Bloomberg: global warming as big a threat as terrorism.
Bloomberg: global warming as big a threat as terrorism.
In a speech yesterday to the United Nations, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg emphasized the threat of global warming and called on America to enact a tax on carbon emissions:
“Terrorists kill people. Weapons of mass destruction have the potential to kill an enormous amount of people,” Mr. Bloomberg told reporters after addressing the U.N. General Assembly, but “global warming in the long term has the potential to kill everybody.” [...]
If weapons of mass destruction “get out of the hands of the countries that have them and get into the hands of terrorists, the potential is just mind-boggling,” he added. And while global warming “is a much longer-term thing,” he said, it “has all of the same potentials of destroying the planet that we live on. No scientist knows for sure what’s going to happen, but you don’t want to wait to find out.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Global climate change is a BIGGER threat than terrorism. We need to get real – before it’s too late.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:45 pmI find it funny that the GOP refused to acknowledge global warming. I bet in hindsight has been applied to super secret GOP meetings in which they said:
“If only we had embraced this concept earlier. If I had known that it would require 12 times the current human footprint on the earth to bring China into the 1st world, I could have used the environment as justification for a century of oppressing third world nations.”
Sad, really… but I bet you anything they are kicking themselves.
RantingRaver.com
February 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pmIn a forest of green trees, the global warming deniers are the ones who hunt for and find the sole yellow tree and, from that, make the claim that the forest is yellow.
I’m waiting for the first yellow troll to drop his/her leaves on this thread….
February 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pmBut if we take on Global Warming, it will deplete our defense funds and we can’t invade Iran. Which if McCain does somehow get into office will be the next agenda.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:50 pmHow anyone can dispute Global Warming with the horrific floods, and tornadoes, snow in China first in 50 years. My gosh, what more does it take?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:52 pmGlobal climate change is a BIGGER threat than terrorism. We need to get real – before it’s too late.
Comment by Leftside Annie — February 12, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Yes, but until we can find a way to work testosterone into the fight against it, the wingnuts will never get on board.
Some people only want to take on fights where they can blow things up.
And that’s a pity, because saving a planet can be quite heroic.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pmNot just What More Does It Take but what if we finally figure out a way to help reverse it…but it’s too late? What if the ice shelfs (shelve?) are beyond redemption? What if….?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:54 pmI don’t know if you can say that climate change is a “BIGGER threat than terrorism.” Terrorism has the potential to destroy the world much faster than global warming eventually certainly will.
If terrorists managed to create a “mutually assured destruction” scenario or managed to fake a ex-Soviet missile launch the world would end in a matter of hours. This is a real possibility, do some reading on how prone we really are to total nuclear annihilation — most likely by accident.
If terrorists managed to acquire a bio-engineered virus — say Small Pox (because there already exists a 99.9% lethal-to-humans bio-engineered Small Pox virus), that could wipe out the human race in a matter of months.
The two above scenarios are just two things that I can actually think of. The thing that actually kills us, we likely won’t see coming. Check out The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, it’s the best book i’ve ever read about large random events.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pmThe neanderturds will come back with, “But just think of the economy.”
If everyone’s and everything is dead there is no economy.
Buck Fush
February 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pmSomeone in the auto industry said, when the oil, auto companies can control hybrids, wind turbines, solar plans then Global Warming will be real to the masses. And fuel efficient autos have been in the plans for years but powers that be didn’t want them.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pmOkay – I am not a yellow leaf dropping denier.
I am as pro-alternative energy, anti-fossil fuel as the next guy.
BUT, Bloomberg’s quote “No scientist knows for sure what’s going to happen, but you don’t want to wait to find out.â€
made me think of this article I read the other day. Interesting stuff, but maybe all the scientists involved are “in on it.”
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
Please don’t hurt me.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:58 pmWhat if, what if, what if the sky is falling?
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Well, by golly, we should just say f()ck it, then, right? What if the sky IS falling, you f()cking moron. Scientific consensus isn’t sufficient for you. Of course, you people who think the earth is 6000 years old, believe Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread, et al, ad naseum know everything about everything (without knowing anything about anything).
Crawl back under your rock.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pmThe righties are going to attempt to bury this guy now.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:59 pmFloods and Tornados are not examples of global warming, there is no proof that they are, so using them as arguments only fuel for the GOP to dispute. What we can look at is the behavior of the icecaps, because global temperature change will affect those regions first. We need to make sure we use exclusively quantifiable data in order to make a convincing argument.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:00 pmThe thing I find the most hilarious:
The right-wingers are gullible enough to believe in god, but they refuse to “believe in” global warming? WTF?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pmRantingRaver.com
Keltoi, I heard scientists say that if the sun cools the planet, it would be a godsend…it might stave off what is looking more and more inevitable.
That might be just what we need!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pmGood Golly is it your premise that we should wait until cities are flooded and millions die before we try to turn the tide? Do you wait until your car is out of gas to find a gas station?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:02 pmI am speaking of the severe unusual weather the last few years have had, something is going on, and it is better to be looking for answers rather than pretending change is not happening.
And it is happening all around the world not just here.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pmWhy can’t the trolls learn how to spell C O N S E N S U S???
February 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pmWell good golly – thankfully you are in the minority of those with that view point.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pmTexaslady, you assume there is a thought process behind it. Don’t you know it’s much better to wait until there is nothing anyone can do? Why bother. He!!, we’ll be dead anyway…screw our kids!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pmI understand your point. It’s not a very convincing way to make a case, is it?
When I come up against a global warming denier, I ask him this:
If I’m right and global warming IS occuring, let’s combat it. What happens? We create green jobs, we remove our dependence on foreign oil, we create manufacturing jobs in alternative energy, we become the global leader in green technology that reinforces our economy, we make the environment better, and give our children a better world than we have today. If global warming ISN’T occuring, and we still do all that – where’s the drawback?
If you’re right and global warming ISN’T occuring, let’s do nothing. What happens? Same old, same old. Stagnating economy relying on foreign oil, jobs leaving the country, America becomes just like everyone else, the world gets dirtier. If global warming IS occuring, and we do nothing? We see civilization collapse and billions of lives lost.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pmA link from the WSJ! LMAO!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pmMs Joanne – some people just like to take the opposite stance even if they were given ice cream. Unhappy, tall children
February 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pmFear, climate change and the existence of WMDs is the most serious threat to civilization IMO.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:09 pmFloods and Tornados are not examples of global warming, there is no proof that they are
Comment by rantingraver — February 12, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
No, but the increase in frequency, intensity, and the weird time-of-year occurances of them are examples of global warming.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pmComment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
EXACTLY! And good for you!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pmgood_golly -
What’s the percentage of the scientific community that believe global warming is occuring and humans are responsible vs. the percentage of the scientifc community that thinks it’s bogus?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm“James Lewis is the nom de plume of an academic scientist. ”
Why won’t he publish under his real name?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pmVery true, but only if you don’t include American terrorism since 2000 in the sense of…I don’t know… invading countries on false grounds while avoiding others, legalizing torture, generally scaring the public into confusion, avoiding ANY progress on combatting climate change and the useless spilling of natural resources to fund a moronic Anglosaxist dream and/or lifestyle (Are we that desperate to keep Coca-Cola?! Really?!!). If you DO count American terrorism, both threats seem evenly important to me. Save a tree, shoot Bush in the face, Cheney-style!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pmWhat is so wrong with finding low carbon means to bring new productivity into our world? We are told over and over our oil reserves will run out. So, we need to be looking for another solution. We do need forests, like it or not. And what happens in China’s air will affect everyone. Do you want to wear masks as they have to in China on some days?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pmMr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Try reading what he has to say about this “the debate is over†crap.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
James Hansen is Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s Earth Institute. Try reading what he has to say about this “nothing to worry about” crap:
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html
You want to keep trading experts, Gigi?
