|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 01/29/2009 : 07:44:49
|
Are there any Global Warming Deniers around here?
I'd guess in the early years there was a lot of skepticism about climate change and its causes. But I believe it would take something akin to a major conspiracy theory to deny it today, that or just pure ignorance or ideological madness. Unfortunately I have some close family members who are deniers and I'm having this conversation with them and am just dumbfounded by what they're saying. They're all devout listeners to the likes of Limbaugh and Hanity, so I assume that's where the ignorance is coming from.
But I just thought I'd take the pulse of the Skeptic community on this. Comments? What do you guys think? Anyone in the category of yeah it's happening but people aren't the cause?
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 07:57:52 [Permalink]
|
| They only needed to deny it long enough to come to the conclusion that it cant be stopped, then they can just ignore it. That happened this week, the fact that things will only become worse if we ignore it wont faze them at all. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 08:23:16 [Permalink]
|
| Ask Bill Scott. Heīs a denier. Apart from him, I havenīt encountered other deniers in this site. |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 09:23:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
They only needed to deny it long enough to come to the conclusion that it cant be stopped, then they can just ignore it. That happened this week, the fact that things will only become worse if we ignore it wont faze them at all.
|
Yeah, I read about that in the NYT. The 'bathtub effect' is the new analogy they're using to try and get through our thick heads.
Here's the article:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-bathtub-effect/?partner=rss&emc=rss
As far as too late, I'm in that category. I think it's been too late for a while now. The question now is how bad will we let it get and for how long? It's sort of like deficit spending - we're doing things now that will impact how our grandchildren's climate will be. And based on our history of deficits, I'm not optimistic.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 09:30:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by chaloobi
Anyone in the category of yeah it's happening but people aren't the cause? |
Bill Scott fit that description. Jerome, too. But you won't get a good discussion out of them.
|
Originally posted by perrodetokio
Ask Bill Scott. Heīs a denier. Apart from him, I havenīt encountered other deniers in this site.
|
I'm actually not interested in talking to nut jobs about this - it's a waste of time. I see those threads where you guys type out gigantic arguments with sources and logic and so on and a guy like Bill just ignores it. I don't know how (or why) you do it. Unfortunately I can't dismiss family and their nutty ideas so easily.
I just wanted to do a sanity check. Do actual skeptics still question climate change on some level? I didn't think so but when your brother or father is talking to you like you're an idiot for thinking climate change is real, it's disconcerting. Like something out of the Twilight Zone. I spend most of my time around level-headed, educated, compassionate, skeptical and thoughtful people. Then once in a while I go 'home' and experience the answer to that perplexing question: How the hell did GW Bush get elected. Twice. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/29/2009 09:31:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 11:51:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Do actual skeptics still question climate change on some level? |
Sure. That's why scientists are comparing the results of dozens of independent climate models to each other: they are skeptics of their own conclusions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 14:38:45 [Permalink]
|
The only members of the skeptical community who I see deny man-made global warming are usually libertarians. You should ask Hittman his opinion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2009 : 22:08:00 [Permalink]
|
I hesitated to post my opinion/beliefs on this, because they're not politically correct in this forum. But since you asked specifically, here goes.
I'm not a denier, but I remain a skeptic, and it has little to do with being a small L libertarian. I'm not skeptical that it's happened, nor that man has some part in it happening, but I'm skeptical about the severity of the problem, and the proposed solutions.
It has more to do with growing up in the 70's, when we were told that global cooling was going to kill us all. A new ice age was coming, and nothing could stop it, and we were All Doomed.
We were also all going to starve to death. The popular book "Famine: 1975" insisted that we'd see the End of Civilization in 1975 as worldwide food shortages turned us into barbarians.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich predicted a similar fate do to population growth. His book "The Population Bomb" was widely popular, and none of his predictions came true. As a result of being wrong about everything, always, he's still venerated by "environmentalists."
It also has to do with the motives of the people who have made this their new religion. Every government, government agency, quasi-government (like the UN) and NGO's primary goal is to increase their funding and power in order to further their agenda. This is a perfect way to do this. The EPA is drooling at the prospect of being able to regulate everything down to your lawnmower. They've made noise about regulating power companies to the minute. They are drooling over this. The Green Party, who really should be called the Red Party, sees this as a golden opportunity to go after those big nasty capitalistic corporations and corporate farms. Politicians of all stripes see this as an opportunity to increase regulations on just about anything they can think of, and you can be sure it will be used as an excuse to raise tax revenue (by taxing energy and vehicles they don't like). The UN sees it as an opportunity to step in and fix things to their liking. Groups like Greenpeace are creaming in their jeans over it. PETA insists we should ban meat to slow GW. And Al Gore, that first class hypocrite, is using it to enrich himself while creating a carbon footprint bigger than 20 regular families. (It's bigger this year than last.) His book "Earth In The Balance" was not only full of factual errors, it's rhetoric is nearly indistinguishable from that of the Unibomber's Manifesto.
