Naomi Oreskes, the "denialists" bane

[seer]

Sure they do.

But we have better ways of obtaining that energy now, including clean coal.

I have no problem with clean coal unless it puts a coal plant out of business and makes it more expensive to survive.

[seer]

I simply reversed your question.

Now what?

[One Bad Pig]

The word you're looking for is actually:

Consensus
a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

Scientific consensus can be good or bad. In the time of Copernicus, the scientific consensus was that the sun orbited the earth. Before Einstein, the scientific consensus was that Newtonian physics always applied. Now, it's only the cranks who deny relativity and heliocentrism.

Your welcome.

What about my welcome?









For the record, I acknowledge global warming, without which this would be a cold rock to live on. I even acknowledge that humans contribute to it to some extent. I am, however, skeptical of wild claims like "the Arctic ice cap will be gone by 2013" and shoddy science that uses sleight of hand to make the MWP disappear. It's a laudable goal to pollute as little as possible; on the other hand crippling our economy while other countries do nothing is self-defeating.

[Sea of red]

I have no problem with clean coal unless it puts a coal plant out of business and makes it more expensive to survive.

Talk to the insurance companies and geniuses in Washington, because I can't offer anything on that.

[Sea of red]

Now what?

Now nothing.

We've reached a dead end.

[rogue06]

Then you need to ask for a clarification in the future. My point was that it's not a one-way street. Plenty of people on the denial side of behaved not so nicely, yet you're not talking about that.

[seanD]

I don't think I understand the argument you keep bringing up here. Are you comparing climate advocates to major industries that contribute to carbon emissions, because the advocates have been known to use private jets and limos? Wouldn't the output of emissions from, say, the coal industry alone, vastly exceed all of the emissions from those private jets and limos? Vastly?

Emissions are included as part of the whole. I think seer was pointing out the hypocrisy of it all, which I agree (nothing more annoying than someone not practicing what they preach), but the bigger issue is the politics of this. Whatever policies would be enacted to curb the problem would have include emissions.

[Sea of red]

Scientific consensus can be good or bad. In the time of Copernicus, the scientific consensus was that the sun orbited the earth. Before Einstein, the scientific consensus was that Newtonian physics always applied. Now, it's only the cranks who deny relativity and heliocentrism.

You can overturn consensus but you have to have empirical evidence to back it up and take your lumps like anybody else.

For the record, I acknowledge global warming, without which this would be a cold rock to live on. I even acknowledge that humans contribute to it to some extent. I am, however, skeptical of wild claims like "the Arctic ice cap will be gone by 2013" and shoddy science that uses sleight of hand to make the MWP disappear. It's a laudable goal to pollute as little as possible; on the other hand crippling our economy while other countries do nothing is self-defeating.

The Medieval Warm Period is whole other can of worms I'm afraid.

It doesn't change the physics of the problem, which is feed-backs and tipping points, all which humans will be pushing in coming generations.

[Sea of red]

Probably because of your initial remark about "poor persecuted climate change “skeptics”." I was pointing out that they might have good reason to feel a bit persecuted. And you still have said absolutely nothing to demonstrate that my assessment that you think that subjecting vocal critics of global warming to the death penalty is justified because some critics have behaved badly. In fact if anything I would say that you're doubling down.

I have said no such thing.

Ridiculous.

[One Bad Pig]

You can overturn consensus but you have to have empirical evidence to back it up and take your lumps like anybody else.

Yep - but that's difficult when all the money (due to politics) is vested in supporting the consensus and establishment is hostile to evidence that bucks the consensus (which happens in most/all fields, unfortunately).

The Medieval Warm Period is whole other can of worms I'm afraid.

It is, but subsistence farming in Greenland is a tough datum to ignore.

It doesn't change the physics of the problem, which is feed-backs and tipping points, all which humans will be pushing in coming generations.

It's really, really hard to accurately project what will happen (to date, the accuracy of the forecasts has been underwhelming to say the least). And it hurts the credibility of the forecasters more when politicians grossly exaggerate the near-term impact.

It seems to me that an emphasis on reforestation would help get some of that CO₂ back out of the atmosphere, but I don't see people using that argument.

[Adrift]

Emissions are included as part of the whole. I think seer was pointing out the hypocrisy of it all, which I agree (nothing more annoying than someone not practicing what they preach), but the bigger issue is the politics of this. Whatever policies would be enacted to curb the problem would have include emissions.

I don't see how its really hypocrisy though. The output from a coal plant has to monstrously exceed that of a lifetime of private jet plane trips. We're talking barely a drop in a very large bucket. And if the climate advocates get their way, won't they essentially be on the same receiving end as the rest of us? They benefit from industries with large CO2 outputs that the rest of us do, don't they? If they really didn't believe the claims they were making, and in the end, they were able to successfully curb C02 emissions, and it resulted in financial catastrophe as some have predicted, wouldn't they be slicing their own necks? I mean, I don't really get what they would have to gain here, unless they're thinking extremely short term, and that may be plausible for some, it seems unlikely that they all are.