Because you’ve only got about a dozen left. We’ve got thousands.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pmTrollspeak
Cunsencus, uh cornchensuch, uh, kuncencus, duh, just can’t figure this out.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pmSo I’ll find a couple of outliers and call it a day.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Try reading what he has to say about this “the debate is over†crap.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
So did you read any of the refutations of Lindzen? Or is that simply beyond you?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pmDo you want to wear masks as they have to in China on some days?
Comment by texaslady — February 12, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
The response by both Democrats and Republicans to your question would be, “Of course not.”
The difference is in the followup statement.
Democrats: “But I don’t want my children or anyone else to have to, either.”
Republicans: “But since I won’t have to in my lifetime, who cares if someone else does?”
February 12th, 2008 at 1:17 pmLindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled “Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,” was underwritten by OPEC. Gelbspan, R. , Harper’s Magazine, December 1995
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmGummitch, you can’t refute what you don’t want to hear. No matter who says what, you won’t believe it. It’s the path of less resistance. Why bother and who cares? Typical troll thought process.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmMr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Try reading what he has to say about this “the debate is over†crap.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Citing an OP ED piece from two years ago in the WSJ, how lame can you get.
“Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research”
And this guy is not a climatologist by a geologist, do you even know the difference. He studies what happened in the PAST before humans existed.
How many irrelevant links are you going to put up?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmgood_golly you’re making a fool out of yourself. TGGWS is packed with lies and strawmen
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmHola, ralph!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:18 pmI get the feeling that even if every single scientist in the world admitted global warming was occuring, and a clear danger, the trolls would come up with some other dodge…
February 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pmRE: The Great Global Warming Swindle:
“Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film’s contributors). The film’s critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
February 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pmI think its hilarious golly_goofy posts OPINION pages as its scientific proof.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm“sponsored by the Heartland Institute” LOL
February 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pmCooler Heads video with TWO Glenn Beck clips. Could this get any better? ROTFLMFAO! Toooooo funny!
As Bugs Bunny says…what a maroon, an ultra maroon!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pmThe 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is sponsored by The Heartland Institute which has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pmComment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Sponsored by THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE. A right wing think tank funded primarily by Exxon, you tool.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pmYou like links, Gigi? We got links:
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Global warming ‘past the point of no return’
Stark warning over climate change
Here’s some really interesting reading for Gigi:
The Global Climate Change Consensus: My Experiment
Of course, Gigi, knows all the superstars of the denial community, because there are so few. Whenever one pops up to claim everyone else is wrong, the denial community flocks around him and makes him a celebrity and links to all his articles.
Among those who are convinced that climate change is occurring and we are largely responsible, few celebrities, because no one stands out when they’re all saying the same thing. Poor Gigi and her other denier friends take this to mean that they are not out there. Silly Gigi.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pmReally goofy, don’t you have any shame?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pmgg is a reality denier, typical amont the rightards. it goes along with her constant lies. liar, denier.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pmA list of the 619 climate scientists who authored the IPCC AR4 2007 WG1 report:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/01/list-for-morano-like-john-hersey-eli.html
February 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pmhttp://epw.senate.gov/ public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
400 republican whackjobs, against 50,000 real scientists. good one, liar.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pmLindzen is a crackpot. He has written about a global cabal of scientists out to get him. It is sheer lunacy.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pmDavid Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=291604
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
perhaps some people are against mass extinction. they wouldn’t be republican fascists, though.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:29 pmThere really is no point in “debating” GG. He has already discredited himself on this subject many times.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pmGG- You don’t want to believe in Global Warming, great, just get out of the way for people looking for answers. And of course your ilk will reap the reward for those saving your future.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pmFloods and Tornados are not examples of global warming,
Comment by rantingraver — February 12, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
This statement is incorrect. The science predicts fewer, larger precipitation events, with an overall increase in precipitation. The mechanism is simple: warmer water evaporates more quickly, and warmer air holds more water vapor.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pmFolks –
We’re not getting through. Link after link of good_golly’s have been refuted, pointed out as non-factual, or revealed to have been sponsored by people with monetary interest in convincing people global warming isn’t real.
Notice he does not respond to our ‘gotchas.’ He just keeps throwing darts, hoping one hits even though there is no “Global Warming Isn’t Happening” dartboard to hit.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:32 pmHundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus†that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
What exactly will these hundreds of economists and public policy experts contribute to the discussion of the “scientific community”?
Or are they just there to applaud when a real scientist says what their corporate patrons want to hear?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pmHow did environmentalism become this totalitarian?
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
It’s probably in response to your side advocating waterboarding, previously known as a form of torture, to keep us “safe”.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pmYou guys opened up that anything goes can of worms I guess.
A carbon tax, without corresponding policy to derive renewable energy from the environment, would only hurt and already sputtering economy – that is BAD policy.
Forget any thought of taxing, and just give tax breaks to any institution with the money to pay for the construction of solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power plants – that will get you to your goal faster than anything else.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pmtexaslady, NO $HIT! They will claim they were the leaders in finding the resolution! It was all them! We owe life as we know it to them. How honored we should be that they graciously saved our collective a$$es.
GAG
$hit, I just puked in my mouth. BRB
February 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pmRHF wants all scientists who reject “the debate is over†mantra
There aren’t any, at least not any who haven’t been thoroughly discredited by their direct and substantial financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, or by their lack of expertise in climate, or by their crackpot theories about a worldwide cabal of thousands of scientists conspiring to suppress the truth, or all of the above.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pmDear good_golly:
If we (the progressives here) are right and global warming IS occuring, let’s say we combat it. What happens? We create green jobs, we remove our dependence on foreign oil, we create manufacturing jobs in alternative energy, we become the global leader in green technology that reinforces our economy, we make the environment better, and give our children a better world than we have today. If global warming ISN’T occuring, and we still do all that – where’s the drawback?
If you’re right and global warming ISN’T occuring, you want to do nothing. What happens? Same old, same old. Stagnating economy relying on foreign oil, jobs leaving the country, America becomes just like everyone else, the world gets dirtier. If global warming IS occuring, and we follow your advice and do nothing? We see civilization collapse and billions of lives lost.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm^^ Great work pointing out US terrorism. I find it funny that we can’t see our own malicious actions the same way we see the actions of others against us.
