Hey, Europe, about the whole climate change thing ... just calm down already:
Curbs needed to fight global warming could be less drastic than a 50-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 favored by the European Union, the United States' chief climate negotiator said on Monday.
This, of course, echoes the latest right-wing line on climate change, which is: it exists, but hey, it's not so bad, and we don't need to do anything drastic about it. Let's be "moderates," not "hysterics," where moderate = what corporatists are willing to concede at a given point in time.
Aside from the merits of the argument, what always amazes me is that the very same crowd that spent years denying that climate change existed, and then denying that human beings cause it, and then denying that it would be a bad thing ... these very same people bring every new argument to the table with a harumphing air of solemnity, because they are, by their own estimation, the Serious People.
But how stupid and mendacious do you have to be, for how long, to finally lose credibility? How many times do we have to hear these clowns out, and furrow our brows, and stroke our chins, only to conclude yet again, "nope, sorry, you're still a tool"? How long do proven, documented fabulists and dimwits get to define what's "reasonable"? Enough already.
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 7:01 am
29 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
trock Posted 7:17 am
29 Aug 2007
What's obvious to those who have studied it, is missed by those who haven't spent any time on the subject at all. What to do that would change it? Maybe nothing.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:46 am
29 Aug 2007
The Global Warming Propaganda Machine has been defeated!
The True and Real Scientists are finally speaking up.
We are like a bomber squadron of B-17's flying under Gregory Peck in "12 O'clock High".
The "Gerries" are the Anthrogenic Charlatans who have gripped America like the claws of the SS Eagle griping down in Nazi horror!
We will fight them in the streets and on the playing field of Eton!
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
MikeB Posted 12:50 am
30 Aug 2007
BTW - before you get carried away with the '12 O'clock High' image, I take it you have read 'The Fall of Fortress' http://www.amazon.com/Fall-Fortresses-Personal-Account-Am ... which paints a less rosy picture of the whole B17/B24 experience....
Permalink
carboncat Posted 10:19 pm
03 Sep 2007
the answer: until you convincingly win the debate, or are shown to be wrong. Despite your conviction that your position is the correct one (and maybe you are right), the debate isn't over by a long shot.
If the oceans rise by 20 feet, hurricanes increase in frequency and intensity, there are worldwide food shortages, etc etc, bingo, you win. In the meantime, keep preaching, but we Doubting Thomases will continue to doubt.
Permalink
Jones Posted 11:39 pm
03 Sep 2007
And what a silly thing to say: "if the oceans rise by 20 feet, hurricanes increase in frequency and intensity, there are worldwide food shortages, etc etc" then we won't have won, we'll have lost. Oh, the irony.
Permalink
carboncat Posted 12:01 am
04 Sep 2007
Convincing every "curmudgeon, contrarian and flat-earther" is the price you pay for playing the games called "science" and "open society."
Take Creationism. Now, there are many, many more respectable scientists who doubt global warming than doubt evolution (by several orders of magnitude).
Yet look at the care and detail that prominent evolutionists such as Dawkins and Dennett (and before them Gould) take in explaining why evolution is right and creationism is wrong. They treat their audience with respect, and they treat the issues seriously and with attention to detail.
That's the opposite of the approach I see in the climate debate, particularly online. For example, this post that we're discussing is nothing more than an emotive reaction to the fact that people disagree with the author. Furthermore, these people apparently have no credibility because they disagree.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:44 am
04 Sep 2007
These lunatics envision themselves becoming wealthy beneficiaries of corporate largesse. This delusional thinking keeps their prattling going..on and on.
Fiddle on while the earth burns, floods, and melts, oh fanatical limboobs. No way to change that. But we can stop them from directing mass media and government policy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
carboncat Posted 12:56 am
04 Sep 2007
face your own delusions (like your imaginary right-wing conspiracy of oil, coal, war-mongerers and capitalists all ganging up on honest, poor-but-hard-working scientists) before you take on the perceived delusions of others.
Permalink
Jones Posted 1:26 am
04 Sep 2007
Now, for your evolution analogy: Do you have any idea how the theory of evolution was received in Darwin's time, and a long time after? It's been one of the most contentious, and most emotional scientific issues of the last 150 years, and continues today. Thank God (no irony intended) that scientists saw it for what it was, and science progressed, depsite the enormous resistance among the populace, politicians, and the church.
As for respect, there are several authors who have explained Global Warming theory in deatil, with nuance and with respect. Try Tim Flannery or Chris Mooney, though I have only read excerpts.
It would seem that Global Warming theory meets the standards you set in your post.
