I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.
I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.
At any rate, here's my solution:
Any scientist who wants to take a stand on climate change and whether it's caused by human activity has to sign on to voluntarily permit their work to go through a peer review process (Note: climatologists are already doing this). We have to establish a date upon which a determination by the entire scientific community will be made as to the merits of all the research. To be able to vote, a scientists needs to have a background in a relevant discipline. The losers must forfeit their entire net worth (no hiding assets).
For the talking heads on radio and TV who want to participate in the debate (journalists, commentators, and general loud-mouthed know-it-alls), I propose that the losers be permanently banished from the airwaves. Let's see how many deniers would be willing to sign on to that.
Mustang,
You have a bit of an idea there about scientific loosers forfeting their savings. But if I were to guess, I would say that those interested in keeping things the way they are would reimburse human caused global warmind denying scientists for at least trying. Also, it's unlikely that those who own broadcasting mediums would fire people for saying what those owners want said.
You know what one of the main problems is can be found throughout history to the present. Which is how much shit the well to do are willing to put the lower classes through. From what I have seen, that is a pretty fearsome ammount of shit. Though I don't watch them, those shows about doomsday preppers disgust me. How do they afford to build their doomsday shelters? By contributing to the things that are likely to bring doom about.
On one occasion, I did see something on one of those types of shows. They had a submarine in one doomsday shelter factorie that they were building for a group of rich clients. But if things get as bad as they could, something like that would only delay their end. Though apparently even that slim hope is better than doing something to keep such doom from happening. Because that would likely mean them losing their position in society. And being the self centered chimps that most people are, it would be better if the earth was destroyed rather than have that happen.
Actually, I was thinking that summary execution would be more appropriate under circumstances.
Let me explain. While greed doesn't'make people' do anything, I think that everyone understands that greed has been (and certainly STILL is) the reason people' say and do certain things in the furtherance of an agenda. Sometimes it's theirs. Sometimes it's someone else's agenda. People can and do get hurt. Sometimes it's just financially. Other times it could be more serious, like a health-related issue that might even lead to the deaths of people. [One issue that comes to mind is the tobacco industry selling a product that they know causes cancer even as they collectively deny that there's any definitive evidence to support that contention. But hey, business is business, right. What are a few hundred thousand deaths over the last few decades when there's money to be made and most people who succumb merely have a shortened life after a lifetime of smoking.]
However, all sarcasm aside, cigarette smoking, even with the dangers of second hand smoke, is only dangerous to people within proximity. Climate change is another matter all together. In my particular case, I've read seven books that were either all about climate change or were partly about it. I would classify 3 out of the 7 books as excellent. One is the book by James Hansen which concentrates on the science and figures related to forcings and feedbacks and how that translates into watts per square meters.
Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity
The second book was written by Naomi Oreskes and is more of a history of scientific naysayers.
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
The third book is more anecdotal in nature although there certainly is science peppered throughout.
Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change
They all paint a pretty grim picture even though each book focuses on a slightly different aspect of the subject.
But here's the thing. Even though I KNOW that there are people who believe that climate change is either not happening or it's not caused by humans, the scientists are virtually in complete agreement. Furthermore, they're alarmed which is out of the ordinary because scientists are usually dispassionate while it's laypeople who get all worked up about something.
But just like with tobacco, I ALSO believe that there are plenty of people connected to the climate change denying side of the debate who KNOW that it's actually happening and that humans are the cause of it, but they don't give a damn. After all, as the old saying goes, life's a ***** and then you die. I think many of them figure that it won't matter once they're gone.
Well, it's one thing to take a fatalistic attitude about yourself and even about your own family (like people who smoked cigarettes around their kids and others for years even after the cancer warnings were issued), but it's another thing to figuratively pile the rest of humanity into your rickety old bus with the bad breaks as you drive it over some winding mountain pass after a rainstorm.
So, what >I< think is that there should be a date by which a definitive report should be issued on climate change and its causes. Five years prior to that report being compiled and released, people connected to the fossil fuel industry and all their so-called experts and media boosters should be given a polygraph test to find out what they really believe. And IF the report comes back that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans, AND IF the polygraph test reveals that they REALLY believed that climate change was real even though they were claiming there was no definitive evidence to back up the theory, they should be taken out and executed.
But here's the point. The point is not to execute people. It's to get them to be honest and say what they really believe to be the case. My bet is that a lot of deniers would change their tune under those circumstances. It might just save us a lot of time...and more.