It’s sad when you think about it… the founding fathers were “terrorists” to England, the mightiest empire of the time. Now history repeats itself, but since we are the mighty empire now we cannot see the truth.
Such a burden being a citizen of the empire is…
February 12th, 2008 at 1:36 pmRHF wants all scientists who reject “the debate is over†mantra about Global Warming to be thrown in jail, and yet he calls himself “progressive.â€
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Gigi thinks that the vast majority of climate scientists are foolish and that a few extraction-industry-funded celebrities have cornered the market on truth, and yet she thinks of herself as “smart”.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pmYou want links? I got links too, good_golly. As you can see, the 5,000 year “debate” over the spherical earth and the Copernican model of the solar system is NOT over.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=1324.0
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/docs/better_and_flatter_earths.pdf
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
Disprove THAT!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pm…bob and weave, bob and weave, rope-a-dope, bob and weave, bob and weave…just tryin’ to survive one more round of GW denyin’
February 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pmbobcat_grad: Great post. The problem is that the politicians we’ve elected to office depend on huge companies who have an interest in global warming being a myth. The politicians can’t see the benefit of NEW green companies coming up and replacing the dinosaurs because all they see are their campaign contributions and their personal agenda.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:38 pmWhat’s up with Jason? Making a comment on-topic?
You feeling all right, Jason?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:38 pmCalifornia has used wind for an energy source for years, Fort Worth Texas is putting up miles of wind turbins. And of course there those who hate them, because they are ugly.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pmOur infrastructure is weakening, why not replace, rebuild with cleaner fuel ? Why is there so much anger toward a cleaner world?
Disprove THAT!
Comment by toasterhead — February 12, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Nice one, TH.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pmrantgraver 1:38 – you have hit the nail on the head, the politicians except for one or two can’t think beyond their next contribution. Time to clean those fossils out of Washington.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pmWe see civilization collapse and billions of lives lost.
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Translation: The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
How can we hope to defeat a mastur-debater of this monumental skill and intellect?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pmGG either you are helping to solve the problem or you are part of the problem. And if you don’t see a problem, go to the next issue. Whats the big deal ? What effects you if WE want to clean up our world?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pmHundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around the world will gather on March 2-4, 2008, at the Marriott New York Marquis Hotel on Manhattan’s Time Square, to call attention to widespread dissent in the scientific community to the alleged “consensus†that the modern warming is primarily man-made and is a crisis.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Widespread dissent? Ha! Not a scientific conference as the rest of the world knows it.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pmHere are a couple of links, and one refutes “The Great Global Warming Swindle” thoroughly:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/05/wolcott200705
http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html
I have gotten some Libertarians to admit that Global Warming is real after 10 years of denying it, compliments of Exxon-Mobil. Now the argument has shifted into:
1 – The sun is causing Global Warming
2 – Humans have nothing to do with Global Warming
3 – I will not pay Al Gore’s Carbon Tax
4 – I will not drive one of those sissy Tesla Motors Electric Cars that have a top speed of 140 and go from Zero to Sixty in 4 seconds.
On the first link, it demonstrates that Ripe Limburger was the first to push the denying into the mainstream. Right there, that should be enough for any logical, sensible person.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pmBut do it because you want a clean world, not because “the debate is over†(not) about so-called global warming. You don’t really need for the sky to be falling to act, do you?
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
The debate is over about global climate change. The fact that idiots like yourself cannot comprehend this is testament to the falings of our educational system.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pmBy the way, as long as that nutcase Richard Lindzen has come up, I should clarify something: he does not deny global warming. Lindzen acknowledges that CO2 is causing a large forcing in the atmosphere. His argument is that a “cloud iris effect” will mitigate the impact of this forcing. The scientific community has consistently rejected Lindzen’s claim that this effect will have a significant impact on warming. So anyone who cites Lindzen as evidence that global warming isn’t a problem is gambling that Lindzen is right and thousands of his colleagues are wrong about the magnitude (or even existence) of this effect. It is really grasping at straws.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pmHow can we hope to defeat a mastur-debater of this monumental skill and intellect?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 12, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
Why bother? He out dumbs himself over and over and over and over again. It’s rather hysterical (in a laughing at the poor kid on the short bus kind of way…shouldn’t do it but, did he REALLY say that?? way).
Laughs aplenty!
February 12th, 2008 at 1:50 pmGG – as long as the debate doesn’t interfere with cleaning up. I am all for debate, many times good points come from both sides. And if you remember I said, lets not run out of gas and then find a gas station, lets think ahead.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:51 pm96. You can’t ralph. You can’t.
Comment by good_golly — February 12, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
You’re right, Gigi, I admit we can’t beat you. It’s an unfair fight. You have ridicule, casual dismissal, a few well-worn bookmarks and a really, really powerful sense of self-imposed deafness at your disposal. All we got is facts, compassion and rational argument.
It’s not even a contest.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:51 pm1 – The sun is causing Global Warming
This argument was toast 10 years ago. It is trivial to measure changes in solar output, and the size of this effect is way too small to explain the observations. This is not an area of any controversy whatsoever in the scientific community. Not even Lindzen will touch this argument.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:53 pmAnyone who reads Lindzen’s rubbish will quickly realize that he is largely pushing a philosophical, not scientific, argument. The same is true of John Christie. The first moment that Christie publicly acknowledged his conversion from denier to believer, he started spouting policy positions on what to do about it (which of course was “don’t overreact, we will adapt”, the usual argument given by free market ideologues).
February 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pmRichard Lindzen should realize that Global Warming is increasing CO2 levels, which in turn are increasing cloud cover, and increasing temperatures. This theory assumes that blocking the sun will cool the planet.
Then there is the “Sky Shield” theory of none other than Edward Teller, Father of the H Bomb
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3522851.html
The government and 90% of the scientists know that it is a problem, but Exxon-Mobil, The Deniers, The Liberal Haters, and climate modifiers are the ones that are impeding a solution.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:02 pmgood_golly –
You didn’t answer my question. You chose to be snarky and psuedo-clever, instead, essentially dodging a question it’s obvious you can’t answer. I’ll repeat part of it for you to answer:
February 12th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
1 – The sun is causing Global Warming
This argument was toast 10 years ago. It is trivial to measure changes in solar output, and the size of this effect is way too small to explain the observations. This is not an area of any controversy whatsoever in the scientific community. Not even Lindzen will touch this argument.
Comment by VerbalKint — February 12, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Yes, but the “Skeptics” keep pulling that out of their collective hats. Even the Mars is warming argument they keep trying.
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=470726&in_page_id=1965
February 12th, 2008 at 2:06 pmbobcat_grad, I admire your persistence.
And perhaps gentle Gigi should be given a little more opportunity to address the matter soberly and intelligently.
Sadly, I don’t think she’s got what it takes.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pmI like an answer I saw on a video clip a while back for global warming deniers.