Of course, there are differences between AGW and the theory of evolution, and any good analysis of this type would take that into account. AGW is still relatively new, and no-one important denies that there are areas of uncertainty and much more refining needs to be done. The "consensus" is on the fact that the main lines of the theory are agreed upon, and more than sufficiently certain represent a compelling case for action.
If you want an intelligent, balanced view of Global Warming, written by knowledgeable people, then why not ignore the noise, and try the various testimonials written by NOAA, NASA, NAAS, the Royal Society... There are dozens of these online as well as those of individual scientists, speaking for themselves...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:21 am
04 Sep 2007
Calling the nut wing as we see it. We won't "win them over". And with drudge still up on every other newsroom computer screen, they are still swaying the media.
The serious dimbulb limboobs are a very small fraction of the population. Ridicule will alienate the swing voters from this group.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
carboncat Posted 1:15 pm
04 Sep 2007
Therefore, I think you're in the wrong game. Forget science. Politics is more for you. (seriously)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 am
05 Sep 2007
Taking fans of drudge, limboob, and the like seriously and trying to debate with them plays into their craving for attention. They have lost already.
If you have some factual objection to GHG climate disaster take it to a climatologist. They have decided. you all are not the "deciders' on climate science.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
carboncat Posted 8:59 pm
06 Sep 2007
btw the hypothesis is not "the globe is warming", that's banal. The AGW hypothesis is that this will continue, will end in catastrophe for humans, and is preventable through C02 reduction. That's a hypothesis.
Oceans rising by thirty feet? hypothesis. malaria spreading across the developed world? hypothesis. hundreds of millions of deaths due to famines, climate refugees and water shortages? hypothesis.
The debate doesn't finish because one side declares themselves the winners.
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:50 pm
06 Sep 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:06 am
07 Sep 2007
Some scientists who are also dimbulb limboobs disbelieve GHG climate disaster. But they are not climate scientists. Deniers who are also scientists seem never to be climatologists.
I wonder why that is? Because the science is IN.
In fact many climate scientists agree that any climate scientists who still deny GHG disaster ought to have their credentials confiscated.
Name one climate scientist that is still actively denying human caused GHG climate disaster. We have had deniers that read try to find one actual climate scientist that agrees with "drug" limboob, but they weren't able to.
that old "it's just a theory/hypothesis" nonsense is lame. the theory of gravity is just a theory too, right? So deny it by jumping off a cliff. Please?
The rest of us would rather not dive off the GHG climate disaster "cliff" with you all.
Ridicule can be effective and funny.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
trock Posted 4:17 am
07 Sep 2007
We are running an experiment on our planet. From some of the evidence, this planet has been much warmer than it is today, at a temperature we wouldn't be to happy with. So lets just drink another beer and not do anything about it, because it's all a hypothesis.
Frankly, it's time people spoke up and let it be known that there are some things to not screw up because we can't unscrew it up.
I have thought that one good thing that happened was when one bad thing happened at the closing of world war II. The U.S. dropped 2 nuclear bombs on Japan to end World War II. Bad thing for the people there, but what's worse than a 100 000 people dying is 200 000 people dying. Did it save lives without an invasion, who knows? But what if the world hadn't seen the destruction of those nuclear bombs? Would we have been as fearful of nuclear destruction when we were in the cold war, it could could have been said "it's all just a hypothesis." But with those people dying and the destruction of nuclear bombs, the world knew what it was up against.
Let's not say about climate change someday, " well, we screwed up." We should be a little more humble with our technology. We should leave a much larger safety margin than not caring at all.
Permalink
carboncat Posted 9:52 am
07 Sep 2007
It's a political tactic you're using: pick the most objectionable person who holds your opponents' point of view, and use them as the representative of that point of view.
2) that old "it's just a theory/hypothesis" nonsense is lame. the theory of gravity is just a theory too, right? So deny it by jumping off a cliff. Please?
Oh. My. God. Well, one thing's clear, you're not a physicist. Newton's theory of gravity is not notable for predicting that heavy things fall, but for describing planetary orbits. People already knew that cliffs were dangerous before Isaac Newton came along.
3) Trock, "We should leave a much larger safety margin than not caring at all."
this is a very common argument about climate change: we should act, because the consequences are so severe if it turns out to be true.
This logic is identical to Pascal's wager. He said that you're better off believing in the Christian God, because if you're a Christian and you're wrong, you meet the same fate as everyone else (nothing is lost), but if you're an atheist and you're wrong, you burn in hell. Therefore, you're better off being a Christian.
