Re: It is not profitable to think about global warming so we don't
Profitable for whom?
Scientists are finding it very profitable.
Alternative fuel providers find it profitable too. As are the tile-providers to that shopping centre. All those yummy subsidies.
Demand for oil is inelastic, so not much harm done to the oil providers, though they've always had a bit of an image issue. Nobody really likes heavy-industry dirt. With the bad PR from Japan, the main alternative to oil has been neutralised.
The politicians find it rather profitable, with the "we'll save you! (no really, the taxes are for the environment's sake)" message.
The only people it doesn't benefit are those inefficiently using energy, who will be castigated for it. People don't like being told they are doing something wrong.
In fact, there aren't that many reasons not to like AGW, without going anywhere near the science. That concerns me, because it means the science doesn't matter and wouldn't change what is going on.
The term "scientific consensus" disturbs me. The phrase calls on the reputation of the scientists rather than the science. It skims over the facts and says, you need to trust your social betters.
It appears to imply that "all scientists, whether or not they are involved in AGW research believe in AGW, so you had better shut up." It appears to be newly coined and new phrases like that I pop in the "Registered Trademark" bin until they have stood the test of time.
I'm happy to accept that AGW might be real, but the hard research appears to be rather thin. Its more of a collective feeling, a "consensus" rather than a well researched phenomenon. That's fine, just tell me that you don't have much data and the research is on-going. "The sky is falling, give us your billions," undermines your credibility.