Basically, take a grid that looks like this:
…………………………Global Warming Myth…………Global Warming Real
Do Something……………Result 1a……………………..Result 1b……………
Do Nothing………………..Result 2a…………………….Result 2b……………
Result 1a: By doing something even though we were wrong about Global Warming, we have the following effects. We’re not breathing in toxic waste from combustion exhaust. We’re not buying oil from nations who dislike our way of life. We’re not financing fundamentalist Muslims. We’re taking care of God’s Earth. And we created new jobs out of nothingness.
Result 1B: Everything from Result 1A, plus we’re not baking in our industries fumes.
Result 2A: The Same-Old-Same-Old. The antithesis of 1A. We’re making the guys who want to see us dead rich. While we might not be boiling, we’ll still be choking in the fumes of our industries and automobiles.
Result 2B: The best scenario? A civilization altering event where we must adapt to our planet’s changing environment. Discomfort to the extremes. The shrinking of natural beauty as deserts expand. Uncertainty about the end results of climate change — possible abandonment of cities and mass migrations. Even war. The worst Scenario? Turn your eyes sunward to our sister planet, Venus…
I’m sorry but I don’t buy the global warming deniers load of bull that there’s no benefit to addressing global warming as we understand it.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pmIf global warming ISN’T occuring, and we still do all that – where’s the drawback?
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Here’s the drawback in their Linear Minds:
Unions=Communist=Socialism=Hippies=Environmentalist=Vegetarian
=Feminist=Gay=Democrat=Liberal=Progressive=Unclean=UnAmerican
You get the point!
February 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pmDamned all of those thousands of scientists who disagree with you. They should all just crawl under a rock and their papers should be burned.
Comment by good_golly
GiGi is too stupid to realize that every one of those “thousands” of scientists who disagree are paid by the fossil fuel industry.
GiGi is also too stupid to realize that it would be impossible for the thousands of tons of pollutants we are pumping into our environment daily could possibly NOT have a detrimental affect on our climate.
Perhaps GiGi would be willing to have us pump these pollutants into it’s house.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pmI’m totally convinced evil witches in Surinam are causing global warming, and boy, if we find them, are they in trouble.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pmFine, the sky isn’t falling, everything will be alright. Here’s a lollipop, go have a seat over there in the corner. Close your eyes and breathe deeply. Just keep telling yourself, ‘Everything is okay’. And it will be okay, I promise. Just keep your eyes closed and hum a little song. Everything will be just fine.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pmO god.. refresh after reading all 99 comments would be a good idea. Post 118 was directed at 99. LOL
February 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pmAnyone ever pause to consider what Righty America would be like – with no taxes collected on anything, ever?
Righty always wants to declare a “free-for-all” of economics, just up to the point where it affects them, then they call the whole thing off and want rules (rules that also don’t affect them).
I’m giving more credence to those scientific studies that demonstrate how righties have simplified brains, brains that can’t work on abstract ideas or non-linear causality. It just has to be some kind of retardation, because there is no thread of rational thinking to be found in their honkings.
I can’t see what incentive there is in giving companies that already pay only .0001% of their revenues in taxes a “tax break” – kind of like offering a crackhead a cup of coffee as a pick-me-up – not likely to persuade the crackhead to change his ways in any serious manner.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pmPlease folks, don’t talk to GiGi. If you must address the ridiculous ramblings that come out of it’s mouth, talk about it, not to it.
What I say when someone goes off about “global warming isn’t real” is, “Are you willing to bet the lives of your children and grandchildren that you are right? Because if you are wrong, you are signing their death sentences. And if you are right, and we have done the things we need to do to stop polluting our environment, there is no downside”.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pmWhat I say when someone goes off about “global warming isn’t real†is, “Are you willing to bet the lives of your children and grandchildren that you are right? Because if you are wrong, you are signing their death sentences. And if you are right, and we have done the things we need to do to stop polluting our environment, there is no downsideâ€.
Comment by bilbobaggins — February 12, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Not much of a question there, for rational people.
But deniers are a special breed, all tighty-righties, I’ve noticed, and their response to that logic would be that addressing GW will cause economic hardship (in other words, WE can’t know what the future holds for climate, but THEY get to know what the future holds for the economy) and that risk of economic hardship is not worth the risk of a planet uninhabitable for humans.
That’s what it comes down to, for them. They’d rather choke on runaway atmospheric pollution than pay a single cent more in taxes — even if that single cent more is not even certain.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:28 pmCaptainMantastic -
Since you show a willingness to support change should the proof be offered, I must question your following statement:
Why aren’t you confident? What are you basing your opinion and decision on? Unbiased, independent science has come to a consensus that global warming is occuring and man is causing it. Global warming deniers use op-eds by right wing think tanks and studies funded by oil companies as their way to refute scientific community consensus.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pmGlobal warming deniers use op-eds by right wing think tanks and studies funded by oil companies as their way to refute scientific community consensus.
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
They’ll still be denying it when the ocean is lapping at their front porch — or they’ll move to Kansas and deny it from there.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pmMantastic, you missed the point.
The suspected causative agents for Global Warming, fumes emitted from industrial combustion, have known effects.
The partially burned impurities in the fuel materials are dangerous to your lungs. Alot of the waste gases react to other gases and sunlight to form even other chemicals that are unpleasant and dangerous to breath.
Every dollar we send to the middle east is a dollar that will fall into hands unfriendly to us. In fact, you better believe a fraction of the ME’s income goes to the hands of those folks your side says we should be deathly afraid of.
Our way of life is centered around this one commodity, and whether or not its waste products will overheat the air and choke our civilization, its immediate effects are more than enough to suggest we must come up with alternatives.
I don’t know about you but I hate having the Iranians being able to dictate our economy with their black goop…
Your parallel between Global Warming and Christian philosophy doesn’t stand up in my mind. Not believing in God doesn’t have concrete consequences. Spilling more waste gases into the air we breathe does.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pmI’m not confident we are at the point where we can say definitively that the planet is warming significantly, because of man’s activities, and that we can reverse the warming, by implementing policy.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Fine, Cap’n. You’re not convinced. But many, many scientists are convinced. And in my experience, scientists are among the more difficult groups to convince of anything this bold — being trained in scientific method and all.
And your comparison of mandating Christian policies to mandating global warming initiatives is crap.
The Constitution strictly forbids mandating “Christian policies” as such, but there is no such injunction against regulating commerce, even when “personal liberties” may be encroached upon. (I suspect the “personal liberties” to which you refer are less than Constitutionally protected, since initiatives similar to your carbon credits and emissions taxes have been used in other situations with no constitutional objections upheld.)
February 12th, 2008 at 2:38 pmI’m not confident we are at the point where we can say definitively that the planet is warming significantly, because of man’s activities, and that we can reverse the warming, by implementing policy.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Another way in which your Christian God – Climate Change comparison does not stand up – not believing in God and being wrong only impacts a single individual…yourself. Not recognizing climate change and being wrong impacts the entire world. Not to mention recognizing climate change and shifting away from fossil fuels also has positive impacts even if climate change never comes about.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pmDeforestation is another practice that is not getting much attention. Less forests = less oxygen = more CO2.
