The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

It's one thing to narrow your definition of "denier," scaeagles ... but that doesn't change your professed belief there's no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. You seem to have a different definition of "denier" when it comes to yourself.


Have I read you wrong? Do you deny man has a hand in the warming of the planet? If so, do you have any scientific basis for that belief, or is it just want you want to believe?


I don't blame you for not having time for research. Life is busy and full of better stuff. I half admire Alex for having the time to do it, and half pity him for having the time to do it.


Nevertheless, it's been done ... and, absent anything from you to the contrary ... all your assertions have been thoroughly debunked.


Are you going to man up ... or stay stubborn?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Are you going to man up ... or stay stubborn?

Well, that's a silly question.

I man up when I've made changes in my school of thought. For example, this place has changed my attitude about two specific things - one, marijuana (if you want to do it in the privacy of your home I can see no reason to disallow it and it is certainly less harmful to the body than alcohol....I'm somewhat less inclined to the same point of view with other drugs), and the other is gay marriage (rather than supporting the issue of gay marriage, though, I'm now more of a the-government-shouldn't-be-involved-in-marriage-at-all kind of guy).

I'm still not convinced. There are solar scientists who point to cycles of the sun. There is that one good sized Pinatubo like volcanic eruption pump more green house type gasses into the atmosphere at one time than man ever has. There are cries of the apocalypse in everything from SARS to global cooling back to global warming and throw in an ebola. Science changes it's mind so frequently about what is good and bad it is very tough to take claims seriously when what I see as common sense arguments (and perhaps I need to do more research into these things, as Alex has pointed out) are so much simpler. There's the whole issue of more severe periods of warming and cooling (regardless of what the CO2 level were based on arctic ice) throughout the history of the earth which could not have possibly been caused by man. And there's the whole "Animal Farm" mentality. The pigs certainlt could jusitfy their higher lifestyles, and I see this whole environmetal warming overkill as moving us toward just that. Only the important people can do certain things, because, well, they're important, damn it!

So many of the doom sayers don't seem to wish to change their lifestyle. Al Gore riding in his private jets. Edwards living in his 50K sq ft mansion. Hollywood types promoting doom and gloow (such as DeCaprio) who say "my schedule doesn't allow me to always use the most energy efficient form of transportation" (or something to that effect) when questioned as to why he's flying on private charter jets to his film locations. Well perhaps my schedule doesn't allow me to frickin' stop driving my damn car!

I do not begrudge them what they do. But don't tell me I can't. Don't tell me you're more important than me and what you're doing is more important so you have the right to burn more fuel in one private jet flight than I will during the entire life of my car (meant for dramatic effect, not as a statement that I have done the research and have proven that the type of jet Gore flies on will, in fact, burn more fuel than my car will for the entire time I own it).

So they say "well, we buy carbon offsets so we can continue to live this way". What they are saying is that since have the money they are allowed to do it, not uncommon and certainly acceptable, but I find this to be a bit different. Want to talk about inequality of opportunity and poverty? I can see a day when the cost of energy is so high because of anti-warming hysteria that only the wealthy can afford to consume electricity or fossil fuels, while the people on the poverty line lose even more of their standard of living and the middle class can't ever find a way to get ahead.

I don't know what it will take to convince me. The first step might just be those who are preaching from the mountain tops about the dangers of warming start showing me by example that they believe in their message enough to make sacrifices that they are expecting us to make. I'm not talking little things. I'm talking get rid of the damn jets. Get rid of your energy and natural resource consuming mansions. Don't protest the wind farms that are going to be built of the coast of Martha's Vineyard because it's going to destroy your pristine view. Show me how important it is. And the politicians can make the process of building nuclear power plants easier and faster (because that's really the answer for long term energy without pumping anything - relatively speaking - into the air).

Well....that was longer than I expected it to be.

[Alex]

Ok, but three of those four can't really be said to do that. And you didn't offer them up as examples of people who deny the cataclysmic nature of global warming but rather "and I have more and more and more of similar type links with reasonable dissent to the entire man made global warming thing."

Since you've repeatedly said there is significant scientific disagreement on whether anthropogenic global warming is happening I'm interested in seeing some evidence of that.

There are at least three levels where people can fall from the common schools of thought.

1. Whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I honestly don't think, despite claims to the contrary from certain non-science groups, that there is a significant dissension on this among scientists with the actual qualifications to have an opinion. Denier #1 can vaguely be said to be in this camp.

2. Whether certain features and impacts claimed by some to be a result of global warming actually are. Oversimplification exists on both sides, particularly among the laity and scientists theorizing outside their area of expertise. Just as some point out every snowy day as a rebuke of global warming, there are others who will read every change from the status quo ante as a result of global warming. "If all you have is a hammer..." and so on. But it is possible to put yourself in opposition to specific instances of this without in any way rejecting the consensus in #1 about the reality and enormity of anthropogenic global warming. This is where Deniers 2 and 3 are, and to the extent that he has offered evidence on only one very narrow topic, Denier 1 could be put in here too.

