I don't understand this argument as the fossil fuel industry is worth many trillions of dollars, so the argument is much stronger in favour of them being the ones not wanting to change. The climate protection industry is small in comparison. Industries like green electricity generation, resource use reduction and recycling also have benefits beyond climate alone, so are becoming the right choice even without that consideration.
There is also a big "industry" working now and historically on the link between tobacco and smoking. Do you think that they were just doing so to make money and there is no actual link? Who you believe is an epistemological issue: none of us can research everything ourselves so we choose who to believe based on our influence and internal desires.
Anyone remember the global cooling scare? Or the nuclear war scare? Or the acid rain scare? The threat of nuclear war and acid rain were very real, they just got solved (almost). It's like the Y2K bug: people love to say it was a lot of nonsense and a non-event, but it was so exactly because a lot of work was done to avoid it. Nuclear war is no longer a threat due to diplomacy; acid rain is severely reduced due to international treaties & technological solutions. These problems are perfect examples of a real problems being solved by concerted international action.
Those vested in the success of fossil fuels have much bigger issues than what the public thinks of them. Their markets are much more efficient and global.
Things like controlling prices through limiting supply, currency manipulation, trade routes, economic sanctions, etc. are top of mind for fossil fuel producers.
I think it's fair to say that the challenges faced by climate protection interests are probably a few magnitudes smaller than what's faced by fossil fuel interests.
In areas with low alkalinity bedrock, and soil the acidification of forest, lakes and streams was easily measurable, and had clear effects on aquatic life. It's also nothing that's dealt with its entirety. Today's CO2 levels are already high enough to significantly alter acidity of the Baltic seas, and probably several other waters.
Except it's supported by a plethora of scientific evidence. And yes, since questioners are usually pushing for inaction, it's quite reasonable to be treated as a heritic. If I came out and said "I support something that is likely to cause mass deaths in the next 50-80 years", I would expect to be pilloried for that.
> Anyone remember the global cooling scare?
Global cooling never had a scientific consensus around it. It basically came out of one Newsweek article, which was later retracted[1]. The fact that you're even bringing it up shows that you're reading too much media in circles that use very specious reasoning. People are lying to you and you're repeating their lies.
> Or the nuclear war scare?
The USA and Russia had enough nuclear weapons to end current civilization armed and pointed at each other, and had several incidents where they nearly opened fire.[2]
> Or the acid rain scare?
Acid rain was stopped by government action. In fact, there are many parallels to global warming, because it was corrected by an emissions pricing system analogous to modern carbon taxes. Basically, emitting sulfur dioxide (which causes acid rain) was taxed and the tax raised over time, which created a market for scrubbers. [3]
[1]https://www.insidescience.org/news/my-1975-cooling-world-sto...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls
[3]https://blogs.ubc.ca/lisatam/2013/03/08/reducing-acid-rain-e...
So who do you believe? You are at the mercy of the "unbiased" opinions of news.
It seems like it should be a black and white issue, but it is not. Especially to the people by whom changing their lifestyles to help stop emissions would consume money they don't have.
One would imagine that even a person not believing would come to the conclusion that there is research that indicates global warming and even if they believe mankind was not causing it, stopping our emissions would still be a good idea.
This is a valid point. The media was wrong about this in the 70's
>Or the nuclear war scare?
I don't know what you mean by this. Nuclear war never happened, but it's obvious that the USA and USSR had enough weapons to wage war.
>Or the acid rain scare?
This was an actual problem that was successfully solved by preventing sulfur emissions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#In_the_United_States
Nope, and neither do you. It was mentioned a few times, found to be based on nothing (well, weak data, anyway), and all forgotten as quickly as it was brought up.
Or the nuclear war scare?
Umm, that was a real thing. In fact, thanks to declassification and determined digging, we find out years later that we were a lot closer than we were told.
Or the acid rain scare?
Another real thing, made suitable for history books by government regulation.
What's next? The "Y2K scare"? Go ahead, this crowd will especially love that one. Hmm, "heretic" you say? Not quite the word I'm looking for, frankly.
EDIT: Hey, wait a minute...</old man knowingly shaking finger>...you're one of those "youngsters", aren't you? All that shit happened 40 years ago before you were born, and you're just reading about it, aren't you? Well, you're reading from some sketchy sources, and you should cut it out.
Just a theory I cooked up trying to figure out how the fuck someone would think acid rain was a "scare". Hardy apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree.
What there is no room for any more are: denial that global warming is happening, denial that it’s happening as a result of greenhouse gases, and denial that it’s happening primarily as a result of greenhouse gases being emitted by humans. There is no more room for these denials because the matter is settled. Without incredible new data that contradicts existing data or future models, or without a compelling theory that both explains current warming trends and explain new phenomena, any such argumentation is flatly unwelcome.
This is not unique to climate change. Similarly, nobody is going to debate you on your new theory regarding gravitation unless your approach agrees with Newton and Einstein while also solving existing unanswered questions.
If people like MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton, and Stanford University professor emeritus Elliott D. Bloom and many more including other atmospheric physicists believe there are arguments to be had on a complex subject then I tend to think they have a point. The above joined 497 other distinguished scientists in signing the European Climate Declaration and are listed in a link here. https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-ge...
In summary their position is: 1. There is no climate emergency: 2. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: 3. Warming is far slower than predicted: 4. Climate policy relies on inadequate models: 5. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth (< 150ppm plants do not survive): 6. Global warming has not increased natural disasters: 7. Policy must respect scientific and economic realities: 8. An honest climate science debate is warranted
Distinguished mining engineers, business leaders with links to Australian mining, retired geologists, two signatories from CATO and Richard Lindzen signed the Clintel petition. Clintel was founded by a Dutch engineer with time in the oil industry, and former professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management.
As you mention, knowing "who" matters.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-sci...
Some estimates will turn out to be pessimistic. Many have turned out to be happening far worse than predicted. Both are normal and expected.
Point of order - acid rain scare: You do realise that the world agreed to mandate sulphur scrubbers on coal power stations, and hugely limit vehicle emissions in response to that? It's not like it magically went away on its own.
Interesting to say in response to a scientific study published by a reputable institution that questions previously believed theories on climate change. I haven't seen anyone here calling MIT a heretic institution for doing that.
I got a degree in climate science but took a job writing code because the pay was terrible unless and until you become a professor. My chemical engineer buddy went to work at Exxon Mobile and started with a salary 4x greater than my best climate science related offer.
Are you suggesting that because we happened to avoid disaster in some instances that the risks were never real in the first place?
Take the opportunity to read up on it!
EDIT : I live in the Netherlands.
Largely a myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
"Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect."
> Or the nuclear war scare?
Still scary.
> Or the acid rain scare?
Acid rain was mitigated via extensive, global efforts to regulate the pollution emissions that caused it.
Excellent point. Big problems are solvable with the right level of effort.
It is, for example, rather curious to focus on "multi-billion dollar" climate science but not to count the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry as an interested party.
Likely story to try and hide being wrong when the scientists have so much money on the lines and can't risk giving up the BILLIONS they're making and getting rich/profiting off of. I've never received acid burns from the rain!
/s
Like hearing a family member or friend say, "Summers are getting hotter, and we got 2 extra inches of snow this past winter. Climate change must be real!". Usually these types of comments are ignorant of multi-year long climate cycles.
I can personally say that I have no idea what the state of the climate is, or how much humans have had an impact on it. Each article I read is only a small glimpse of the big picture, and I am not a subject-matter expert. So I try not to spread FUD.
I've never heard this kind of statement. I've only heard it the other way around where it snows and people are like "what global warning?".