presence of an opposing viewpoint does not affect an argument's veracity.

While I definitely agree with the anecdote you provided, there is a good deal of debate in science. That's the whole point of peer-reviews. And very rarely is one side of the peer-review journal debates is 100% correct and the other side 100% incorrect.