We can mainly thank McDonald’s and Burger King for that.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pmBloomberg is also getting warmer. Global warming is a FAR bigger threat than terrorism.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pmMany here seem to think that just because a scientist says it, it must be true.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Again, Cap’n, I call “crap” on your argument.
“Just because a scientist says it, it must be true” is indeed a foolish foundation for a belief.
It is also a straw man, since most posters here who argue against denial would say, “If an entire world community of scientists says it, it’s probably true.”
Sure, there are skeptics in the scientific community. And I don’t discount them as readily as many here do. But what the deniers do is exactly what you complain of, only on a much larger scale. Gigi, for instance, offers these links from a select few skeptic celebrities but neglects to even mention the membership of the IPCC or the dozens of scientific societies that have published positions in support of this idea. What about them?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:56 pmCap’n, you didn’t seriously offer Jake Tapper’s discredited op-ed in an attempt to put Bill Clinton on your side in the debate, did you?
Jeezus, as far as your credibility with me is concerned, it’s two steps forward, one step back.
Crimeny.
(And please explain why scientists who were influenced by government funding would be at all predisposed to support climate change theory? Especially given the position of this administration?)
February 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pmSure, there are skeptics in the scientific community. And I don’t discount them as readily as many here do. But what the deniers do is exactly what you complain of, only on a much larger scale. Gigi, for instance, offers these links from a select few skeptic celebrities but neglects to even mention the membership of the IPCC or the dozens of scientific societies that have published positions in support of this idea. What about them?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 12, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
The goon also ignores specific point-by-point refutations of articles and essays by skeptics and (as is usual) keeps reposting links to the refuted articles (often well out of date) instead.
And Mantastic has taken the other typical denial approach: “Oh, sure, the skeptics are being paid by the petroleum industry, but the proponents are getting paid, too!” Clearly, the only credible side in a scientific argument comes from monks and ascetics that refuse any payment at all–or “scientists” from entirely different fields like geologists or podiatrists.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm#133: Captain
Fair enough. I don’t agree with your assessment that deniers deserverequal consideration when the vast majority of the scientific community have stated global warming is occuring and is caused by human activity. If 90% of a group of people say the sky is blue, but 10% say it is red, I don’t see why the red group should receive equal consideration for their viewpoint.
Regardless of the ‘is global warming happening and are we causing it” issue, I ask you the following question that I ask all people unsure of the issue or flat out deniers of it:
February 12th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Comment by gummitch — February 12, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
Yeah, gum, it strikes me as especially odd (maybe desperate, I don’t know) that the Cap’n would stack “government-funded” scientists against oil-funded scientists as an example of equal bias.
To make that claim, the government must be in a position to benefit from hyping the threat of climate change and must be influencing the research in that direction.
Does that sound like the Bush administration to anyone?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pmDoes that sound like the Bush administration to anyone?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 12, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Considering how difficult the administration has made it for any government scientist to publish such “hype” and that they’ve actually allowed administrators to quash such “hype”, it does seem a bit illogical. One might even say it was utterly ridiculous and stupid.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:14 pmIf this were a Democratic Adminstration, Capt, I’d accept your arguement. However, the Bush Admin has made it abundantly clear he does not wish to support Global Warming, and there have been countless cases where references to climate change have been struck down.
Cui Bono?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pmI think that it is naive to believe that only those scientists funded by oil companies, have an premeditated agenda.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Promising to generate results that support conclusions which have already been drawn is probably the worst way to generate funding for your program. You’re much for likely to get funding if you propose something that flies in the face of the status quo. This is especially true when it is of the interest of the government and corporate America to do so.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pmCaptain:
Regarding Jack Tapper, there was a TP post regarding this.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/31/tapper-clinton-warming/
February 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pmI think that it is naive to believe that only those scientists funded by oil companies, have an premeditated agenda.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Come on, Cap’n, you’re smarter than this, aren’t you?
The likely premeditated agenda of oil-funded scientists is clear: deny the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels.
In order to make a corresponding claim relating to government-funded scientists, or at least in order to make it credible, you would have to show a similarly compelling agenda for the government in favor of research showing a warming trend.
For the last seven years, the Bush administration has shown precisely the opposite agenda.
I don’t discount the possibility that scientists funded by the government could be corrupted by their funding source. That’s human nature.
But in this circumstance, it’s a nonsensical argument.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pmBingo, CaptainMantastic. Bingo. And if the terrorists are as great a threat to our freedom as Hitler and Mussolini were, then sacrifices will need to be made, and one of the biggest is this ’slow down the economy’ and sacrifice in the short term so we can still be around in the long term.
And since Obama’s being compared to Kennedy, maybe he’ll just be the one needed to make it happen. I just hope he doesn’t end up dead like Kennedy did…
(Some say Kennedy died because his ideals were too idealistic for the powers that be, so they had him killed. I’m not sure, but with how the world looks today, I wouldn’t be surprised…)
February 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pmAre you more likely to be granted more money, if your research can show a warming trend, that might cause serious environmental impact. Or would you get more, if your research is inconclusive or shows no warming trend (and no threat of environmental catastrophe and hence; no need for additional funding).
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
That’s really not how science works. You don’t get paid for sensationalizing results. This young scientist will be more likely to get additional funding if his/her experiments are well-designed and well-documented and if his/her conclusions are valid interpretations of the results obtained. It doesn’t matter if the results show a warming or cooling trend, as long as the data is reliable.
If the results agree with the general scientific consensus, the scientist can get further grant funding to scale up the experiment and see if the results are replicable. If the results disagree with the general scientific consensus, the scientist can get further grant funding to examine why.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:41 pmEnvironmental improvements are happening everywhere. They aren’t going to stop, just because we question whether the earth is really warming and whether the cause is man.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
It’s ridiculous to compare any scientific debate to a religious debate. A scientific debate cannot happen without a data set from which conclusions are drawn. A religious debate, by the definition of faith, must happen without any empirical data at all. No one at all would be making a case for climate change without evidence of such a thing. It’s the nature of science.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:47 pmCap’n, I’m confident you’ll take the time to review the Jake Tapper link that bobcat_grad provided, but here’s a quick take on the op-ed you linked:
Tapper took a statement of Clinton’s completely out of context and used it to say the opposite of what Clinton actually said.
It’s not just me or bobcat or TP that thinks so; Tapper was called on his dishonesty by Charles Krauthammer and the folks at The Corner at NRO.
That should tell you something.
What Tapper did in his op-ed was the equivalent of me taking this statement of yours out of context and letting it stand on its own:
“only those scientists funded by oil companies, have an premeditated agenda.”
and then claiming this as your position.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:49 pmI think that it is naive to believe that only those scientists funded by oil companies, have an premeditated agenda.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
You’re an ass.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pmYou’re a young scientist with a mortgage and a new family.
What about all the senior faculty with tenure? Or senior scientists at the national laboratories with excellent security of employment? How do you explain them being biased?
What a ridiculous stretch.