3. Policy debate. You can agree entirely that global warming is happening and that it is partially or entirely man caused but still disagree what should be done about it. A lot of people are in this camp (including Denier #2 and myself). Some think the damages won't be as bad as claimed. Or that the mix of positives and negatives may weigh out on the good side (Richard Tol above or Gregg Easterbrook earlier this year in The Atlantic. Or that the speed at which it is happening is slow enough that we'll be able to adjust as it happens. Or that it is simply so big and expensive to control that it is better to just hunker down and weather the storm (so to speak). Or that the world as we know it is coming to an end and unless we treat its control as a global Manhattan Project we face a near extinction event.



But types 2 and 3 are fundamentally different from type 1 and you can't just bundle all three of them up into a single package and offer them as evidence of type 1 as you did.

I know I am once again coming off as harping on minutiae and semantics (though I don't think I am). But there are myriad interesting and useful realms of debate related to global warming. Because, it is a difficult PR position to say "yes, we're heating the planet but I don't think that is a problem because..." I think many of the pundits who are really in that position cop out and take the much more easily defensed, though intellectually dishonest, approach of "we don't have to consider doing anything because some very smart people say it isn't happening and acting before unanimity is silly." An approach that then trickles down to the "rank and file" (a phrase much in the news lately, does anybody ever use this phrase other than reporters reporting on union negotiations?) level and fits in nicely with certain conservative fiscal views and the fact that the average person doesn't have the time or knowledge with which to sort out the competing claims in the editorial columns of the newspapers.

===

But, three months ago I decided to stop talking politics and science here so that I will stop coming off as a prick (though apparently still sociopathic and without values) and I think it best that I go back to that. So I will now play Bioshock for 48 hours until the urge wears off.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles just wants this warming trend to continue so he can eventually own some beachfront property.

[Alex]

Sometimes I have so little willpower.

I half admire Alex for having the time to do it, and half pity him for having the time to do it.

In my defense I am, by education, an academic reference librarian. Looking up information, and quickly, is pretty much part of my DNA. It really doesn't take that long to do some minimal research into things, the longer part is the writing of what I found.

scaeagles, in your criticisms of Al Gore and Edwards I don't necessarily disagree with you. But there you aren't arguing with science you are arguing with politicians. I don't know many paleoclimatologists flying around in private jets or atmospheric scientists living in 50K square foot homes. You have no idea what life changes the people actually generating the science have made in response to what they feel is happening.

How many paleobotanists who do the actual research and have shifted their lives to use less energy with fewer emissions would it take to counter one hypocritical politician? Why is their demonstration of sincere acceptance counteracted by a few outliers?

Science changes it's mind so frequently about what is good and bad

The hard sciences really don't do this very often. In fact, hard science rarely has any opinion on "good" or "bad" in the first place. It just tries to describe what is. It is when attempts are made to convert science findings into policy that it can seem that things are blowing in the wind. Generally because policy is set with minimal input from the actual scientists and findings get distorted, misinterpreted, maladroitly applied, and hyped.

But yes, sometimes "science" gets it all wrong. And if so, it will generally eventually correct itself. Though that doesn't mean that politicians, journalists, and activists will sway with it.

There's the whole issue of more severe periods of warming and cooling

This is a bit of a logical fallacy. That if there is any other cause of climate change then increases in greenhouse emissions can't be a cause. This is like saying that because exercise increases body temperature that bacterial infection can't.

No scientist will deny that there are other causes of global climate change and that there have been many periods of variability more severe than what we may currently be experiencing. But just because the Milankovitch Cycles may cause global climate change doesn't mean that other things don't as well.

There is that one good sized Pinatubo like volcanic eruption pump more green house type gasses into the atmosphere at one time than man ever has.

Another one for you to research as this is another common claim that simply isn't true. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo released at least 42 million tons of CO2, and perhaps twice that (report from the British Geological Survey, see page 17). By comparison Mt. St. Helens released between 5 and 20 million tons.

The really damning sentence, though, is right up front in that report. On page 7 (bolding mine):

The contribution to the present day atmospheric CO2 loading from volcanic emissions is, however, relatively insignificant, and it has been estimated that subaerial vulcanism releases around 300 Mt/yr CO2 [300 million tons], equivalent to just 1% of anthropogenic emissions.

On the next page it mentions that fossil fuel burning releases about 23,000 million tons of CO2 per year. So a Pinatubo-like eruption does not release more greenhouse gasses than "man every has" it barely releases more than man does in a single day (and maybe not even that depending on which end of the certainty range is more right).

[Not Afraid]

I'm holding a pity party for Clarence Thomas. Anyone interested in attending?

[JWBear]

Can have an "Uncle Tom" costume contest?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by JWBear

Can have an "Uncle Tom" costume contest?

Or "Long Dong Silver"

[innerSpaceman]

I get all my news from the LoT nowadays. What's up with Judge Thomas? Is he dead yet? Or is that too much to hope for?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I get all my news from the LoT nowadays. What's up with Judge Thomas? Is he dead yet? Or is that too much to hope for?

You got me