So when any of these groups or organizations scrams "We're All Gonna Die!" from GW or any other cause, it sets off the needle on my bullshit meter.
I'm also pretty disgusted with their opposition to any realistic solution. Ahhhhhnod wants to put solar panels in the desert, but environmentalists are trying to stop him with the always popular endangered species claim. Wind farms are routinely opposed by limousine liberals whining about them ruining their view, and making the spurious claim that they kill too many birds. And nukes? Don't even mention them around a tree hugger.
The world is getting warmer. There's no denying that. It's gone up about 1.3 degrees in the past century. But predictions that it's going up by as much as 11 degrees in the next are just goofy. I doubt we could do that if we burned everything on the planet.
How much of it is the result of our activities? It's likely that at least some of it is. It makes sense to cut back and find cleaner energy sources, but not to hobble our entire economy in the process. How can we find a balanced approach, though, when the We're All Gonna Die crowd has the power to do whatever they damn well please, whether it makes sense or not?
Bottom line: I believe the world is getting warmer, and human activity has caused some of that. We should get a lot smarter about energy generation and use. I don't trust government to do that intelligently, or well (there's the libertarian kicking in). Given their history wit |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/31/2009 : 23:14:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
I hesitated to post my opinion/beliefs on this, because they're not politically correct in this forum. |
Poisoning the well.| I'm not skeptical that it's happened, nor that man has some part in it happening, but I'm skeptical about the severity of the problem, and the proposed solutions. |
But... but... but... you just said that your views aren't "politically correct in this forum." A healthy skepticism about the severity is where many of us stand. How is that not PC? Oh, I bet you just assumed that everyone here would be in the "we're all gonna die" crowd.  | It has more to do with growing up in the 70's, when we were told that global cooling was going to kill us all. A new ice age was coming, and nothing could stop it, and we were All Doomed. |
Yes, a single article in the popular press, and a few fireside chats. Your bitterness at being lied to is obvious, but as obviously you pick-and-choose which media outlets and which authorities to believe, now.We were also all going to starve to death. The popular book "Famine: 1975" insisted that we'd see the End of Civilization in 1975 as worldwide food shortages turned us into barbarians.
Dr. Paul Ehrlich predicted a similar fate do to population growth. His book "The Population Bomb" was widely popular, and none of his predictions came true. As a result of being wrong about everything, always, he's still venerated by "environmentalists." |
More of the same. I feel bad for you that you so trusted these things that you now feel betrayed by them, so much so that you'll doubt even accurate science when it's reported by the mainstream media or is otherwise "popular."| ...Politicians of all stripes... |
Except Libertarians and Republicans, yes?| I'm also pretty disgusted with their opposition to any realistic solution. Ahhhhhnod wants to put solar panels in the desert, but environmentalists are trying to stop him with the always popular endangered species claim. Wind farms are routinely opposed by limousine liberals whining about them ruining their view, and making the spurious claim that they kill too many birds. And nukes? Don't even mention them around a tree hugger. |
That's so bizarre. Bleeding-heart liberals are the ones who are screaming "we're all gonna die!" the most, and yet are also acting to eliminate solutions. Meanwhile, free-market conservatives are pooh-poohing the risks, and also are acting to eliminate solutions (by opposing all regulations). Who'da thunk that extremists cause problems?| The world is getting warmer. There's no denying that. It's gone up about 1.3 degrees in the past century. But predictions that it's going up by as much as 11 degrees in the next are just goofy. I doubt we could do that if we burned everything on the planet. |
Your incredulity isn't evidence that the predictions are wrong. What are the problems with the actual science that led you to the conclusion that the predictions are "just goofy?"
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 00:16:42 [Permalink]
|
 See? I knew it.
Originally posted by Hittman
I'm not a denier, but I remain a skeptic, and it has little to do with being a small L libertarian. |
Riiiiiiiight. If that's true, then how could I have known? It's about what you choose to trust as sources of accurate information, and that has everything to do with the political bias you've made known.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/01/2009 00:19:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 09:18:37 [Permalink]
|
hittman said:
The world is getting warmer. There's no denying that. It's gone up about 1.3 degrees in the past century. But predictions that it's going up by as much as 11 degrees in the next are just goofy. I doubt we could do that if we burned everything on the planet.
|
Even if that number isn't accurate, a total average global temperature increase of 3 more degrees means my home will be under water.
Your whole post is little more than a rant against a political point of view that you have an obvious hatred for.
You'll find almost no one here that opposes wind, solar, and nuclear energy projects. Wind alone has the potential to supply all of our electricity.