And one more point: you don’t have a friggin’ clue how scientific funding works in practice.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pmI’m sure I could be mistaken on the subject, but why would Clinton suggest a slowing of the economy?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
he’s neither scientist nor president, thus irrelevant to the discussion. And a slowing of the economy is not an attack on freedom.
You’re still an ass.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:51 pmThe feeling I get when proponents don’t want to debate climate change because ‘it’s already settled’ just feels very similar to debates I’ve had with Christians about the existence of god. In both cases, the ideas are beyond question. Sacrosanct. Those that don’t believe are ridiculed. I don’t think that’s the most effective means to the most correct assessment.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
What a completely ridiculous comparison.
Belief in God is based on faith. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. Attempts to “prove” God’s existence are futile – it’s not faith if you can prove it.
Belief in the scientific consensus global climate change is based on overwhelming evidence. Hundreds of scientists and thousands of studies over the past several decades all point to the same overall conclusion: that human activities since the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere in such a way that will cause the climate to shift globally, generally in a warming trend. Scientists still disagree on the details, but they agree on the general theory.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pmEnvironmental improvements are happening everywhere. They aren’t going to stop, just because we question whether the earth is really warming and whether the cause is man.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
That’s incredible stupid and naive. Bush has done everything in his power to reverse environmental improvements. they are indeed going to stop if the naysayers and ignorant have anything to say about it, especially corrupt, incompetent, greedy, treasonous oilmen.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pmIn science there are pioneers, and there are settlers. Pioneers thrive; settlers fade away. There is no better way for a scientist to hit the ball out of the park than to overturn conventional wisdom in some area. In every area there are young guns trying to make their bones by upsetting the apple cart. But nobody is going to try that without having a hell of a good case to make. And there just isn’t a good case against global warming.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pmAnd one more point: you don’t have a friggin’ clue how scientific funding works in practice.
Comment by VerbalKint — February 12, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
How does it work?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Well, admitting you’re uninformed is a good first step.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pmHow does it work?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Read #170 and digest it. And answer the question I posed in #164, which presents a fatal blow to your theory about financial motives driving the science.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pmCaptain -
I was about to post a response to your “Clinton suggest a slowing of the economy,” but ralph beat me to it in 162.
Ditto what he said. Take a look at the link I posted earlier. Tapper was responsible for shoddy journalism. And at the risk of being repetitive, Captain, think this over:
If we (the progressives here) are right and global warming IS occuring, let’s say we combat it. What happens? We create green jobs, we remove our dependence on foreign oil, we create manufacturing jobs in alternative energy, we become the global leader in green technology that reinforces our economy, we make the environment better, and give our children a better world than we have today. If global warming ISN’T occuring, and we still do all that – where’s the drawback?
If global warming IS happening, and we do nothing…….?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:56 pmIMO, you’re seeing a ‘faith’ in Global Warming that isn’t there. We don’t ‘believe’ in Global Warming like the Christians and Muslims and Jews ‘believe’ in God. We see a consensus of Scientists, a large group of them at that, who are saying that, according to our current understanding of the physics behind it, the Earth is gaining more energy. “Global Warming” is a misnomer, what they’re really trying to say is “Increased Entropy in our climate system due to increasing levels of energy”. We have a perfect example of what can go wrong if Global Warming gets out of hands if we just look about 20 to 30 million miles closer to the sun…
It sounds like you agree that something needs to be done to lessen the dependency we have on oil. You just don’t want to let the ‘Global Warming Kooks’ get the credit. Human induced climate change is the standard theory of the day, and regardless of what people like GG say, this is the standard the scientific community holds. It’s considered to be in the same realm as things like General and Special Relativity, Quantum Physics, and Evolutionary Biology. You’ll have some people who question it, and their questions are analysed with the same scientific mindset that produced the various theories. If the results don’t support a counter-claim, then more ideas are put forth. If they do support a counterclaim, then the counterclaim is further studied and the theory is adapted to account for that counterclaim.
That’s how science works…
…unlike religion which brokers no further questioning.
This is why we can’t see the correlary you wish to draw between religion and climate change.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — February 12, 2008 @ 3:54 pm -
In all fairness, Captain has been non-confrontational. Civility goes a long way in contentious discussions.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pmAnother fatal blow to the Captain’s theory of financial motives: scientists working within government agencies have come under a lot of pressure to change their results, or not talk about the results publicly. The White House, dissatisfied with its efforts at suppression, rewrite the scientific conclusions itself. Courageous scientists within the government have spoken out against this. Can you explain how this helps their careers?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pmIn all fairness, Captain has been non-confrontational.
He has been tendentious.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pmThe feeling I get when proponents don’t want to debate climate change because ‘it’s already settled’ just feels very similar to debates I’ve had with Christians about the existence of god. In both cases, the ideas are beyond question. Sacrosanct. Those that don’t believe are ridiculed. I don’t think that’s the most effective means to the most correct assessment.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
I understand your position, but look at it this way:
in order to be as skeptical as you are, you have to discount or dismiss the conclusions reached by such scientific bodies as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, dozens of others across the globe, and the IPCC, as premature.
Perhaps you are better versed in the scientific principles in play here than I am, but since I’m not very sophisticated in the science and am incapable of truly evaluating complex experimental data on my own, I will trust these august bodies to know their business, and it seems like a pretty overwhelming consensus to me.
Now, the “it’s already settled” exasperation you feel no doubt comes from having to deal with people like Gigi and others who are only interested in the game because the liberals are on one side, so they’re going to be on the other.
How many times should one have to produce the same information or debunk the same simplistic conclusions before a real discussion can be started?
It would appear, an infinite number of times. because the next GW story that’s posted here, either Gigi or some other troll will pop up with the same links, the same names and the same insults, and they’ll get shot down just as surely. But they will have served their purpose; they will have delayed the real discussion that you and I hope to have.
THAT’S why the curt “debate is over” dismissals, Cap’n. Try to understand.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pmYou kinda shot yourself in the foot here. “Without a deeper look?” That’s the problem. Without taking a look at the quote, the context, and what the message was, you’re conclusion is arrived at illogically.
I also challenge the general statement that “policy to address climate change will cost; it has consequence.” I agree there will be costs, but the benefits can outweigh the costs:
1. We create green jobs
2. We remove our dependence on foreign oil
3. We create manufacturing jobs in alternative energy
4. We become the global leader in green technology that reinforces our economy
5. We make the environment better, and give our children a better world than we have today.
Again – I ask, even if global warming wasn’t real – pursuing clean energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels has few downsides.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pmI’d like to be a part of that, too. Civil discussion about policy is what’s needed (not to mention, it’s fun). Name calling and instantly shutting down others accomplishes nothing.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pmI agree there will be costs, but the benefits can outweigh the costs:
1. We create green jobs
2. We remove our dependence on foreign oil
3. We create manufacturing jobs in alternative energy
4. We become the global leader in green technology that reinforces our economy
5. We make the environment better, and give our children a better world than we have today.
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Well stated, bobcat.
I’m not trained in economics, but my layman’s sense is that economies grow through change and adaptation. The Clinton boom of the 90s was largely the result of investment and advances in computer technology and the internet.
