The New Global Warming Thread

[Kerostasis]

In that case, you completely missed the point of my post. But suit yourself...

[TheFatKidDeath]

In that case, you completely missed the point of my post. But suit yourself...

What IS your point? That the opinions of global warming deniers or skeptics don't count?

It's exactly the opposite. They do count and certainly more so than any alarmist of global warming. Put aside all the mainstream coverage of global warming in the press, nothing really substantial is being done in this country to move from debate to action.

We have an Administration and Congress that simply gives lip service to the idea of global warming. Global warming alarmists can count little if any victories on Capital Hill.

[Lucky Shot]

I think Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic pretty well explained why you haven't seen as much action from Congress and the White House.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e9df7200-19c...b5df10621.html

Vaclav Klaus: I ask myself several questions. Let’s put them in the proper sequence:

• Is global warming a reality?

• If it is a reality, is it man-made?

• If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say “globally”, better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?

• If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything – within the range of current proposals – to be done just now?

Surprisingly, we can say yes – with some degree of probability – only to the first question. To the remaining three my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority.

Lucky Shot

[CingularDuality]

That is exactly the problem, Lucky! Mr. Klaus sums it up quite nicely.

[Kerostasis]

What IS your point? That the opinions of global warming deniers or skeptics don't count?

It's exactly the opposite. They do count and certainly more so than any alarmist of global warming. Put aside all the mainstream coverage of global warming in the press, nothing really substantial is being done in this country to move from debate to action.

We have an Administration and Congress that simply gives lip service to the idea of global warming. Global warming alarmists can count little if any victories on Capital Hill.

My point was that, as far as you're concerned, the opinions of global warming deniers and skeptics shouldn't count. Thankfully your wishes are not yet reality, as you point out. But you give the distinct impression that silencing the skeptics would be much preferable to answering their questions.

[ScratchMonkey]

We have an Administration and Congress that simply gives lip service to the idea of global warming. Global warming alarmists can count little if any victories on Capital Hill.

That could quickly reverse if a Democrat gains the White House.

The power you give one party today to "do good" can quickly be misused by the other party following the next election. Be careful how much power you grant to a government. You might as well mount a cannon on your attack dog.

[TheFatKidDeath]

My point was that, as far as you're concerned, the opinions of global warming deniers and skeptics shouldn't count. Thankfully your wishes are not yet reality, as you point out. But you give the distinct impression that silencing the skeptics would be much preferable to answering their questions.

Opinions matter. There are plenty of opinions claiming the existence of BigFoot, UFO's and Atlantis. Lots of opinions on George Bush orchestrating 911 or WMD's being moved to Syria. We don't take those claims seriously. So why should we take seriously those that deny global warming?

[Lucky Shot]

For the same reason that you should have taken the skeptics of Avian Flu Pandemic, Y2K, or Cancer from Magnetism seriously. This is alarmism in that same vein and based on Switchcraft's link, it's time to invest in Parkas.

Lucky Shot

[TheFatKidDeath]

For the same reason that you should have taken the skeptics of Avian Flu Pandemic, Y2K, or Cancer from Magnetism seriously. This is alarmism in that same vein and based on Switchcraft's link, it's time to invest in Parkas.

Lucky Shot

You need to provide better examples. Y2K nor Cancer from Magnetism were embraced by the mainstream scientific community and Avian Flu or similar global pandemic is still cause for worry by science.

[Lucky Shot]

But they all were embraced by Mainstream Media, much like Human Caused Global Warming. According to Switchcraft's article, Human Induced Global Warming has not been accepted by the majority of climatologists either.

[TheFatKidDeath]

But they all were embraced by Mainstream Media, much like Human Caused Global Warming. According to Switchcraft's article, Human Induced Global Warming has not been accepted by the majority of climatologists either.

Mainstream media does not conduct scientific research. Old poll, please show me an updated 2007 one.

[Lucky Shot]

Mainstream media does not conduct scientific research. Old poll, please show me an updated 2007 one.

But they certainly like to portray it as absolute fact, enter Global Warming. For what it's worth, political bodies like the IPCC are not good shepards of science either.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Opinions matter. There are plenty of opinions claiming the existence of BigFoot, UFO's and Atlantis. Lots of opinions on George Bush orchestrating 911 or WMD's being moved to Syria. We don't take those claims seriously. So why should we take seriously those that deny global warming?

Most of the claims you mention have the convenient characteristic of having precisely zero effect on national policy. That allows them to be nothing more than academic curiosities...those who care can spend time arguing about them, and those who don't care can just go with the majority opinion and not worry about it.

Global Warming is different in being involved with multi-Trillion-dollar policy decisions, making it much more dangerous to come to rash conclusions. Claims that Bush orchestrated 9/11 fall in about the same camp as far as severity of consequence, but the level of evidence available is much different--we can say with far greater certainty that 9/11 was caused by Al-Qaeda then we can that global warming was caused by industrial America.

We do not ignore the 9/11 conspiracists because we don't like their conclusions, we ignore them because their evidence is non-existant. Go check out the WTC thread that just finished running for a sample. But climate change is an entirely different arena--being ignored because of your conclusions is par for the course in the science of climate change, and you have demonstrated that you are more than eager to continue that course. Scientists who produce research opposed to the "consensus" view of warming do not find their methods attacked, they find their personal reputations attacked. The science of climate change is "settled" only in the minds of those who value a political result more than they value knowing the truth.

But let me present your own question to you in reverse. Looking a little closer, it would be more appropriate to compare 9/11 conspiracists with global warming alarmists rather than with global warming skeptics. The primary difference is that global warming alarmists are far more numerous than 9/11 conspiracists, so they are more difficult to ignore. But both have taken a few fragmentary pieces of evidence, whose relation to the whole remains unclear, and extrapolated incredible results. Both present a conclusion which would require drastic action from all those around them, not just those who actually believe the conclusion. In fact, the conclusions of the global warming alarmists go much further in changing the lives of their fellow citizens, as they dictate the the entire American lifestyle is completely untenable, while the 9/11 conspiracists merely ask us to throw out the President and/or overthrow the government. We dismiss the 9/11 conspiracists as kooks...why should we not do the same with the global warming alarmists? Why should we take you seriously?

[AMosely]

The National Review published a real turn-around article this past week entitled "End Game." I can't find it on-line, but I did find an excerpt that I contrasted with an article they ran a little more than 2 years ago. I believe we're all in agreement that this periodical is pure right-wing trash, but here's some good, old-fashioned flipflopping facts:

January 2005:
"Climate change is a legitimate issue, but between the shabby way environmentalists and the Left exploit it, and the faulty record of so many past predictions of the eco-apocalypse, deep skepticism remains the sensible default position."
http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/...0501250748.asp

June 2007:
"It is no longer possible, scientifically or politically, to deny that human activities have very likely increased global temperatures; what remains in dispute is the precise magnitude of the human impact. Conservatives should accept this reality — and move on to the question of what we should do about it."

[Kerostasis]

I found it online, but its registration only. Link

There's also Manzi's response to another researcher's counterpiece, which is free online. Interesting read. Based on his comments I'm guessing that his original article was much less extreme than the cover-story caption would lead you to believe, although its hard to tell without reading the whole article.

(It is worth noting your first and second pieces have different authors, so this isn't a complete turnaround in a single person's opinion.)