You want to know who the real opposition to wind and solar energy is? Coal mine and coal fired power plant owners. They buylobby every politician in DC they can to enact regulations and laws that favor coal burning exclusively.
The very few fringe people who oppose wind/solar/nuclear for "environmental" reasons are just scapegoats. They lack the resources or influence to get their point of view enforced.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 11:34:44 [Permalink]
|
That's exactly what I expected from you Dave. Put words in my mouth, belittle everything I said, just being your general asshole self. Tell you what, genius. Since you insisted on bringing up the CRA in the SHS thread, I'm going to do the same in this one. Give me a valid explanation of how the economic meltdown could have happened without the CRA, to demonstrate you're not just an ignorant blowhard. Until then, I'll be ignoring you and talking with the grownups here.
Humburt, most libertarians are skeptics, but most skeptics aren't libertarians. (They probably would be, if they were really skeptical about government in general, instead of just being skeptical about the party they disagree with the most.) Guessing that I'd be skeptical about this should have been pretty easy I'll always be skeptical about things where most of the evidence is financed by those with powerful and extreme agendas, especially when they're accompanied by extreme claims. Skepticism starts with being skeptical of any information source, on any subject.
As I said, I don't doubt that it's happening, nor that humans are part of the cause. I do doubt that it's going to be The End Of Mankind, and that we're all going to be standing in salt water up to our ankles by the end of the next century. I'm also pretty sure, given the record of governments on just about anything, that most of the solutions proposed will be ineffective and stupid.
If it were up to me, my solutions would be:
Allow drilling offshore and in ANWAR and the Midwest to deal with the current problem of supply, knowing this is a temporary solution.
Wherever possible switch from oil to electricity, and generate that electricity with nukes, supplementing it with wind and solar. An electric car that uses energy from coal fired plants doesn't help the problem; it just moves it out of sight. An electric car that uses energy from clean sources eliminates a source of pollution, and as an added benefit, reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
Relax. Substantially reducing our carbon footprint is going to take 20-30 years. (We can shave a few years off that if Al Gore gets hit by a bus.) The world isn't going to end, or reach some point-of-no-return tipping point in that time. Peruse things that make sense and are likely to work, ignore those that don't. For instance, electric family cars can be practical, electric semi's aren't likely to be, so don't get all pissy when they're still running on diesel. Don't insist that everyone in the US switch to mass transit. With the exception of a few major cities, we're too spread out for that to be practical. LED lights aren't quite there yet, so wait until they are, and people by them because they're cheaper and better, instead of passing legislation banning tungsten bulbs.
I'd also like to see more research financed by contests, rather than direct funding. DARPA wanted an autonomous vehicle that could travel an obstacle strewn road for 30+ miles without any human intervention. They offered a two million dollar prize to whoever could create it. They sat back and waited. Individuals and universities worked on all kinds of solutions, and finally one team won. Two million is pocket change in the military budget, but it got them what they wanted. Imagine what it would have cost had they done all the research themselves. The challenge continues, now with the requirement the vehicles operate in an urban environment.
Such contests generate an enormous amount of research (not to mention competitiveness and excitement)that doesn't cost us anything. Schools, business and individuals tinkering in their garage do the research and experimentation on their own dime; taxpayers don't have to pay for the failures, only the successes. I'd like to see this approach expanded to energy challenges. For instance, a $25 million prize to whoever can:
Generate ethanol from agricultural scraps fo |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 12:00:59 [Permalink]
|
| You want to know who the real opposition to wind and solar energy is? Coal mine and coal fired power plant owners. They buy lobby every politician in DC they can to enact regulations and laws that favor coal burning exclusively. |
That's part of the problem. What does that tell us about relying on the government for solutions? Politicians will always be for sale, and given the stakes they are surprisingly affordable.
| The very few fringe people who oppose wind/solar/nuclear for "environmental" reasons are just scapegoats. They lack the resources or influence to get their point of view enforced. |
No they're not. They are actively interfering with projects everywhere. Sometimes they prevent them from being implemented, other times they just add years of delay to things, but they are a real impediment to getting things done.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 12:28:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| You want to know who the real opposition to wind and solar energy is? Coal mine and coal fired power plant owners. They buy lobby every politician in DC they can to enact regulations and laws that favor coal burning exclusively. |
That's part of the problem. What does that tell us about relying on the government for solutions? Politicians will always be for sale, and given the stakes they are surprisingly affordable. |
What does that tell us? It tells us that government is the last thing saving us from the greedy, self-serving corporations that are salivating to ruin the environment for short term profit. What else could it tell us? It certainly speaks against having less government or trusting energy companies to regulate themselves.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 12:28:54 [Permalink]
|
| You are going to have to provide a specific, current, example of fringe environmentalists interfering with wind, solar, or nuclear projects. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Global warming deniers