Economies that stagnate (another word for maintain the status quo) are not dynamic economies, and they will fall behind.
Change is as important for an economy as manufacturing capacity or access to raw materials, in my opinion.
Given this view, I think even our economy faces much greater danger if we do nothing, as the deniers want to do, than if we push ahead.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pmIn all fairness, Captain has been non-confrontational. Civility goes a long way in contentious discussions.
Comment by bobcat_grad — February 12, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
I’m not interested in polite propaganda. I’m not interested in good-natured lies. I’m certainly not interested in greed over survival. Civility is useless among the savages.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pmIt seems the only downsides to green energy is that it’ll upset the status quo. The most fundamental aspect of Conservatism (not neo-conservatism!) is a maintenance of the Status Quo. The old rich guy who has money in oil would be most displeased if some green energy company came out with a workable fusion power plant tomorrow. Imagine the sudden drop in the worth of oil and the oil companies, especially if fusion power could be distributed cheaply and cleanly across the country.
Same with the electric car. Battery technology is being driven now by Chinese, European, and Canadian companies who all desire to produce a car that can drive on electricity like today’s cars drive on gasoline. We’re behind the loop, and those new jobs are being made in China, Canada, and Europe, not here.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pmWe’re behind the loop, and those new jobs are being made in China, Canada, and Europe, not here.
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — February 12, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
that’s republican, conservative greed and selfishness over survival.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:13 pmThe consequence of ignoring what we can see with our eyes, in Alaska, the pollution around refiniries, is not just an error in history. This is serious and you want to weigh cost ?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pmLP? You want to bring people to your banner? Here’s a hint. Don’t think of Conservatives as savages. When you treat Keltoi and Mantastic like you treat good_golly and Southern Man, you simply drive Keltoi and Mantastic away, assured in the belief that Rush Limbaugh was right and Liberals are not able to defend their position and therefor must attack Conservatives…
For reference, I had to dig back 8 months (May of last year) to find a trollish post from Mantastic, and that post was the only one I could find.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pmI’m not interested in polite propaganda. I’m not interested in good-natured lies. I’m certainly not interested in greed over survival. Civility is useless among the savages.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 12, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Lefty, I appreciate your zeal, but I think it’s unfair to tar the Cap’n with the same brush as Gigi or Southern Man or Frank M.
I don’t get the sense that the Cap’n lies or is spreading propaganda. If I ever do become convinced of that, I’ll switch into Whack-A-Troll mode so fast it’ll make your keyboard spin. Until then, I’ll continue to treat him as bobcat_grad suggests, with civility. I’ll take his ideas as seriously as they deserve and trust that he will treat me likewise, since he always has thus far.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pmJeremy in Denver – have you noticed the miles and miles of trees turning brown in your area? Pine beetle maybe, but could be a combination. Or how about the ski resorts that are seeking green methods instead of making a carbon footprint. You think they are crazy too ?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pmI’ve been saying this for years. For all the bashing ‘liberal’ Europe takes from Republicans, their economy moving forward and adapting to a chaning world. Oh, and look at the value trend of the Euro vs. the Dollar.
At no point in history has it ever served a civilization to hold on tightly to the way everything is and resist change. Those that have stagnate, decline, and eventually disappear. Not sure why Republicans don’t think that couldn’t happen again. America must innovate, adapt, and change to continue to thrive.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pmralph, all respect, but the captain lies and spreads propaganda in the most insidious way: civilly. I don’t buy it.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — February 12, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Exactly. Once I’d verified that CaptMan wasn’t another troll like Southern Man, I find him to be an honest debater. He _is_ on the wrong side…;)…but he’s there because that’s what his experiences lead him to. We should respect his opinions, even if we disagree with them, lest we become no better than the current crop of political-discourse-poisoning neo-cons.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pmEh, texaslady? You mistake my position. I commute to work on a Sun EZ-3 USX (recumbent trike) with a hub motor and 8 amp/hour battery, purchased from Canada. :)
Need I say anything more?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pmCapt., Would the price tag for subsidized R&D in energy technology would be bigger than the price tag on our elective excursion into the Middle East? Really?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pmAnyone who fancies themselves “concerned” should be taking a long, hard look at exactly what we have to show for what someone else decided we should “invest” in Iraq. $500Billion and counting. What do we have? What could we have had with that $, and how long will it be before we can make that kind of investment in anything again?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pmYes. That’s part of what is making me consider hard about moving to Canada after schooling is done with. $500bln. In 1961, we began to spend $24bln, and while I’m no economic expert, I would suspect that $500bln today dwarfs that $24bln, even accounting for inflation.
So what does my generation have to show? The Iraq Quagmire.
Gee, thanks, Bush.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:32 pm*sigh* Captain, you’re shaking my faith in you.
That was very trollish of you.
‘Transfer of wealth’ is another code-phrase that Neo-Cons use to discourage investing in other people. THe end result of ‘banning transfer of wealth’ is no money for college, no money for school, no money for anything. Libertarians advocate for such a thing. I see it as just a selfish mentality.
‘Socialism’ is a big boogie-man to the Right. Socialism is nothing more than giving up some selfish wants for some selfless community needs. It’s also a spectrum that ranges from our country’s Social Security to hard-core communism where the individual must give up all of his or her rights in favor of the needs of the community. And every time something is brought up for the good of the community, you guys try to make it into one small step away from America’s ComIntern bureau.
Finally, the last ‘point’ about Al Gore was a classic Attack Against the Person, a logical fallacy known as an Ad Hominem. Don’t attack the messenger, attack the message.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pmThe skeptism I have mainly comes with the idea of transfer of wealth. I will admit to ignorance on the topic. It seems that often the issue of global warming seems tied to socialist economic ideas.
….
I didn’t get how oil company profits raising the price of gas has negative consequences for global warming.
It also seems to me, their is a big global push for developed countries to transfer funds to developing countries to somehow combat global warming. I hesitate to empower the U.N. (food for oil) to make economic decisions.
And lastly, I am conflicted by Al Gores message. I believe that if Al Gore really believed that burning fossil fuels was killing the planet, he would forego the mansions and the jet trips, instead of relying on indulgences.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Okay, Cap’n — good, honest response.
The seeing GW as tied to “socialist ideas” seems paranoiac, but it explains a lot.
Of course, if you consider “common good” a socialist ideal, then you have a point.
But either way, you’re conflating a scientific issue with a political/economic one, and using a political judgment to color your analysis of scientific data.
What I don’t get about the “transfer of wealth” idea is that wealth is always being transferred, and over the last seven years our nation has experienced a massive transfer of wealth upwards with nothing but cheers from the right. It appears that the only “transfer of wealth” that conservatives object to is a downward one.
And please, please lay off the silly “if Al Gore is serious about GW he should stop flying on airplanes” argument. It doesn’t make your argument look very serious.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pmComment by Jeremy in Denver — February 12, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
Interesting, Jeremy. We both made almost the same exact arguments in critiquing the Cap’n’s laest post, but you called him “trollish” and I congratulated him for his honesty.