Global warming is Pascal's wager all over again. however, if your primary concern is the truth, the wager is unimportant. Keep in mind, too, there is jeopardy on both sides.
If the imminent catastrophe hypothesis is true, then we have to basically dismantle modern industrialised economies. That's a pretty big price to pay for a hypothesis. For this reason it deserves more scrutiny than most other scientific claims. Yet people are saying "shut up! don't question it! the science is in!"
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:18 am
08 Sep 2007
Trolling? It appears so. Drool on.
One question. Are you a 9/11 hero guliani troll or a TV president fred thompson troll? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
carboncat Posted 10:34 am
08 Sep 2007
On the other hand, you make personal attacks, take threads on tangents, make no coherent points, say things just to be inflammatory etc... that's trolling.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:21 am
09 Sep 2007
When I disagree with something I use reason to challenge, then present alternative explanations or solutions.
You just claim scientists disagree on GHG climate disaster. You don't cite any of these scientists or what they have said.
In the post I linked you infer that science is wrong on GHG climate change because it is using hindsight. Sorry bunky, that's called data. It's what is used to support scientific theory. maybe you can tell us how to get our data from the future instead of looking back? Eureka!
Maybe you propose we instead look to the bible or limboob for science? After all they are infallable, right? They see the future everyday!No pesky theory supported by data involved with those sources, they speak the TRUTH! The eternal truth.
You sounded like a philosopher for a moment. Expounding on Pascal. You appeal to authority in your counter argument to GHG climate disaster theory. Unamed authority. "Scientists disagree". hehehey. Troll on oh mighty high sounding sophist.
It's still informal fallacy of the lowest kind, typical of the limboob, o'really sophistry of the sickly nut wing ilk.
Watch Colbert, he uses these tactics a lot better than limboob, o'really, fox noise, duuuhbya or you do. Maybe you'll learn something to help you in your trolling! Good luck with that.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
greenman3610 Posted 4:21 am
09 Sep 2007
Cuz there's warming on Mars? Guess you heard that on Paul Harvey, eh? Good to see you are doing the hard research.
Oh, right, the Sun's doing it. All you have to do is come up with some Harry Potter magic fairy dust mechanism to explain how, something no one else has been able to show or demonstrate.
Or maybe, its all a plot by a huge majority of all the world's scientific organizations to further Al Gore's political career.
You just know they're all in cahoots, don't you?
The good news is, you've lost. You are in the position of the
Japanese soldiers who were still fighting the war 20 years after it was over. You are welcome to come out of the jungle for a shave and a shower anytime.
The bad news is, you and your denialist ilk may have
held off reform long enough to screw us all.
Permalink
carboncat Posted 7:50 pm
09 Sep 2007
I've ignored the assertion that all climate scientists agree because it is simply wrong on face: c.f. Lindzen. I don't want to get dragged into a person-by-person slugmatch about who is worth listening to and who isn't.
2) Greenman give us your version of why there is no warming
I'll answer this in good faith, although I sense it isn't being asked in good faith (judging by your facetious attempts to suggest my "answers" on my behalf).
So here it is in a nutshell. First, I'm not asserting that there is no warming. Temperatures seem to have gone up. However, what I am skeptical of is the preventable-man-made-disaster scenario. In short, I have not seen conclusive scientific evidence for this. I'll do a whistlestop tour of some of the evidence, (and ignore your rolling eyes).
C02 driving warming: weak evidence. the correlation is quite weak across the 20th century, the most startling example being the post world war ii dip in temperatures while CO2 production increased.
Sure, I know there are explanations. however, the fact remains that those explanations assume the thing they are setting out to prove. It is simply not conclusive that CO2 is the main driver of Earth's temperature.
warming is "bad": weak evidence. will rainfall increase? will crops boom? will the oceans rise by (pick an incredible number)? unknown. No conclusive evidence that there will be drastic ocean rises, desertification, spread of malaria, etc. Case not closed.
warming will increase linearly given current situation: unknown. people are buying property using the same fallacious reasoning (linear extrapolation).
unpredictable events such as volcanos, pollutants, etc. can cause cooling. changes in the atmospheric composition with chemicals that are not currently important can cause cooling. (devils advocate position: polluting the atmosphere is the simplest way to cool the planet! joking)
reversal of previous evidence: ice core data, & hockey stick, for example, are no longer considered strong evidence for the case. now, people claim, they were never important. US data has been revised, and yes, I know it makes no difference to the global trends, but those US "hottest summer on record again" reports have been used to win the media war.