[seanD]

I don't see how its really hypocrisy though. The output from a coal plant has to monstrously exceed that of a lifetime of private jet plane trips. We're talking barely a drop in a very large bucket. And if the climate advocates get their way, won't they essentially be on the same receiving end as the rest of us? They benefit from industries with large CO2 outputs that the rest of us do, don't they? If they really didn't believe the claims they were making, and in the end, they were able to successfully curb C02 emissions, and it resulted in financial catastrophe as some have predicted, wouldn't they be slicing their own necks? I mean, I don't really get what they would have to gain here, unless they're thinking extremely short term, and that may be plausible for some, it seems unlikely that they all are.

I think you're just not seeing the big picture. According to the EPA, transportation is the second largest source of C02, hence we all contribute to the problem. As a result, the pro-AGW elites (many of which own houses that probably produce a carbon footprint comparable to a small village) are also part of the problem, hence the hypocrisy of their alarmist warnings and disdain they hold against those that question their motives. Leading by example may not be that important to the science, but it's important politically (a factor I believe is even more important than the science itself) because they have to get the masses compliant to the necessary radical policies they would have to pass to curb the problem. Think of it like a pastor racked with sexual indiscretions trying to get his church in line by cleaning up the sin in his church. That can get pretty messy for obvious reasons. I don't know, man, that's the best way I can explain it.

[Adrift]

I think you're just not seeing the big picture. According to the EPA, transportation is the second largest source of C02, hence we all contribute to the problem. As a result, the pro-AGW elites (many of which own houses that probably produce a carbon footprint comparable to a small village) are also part of the problem, hence the hypocrisy of their alarmist warnings and disdain they hold against those that question their motives. Leading by example may not be that important to the science, but it's important politically (a factor I believe is even more important than the science itself) because they have to get the masses compliant to the necessary radical policies they would have to pass to curb the problem. Think of it like a pastor racked with sexual indiscretions trying to get his church in line by cleaning up the sin in his church. That can get pretty messy for obvious reasons. I don't know, man, that's the best way I can explain it.

But even if the climate advocates had smaller houses, and flew coach, they'd still be part of the issue. If they totally left the grid, they'd have no voice at all (I can't see too many politicians getting around the world on bicycles or being taken seriously while living in a clay baked hut). Again, if they were successful in their endeavor to curb C02 emissions, and it resulted in the catastrophe some predict, the wealthy jet setting advocates would be the first ones to feel the crunch, wouldn't they?

I don't know. The whole argument by hypocrisy just seems really weak. Who cares how big your carbon footprint is if you're working towards a massive reduction in carbon emissions altogether. If you're successful at getting people to listen to you that humans are responsible for climate change, that carbon footprint will be removed whether you're a CO2 hog or not. If humans are not responsible for climate change, then regardless of whether or not anyone listens to you about climate change, it won't really matter if you were a hog. Either way you look at it, it's a self-correcting sin, or no sin at all.

Seems to me that the best argument against climate change is not nitpicking over what car an advocate drives, or how big their house is, but instead concentrating on the science itself.

[seanD]

But even if the climate advocates had smaller houses, and flew coach, they'd still be part of the issue. If they totally left the grid, they'd have no voice at all (I can't see too many politicians getting around the world on bicycles or being taken seriously while living in a clay baked hut). Again, if they were successful in their endeavor to curb C02 emissions, and it resulted in the catastrophe some predict, the wealthy jet setting advocates would be the first ones to feel the crunch, wouldn't they?

I don't know. The whole argument by hypocrisy just seems really weak. Who cares how big your carbon footprint is if you're working towards a massive reduction in carbon emissions altogether. If you're successful at getting people to listen to you that humans are responsible for climate change, that carbon footprint will be removed whether you're a CO2 hog or not. If humans are not responsible for climate change, then regardless of whether or not anyone listens to you about climate change, it won't really matter if you were a hog. Either way you look at it, it's a self-correcting sin, or no sin at all.

Seems to me that the best argument against climate change is not nitpicking over what car an advocate drives, or how big their house is, but instead concentrating on the science itself.

I think therein lies the paradox. Who's willing to take the necessary and painful sacrifice to curb the problem? That's why I believe the issue cannot possibly be solved on a social and economic level even if the science is correct. If it's as dire as many have warned and time is as short as they have warned, massive changes would have to be made on an incredible level, which just cannot possibly happen. .

[Darth Executor]

As with this issue and others it is obvious you do not trust liberals.

Fixed.