There is no such an histeria, actually the majority of people do not care, just like you seem to don't. So you're in the majourity, no need to complain.
I'm not sure if "don't care" is a proper description, although it may sound that way. It's more that I'm skeptical that anything we propose will actually do anything approaching significant. Most scientists admit as much.
I am no specialist, but the construction of a thermomether is rather simple, and allows easy records at least as accurate than half a °C. Todays records are certainly more accurate than those of the late 1800s, as those were made with simpler technology, I belive today's electronic thermometers have an accuracy close to 0.1°C, and are more accurate than the traditional ones using mercury.
I do not see any reason to question their accuracy. Sorry but if you're going to deny the global warming you'll have to look somewhere else than the thermomether's accuracy.
Ah, sorry, I didn't make myself entirely clear on that statement. I don't question the accuracy of the thermometers themselves. It's more the placement of the thermometers. There are quite a few instances of weather stations that are improperly installed, where they are near cooling/heating systems that affect readings, or are not isolated properly from heat island effects in cities. These affect the readings considerably, and have to be accounted for.
No. I am myself not knowledgeable about that, however the serious scientific communality is almost unanimous about that. Anyone who appear to be dissident is probably sold to a lobby of petroleum, automobile, or whathever companies and is not serious about his research.
It doesn't matter what you would like to be true or false. Maybe the idea to fight against emissions is strongly against our liberal values, and that as such we are inclined to say global warming either doesn't happen/is a conspirational or that is is natural, just because we would like that to be true, because it would be compatible with our values.
Unfortunately, is is not about what we would like to be true, but about the raw, crude truth that comes from independent scientific research. Global warming is without an ounce of doubt caused by human emissions due to industrializations, and the warming is several orders of magnitudes faster than the natural global warmings and coolings that happened in the past.
They are indeed nearly unanimous, but the scientific community has been nearly unanimous many times in the past and been wrong. Simple consensus is not convincing enough to me.
I'm also quite intrigued that you admit that scientists can be effectively bought by special interests. This is what I contend happens with government grants. As I mentioned earlier, many calls for proposals mandate the inclusion of a climate change angle to the research. Beyond that, if there is no problem to be solved, then the grant money stops flowing. As sad as it is, scientists are not immune from political and economic pressure.
To be clear, I don't deny climate change. If there truly is a warming trend (which has been on "pause" for 18 years, although again, drawing conclusions from very limited data), it's not something I would deny. I question the root cause of the climate change. The data tying climate change to human behavior is tenuous at best. Much of the research concentrates on CO2 as a greenhouse gas causing said warming. However, CO2 has very little "greenhouse" capability, and furthermore is a lagging indicator of temperature, not leading. CO2 levels increase as temperature increases, and not vice versa.
This is controversial, but I disagree. It is true we made better efforts for energy efficiency, but similarly, those efforts are destroyed by the continuing exponential growth of energy spending. The amount of both car and plane travel is literally exponentially exploding in "the west", even though this is the most major source of emissions.
Exemple : Companies are prompt to sell new fidges which are 10% more efficient in energy, however they make this new fridge in China (instead of making it in the country where it will be sold), and make it travel all aroround the world at least once. Then they deigns the fridge to have a life span of 5-10 years, instead of 50 years like the old fridges were. They sell it for much less expensive than they used to do, in order to sell more fridges. They encourage people to switch to a new fridge and throw away an old, fully functional fridge. They then use that money to hire mangers and whatever which will have international carreers and will constantly travel between USA, Europe and China by plane.
Result : The fridge itself is more efficient energetically, but overall the world's energy consumption is several orders of magnitude higher than it was before. If you kept your old, inefficient fridge, it would cost you more (as you spend paying electricity bill) but it would be the best for the environment: No travel plane of fridge part nor company managers, instead the company remains small and cannot pollute. Very ironical.
This is exactly why free market is fundamentally incompatible with ecology: Any ecological effort should minimize energy spending, no matter where or by who. Free market on the other hand should maximize profit and economical exchanges, which goes to pair with energy spending.
This is exactly what I'm criticising when I mention "pseudo-ecological solution that actually don't fix anything".
This kind of thing happen to everywhere, not only to the fridge industry. I name it, cars, phones, wifi-routers, etc, etc... it's exactly how I describe it above.Yes, but China and India (among other Asian countries) are major polluters because they mass-produce low quality and short-lifespan products exported to 1st world countries. It's basically importing products and exporting pollution, instead of fixing the real problem.
Interestingly enough, the reason fridges don't last as long is mostly tied to the refrigerant used. That change was made for environmental reasons. Although yes, there are manufacturing differences as well. I do question the numbers that say it makes an orders-of-magnitude difference, however, in terms of emissions. I'd be very interested in that data.
I personally would argue that the proper response as far as economics and the environment is a balance. Absolute minimization of emissions brings significant costs with it. You run into diminishing returns. You can implement policies that eliminate the majority of emissions for a reasonable cost-to-benefit ratio, but achieving that last "one percent" requires measures that are astoundingly cost-prohibitive with little-to-no appreciable gain. If we're going to assume that anthropogenic climate change is the problem, then we need to be smart in how we fight it. I also don't believe such a notion is antithetical to free-market economics, either. Unless we're talking about a free market that is completely devoid of oversight and becomes an anarchic free-for-all, which is certainly not what we have now.
HAHAHA. Do you really expect India or China to become 1st world countries anytime soon. What foolish propaganda. Because a significant minority of those countries population managed to somehow become richer and live close to our standard doesn't mean the whole country is.
No, I don't, and I didn't intend to imply as such. My point is that, until they do
reach first-world levels or near to it, they will be resistant if not outright hostile to expensive environmental measures. There is a reason they would not agree to any binding measures as far as climate change goes. The recent agreement is effectively worthless, despite being hailed as a historic achievement. I think people on both sides of this debate can likely admit that much.
I find your tone slightly interesting, but then again, I could just be doing a poor job describing my own point of view, so I'll let it slide.