In short, I don't think the case has been made. Therefore, I'm skeptical until I see the killer evidence that everyone claims is there but I've never been shown. You all must have seen some amazing proof that I don't know about.
I'm prepared to be convinced. Like everyone, I'm resistant because admitting you're wrong is hard, and is embarrassing. But so far, all I see is media spin.
Permalink
trock Posted 11:36 pm
09 Sep 2007
Dismantle modern industrialised economies. That is a reach isn't it? the US is 25 percent of global humanmade carbon dioxide, 40 percent of that is electricity. That works out to US electricity to be 10 of world carbon dioxide release. What if we replaced all the coal, oil and natural gas plants with Nuclear which would solve 10 percent of the problem. Did we just dimantle industry?
I think people lack paradigm thinking to solve the problem. We can solve many of our problems symbiotically, where we are better off economically by using less fossil fuel with energy efficiency and effectivity.
I think most of that can be done with tax policy. We tax 4 trillion dollars at all levels of government in a 13 trillion dollar economy.
We didn't arrive at the way we tax because we thought about what the future would look like and then philosophically argue out the points. Most of it was based on political power and what could be gotten away with and people getting used to the tax at that level.
Let's eliminate taxes on farmland and tax the fossil fuel used in farming. That land is going to be here 50, 100, 500, a million years. The fossil fuel is going to be here just a few years. we should be taxing fossil fuel so we use it more efficiently and allow it to be used longer for future generations. That's just one example of many that could be made. We are taxing the wrong things.
Let's eliminate all property taxes for every home for the first $100 000 in value and every business $1000 for every employee and make it up with a carbon tax. Let's elimanate the state sales taxes and make it up with a carbon sales
tax. Let's eliminate the first $500 the employee and the first 500 dollars the employer pays and make that up with a carbon tax.
None of this will deindustrialise the economy. It will just change it for the better.
Permalink
carboncat Posted 7:17 am
10 Sep 2007
Dismantle modern industrialised economies. That is a reach isn't it? Industrialised economies are built on fossil fuels. It's not clear that a 'transition' will be as painless as you think.
Permalink
trock Posted 12:25 pm
10 Sep 2007
I'd say first though that it is the accumulation of what I have read. but the most convincing.
Climate science has found that the earth has had temperatures much greater and much less than recent history. Much much hotter and much much colder. There is a dance with climate, carbon dioxide and lots of elements in the climate dance.
From book "Heat", Monbiot, writes the 4 ideas.
Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?
Does atmosphere carbon dioxide raise the average global temperature?
Will this influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?
If you are able to answer 'no' to any one of them, you should put yourself forward for the Nobel Prize. You will have turned science on it's head.
(end of quote)
Add in all the other things like fossil fuel depleation, where we may run out of oil and gas energy and have our economic system wrapped around energy inefficient fossil fuel energy systems with long times to transfer to non carbon systems.
That we import 250 billion dollars a year in oil. we would be better off economically by importing less of it by using less of it. The best way to use less is to tax trade it with other things we tax like property. I definetly think that we would be better off using less fossil fuel.
Reducing our use of fossil fuel does not have to be a bad thing generally. It would be a bad thing for specific companies, sure, but we should make our economy to "promote the general welfare," as the Declaration of Independence says.
Not an answer of "impending catastrophe," but that if we did the things that reduced fossil fuel use we may have a better economy, more secure in our present economy and for the future.
Do I think the transition will be painless? No. That's why we should start now. The sooner we start, the more painless it will be. If we don't do anything at all, oil and natural gas depleation may catch up to us.
So my question to you is why do you think that reducing carbon emissions would "dismantle modern industralized economies" and the only question about global warming is "impending catastrophe."
Permalink
carboncat Posted 3:31 pm
10 Sep 2007
4 because all animals produce carbon dioxide, and always have- we're just doing it in a different way.
re "climate catastrophe", I think the biggest issue surrounding climate science is the massive misinformation campaign evidenced in the work of Al Gore and others. Scientists have been too slow to call bs on flagrant exaggeration, oversimplification, and frankly, fearmongering.
Talk to non-scientists about the climate. Mostly they have a vague idea that "global warming will get us all in 20 years" (I heard that exact sentence last week).
Crichton was right: science should be banishing demons, not creating them, yet here we are.
Therefore, when I see the anti-skeptic brigade on one hand tacitly supporting the most extreme, outrageous, and unsubstantiated claims and on the other hand, weazeling out of making such claims themselves ("catastrophe? who said anything about a catastrophe?")
I'll stop here, without addressing the economic question. another time.
Permalink
trock Posted 1:22 am
12 Sep 2007
Permalink