I guess I just thought it was brave of him to admit that his fears of “socialism” were behind much of his formed opinion on climate change.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pmSorry, when someone pulls a blatent Ad Hominem like he did, I tend to get alot less tolerant of the rest of his message. Had he left the last ‘point’ off, my post would have read alot like yours…
February 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pmSorry, when someone pulls a blatent Ad Hominem like he did, I tend to get alot less tolerant of the rest of his message. Had he left the last ‘point’ off, my post would have read alot like yours…
Comment by Jeremy in Denver — February 12, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Understood.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pmGore and Haggard circumstances are not at all the same – not enough to make a moral equivalency argument.
Capt., Would Al Gore have to live in a cave, with no fire, and never travel anywhere except by foot, to qualify as someone fit to speak out re: climate change. Instead of suggesting he’s a hypocrite, suggest someone you think would be a proper spokesperson for such an issue.
There’s a recurring problem afoot when we have the bar being held to the rafters for one competitor, and down on the floor, or not at all, for some other competitors.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pmAnd if I’m a troll for pointing out that Al Gore may be hypocritical, are posters here trolls for pointing out that Ted Haggard was hypocritical? How much is off the table?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Again, your comparisons are weak.
It is hypocritical for Ted Haggard to preach against homosexuality and then engage in homosexual behavior. That’s pretty clear-cut, right?
But with Al Gore, you criticize him for preaching the global warming mantra and then… what? Riding in airplanes?
His message is we have to change our way of life. One man cannot do that alone. At the moment, the only way we have to traverse the great spaces that have to be traversed is by flying. If Al Gore is going to reach as many people as he can as effectively as he can, he is going to have to travel a great deal. The only way that can be accomplished is by flying, unless you have an alternative. (And no, video hook-up is not an equal alternative. The power of a personal appearance is considerable, both in impact on those attending and on the ability to raise funds for more work.)
As far as his “mansions” go, that is only hypocritical if he wastes energy and damaging energy at that. All reports are that his house is extremely energy-efficient, cutting-edge efficient, and uses a high percentage of renewal resources such as solar and whatever his provider offers (at a premium).
If he is concerned about the path of our planet, and takes visible steps to lead the way (and given the Right’s fears of “economic damage”, living in a yurt and drinking rainwater will hardly entice them to follow) then he is actually fulfilling his mission and not betraying it.
Agreed?
February 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pmHonestly, if you can’t make the point without resorting to attacking the messenger, then your argument falls down. You earn the Troll designation for making an Ad Hominem attack when your other points were argued against.
I get the impression that you are hanging on to the thread that allows you to continue to believe that Global Climate Change/Warming/etc is a boogieman made by the Left to take your hard earned dollars from your pocket and give them to some hippie scientist to spend on his stuff. That’s the theme of your posts. With your idea that government scientists continued employment depends on them convincing the Grant Masters to continue paying them, so they continue to support global warming shot out of the water, you’re left with the only thing on the Global Warming plate. A direct Ad Hominem attack on one of the leading political voices in support of change in our energy economy.
Bad Captain. Ad Hominems do not support your argument, and if that’s the last thing you have left, then your argument is lost.
As for holding beliefs for 40 years, that’s the nature of life. You think you’ve got things figured out, then some uppity young whipper-snapper comes out and tells you “That’s wrong, this is how it really is.” I assume you’re 50+ years old, as I doubt you had fully formed political opinions when you were
February 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pmstupid thing ate the rest of my post. The general gist: Things change (think of a computer from 1983 compared to a computer today, for instance). If you don’t change with the times, you get left by progress.
And Socialism isn’t the boogie man you claim it to be. If you’re truely against socialism, then pull yourself off the grid and stay off the roads. Socialism is using individual wealth for the good of the community, and the grades of socialism are measured by how much personal wealth is taken for the good of the community.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pmPeace, Cap’n.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:39 pmLater, I’m about to go electrocute myself in my electronics course tonight. :) (no celebrations! :P )
February 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pmCapt., How is trading in carbon offsets any more disingenuous than derivatives trading, or many other of the forms of trade-in-abstracts that takes place on financial markets every day? You’re not saying that our whole economy is a sham, are you?
February 12th, 2008 at 6:41 pmI’m not trying to be divisive, but it would be similar to a priest telling you that fornication is a sin, but using his money to buy hookers and then using the change to pay for an indulgence. I don’t have a problem with Al Gore. It just seems that the planet may not in that much peril, if he doesn’t seem to be taking it seriously, personally. It’s a valid argument.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
I think Jeremy made the point for Al Gore’s travel expenses already. I’ll try to extend the argument to cover the puchase of carbon offsets also.
Purchasing carbon offsets *should* go to funding alternative fuel resource. I’m not intimately familiar with what actually happens, but I believe a substantial portion of carbon offsets is currently doing this. With this additional research, even the mansion that Gore maintains should eventually be completely carbon neutral…either through the use of solar panels, wind power, etc. This being the case, I think it is entirely environmentally responsible of Gore to keep a mansion AND claim his own carbon neutrality simultaneously given his offsets.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pmHey guys,
Russian researchers neither Republican neither Democrats, but they also agree with that guy you critisize so badly – there is NO global warming due to human activity, this is a scientific myth.
Just few alternative explanations:
Nikolai Yasamanov of Moscow State University, blame volcanic activity. Heavy magma seeps out of the mantle (the layer between the earth’s crust and its core) through mid-oceanic rifts. When it mixes with water, it releases methane, which rises to the surface and then into the atmosphere. Upon reacting with oxygen, it creates CO2.
There are other explanations for the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
Geophysisist Andrei Kapitsa, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, points out that the processes of heat exchange in the atmosphere are much more complicated than in a common greenhouse. He believes that the growing concentration of carbon dioxide is a consequence rather than a cause of the warmer climate.
Kapitsa proceeds from the premise that the amount of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean is many times greater than in the air. Rising global temperatures cause the CO2 in the Ocean to evaporate, increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.
Oleg Sorokhtin from the Shirshov Institute of Oceanography came up with his own original theory, questioning the very existence of the greenhouse effect.
He maintains that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere will accelerate the transfer of heat to the upper layers of the atmosphere, cooling rather than heating the lower layers.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov from the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory believes that we should search for the answer in the Sun. The Earth’s climate directly depends on the energy it receives – the more energy the higher the temperature.
You can stick though to your new religion – apparently you want to pay additional taxes..Think for yourselves!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:09 pmIt’s a valid argument.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — February 12, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
it’s a ridiculous argument, because you’re basing it on news accounts rather than real research. You don’t really know what you’re talking about here at all, do you? You might try doing some homework instead of taking the word of singnut websites and the republican owned and operated “news” media. Don’t be so lazy. it cheapens all that you have to say.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:52 pmComment by kuku01 — February 12, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Wow, you’re right. The opinions of 4 individuals, one of which can be discredited right away as volcanic activity causes atmospheric cooling, should cast doubt on the work on the rest of the scientific community including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Science, and the IPCC.
February 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am