Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:02 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660

How will history see the climate change denialists?


The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we're out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it's too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.

And, obviously, that's just not happening. A large part of the problem is straight-up denialism coming out from one of the primary parties in one of the most energy-greedy nations in the world.

Ignoring, for the moment, the normal person on the street who probably fell for propaganda and at least has some excuse...

How will history look back on people like James Inhofe, Charles Koch, and Christopher Monckton? People who staked large parts of their careers on lying about climate change, when they pretty much had to know that what they were doing was wrong? How will history see the propagandists like Frank Lutz who saw the problem and decided that spin and lying was a good idea?

Obviously, it's a fever dream to imagine any of these people standing in Den Haag for crimes against humanity, but I cannot imagine that, once the consequences become more and more clear, these people end up looking like anything other than monsters in the same category as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. It's just a damn shame that these people will die too soon to see those consequences, and too late to avoid doing any more damage, i.e. not literally right fucking now.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-20-2018 at 03:03 PM.
  #2  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:35 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
  #3  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:40 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
The question is really framed around the ideologues who reject science when it suits them. How do you think such people will be regarded in the long run?

I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don't think they will be regarded as mass murders.
  #4  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:37 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don't think they will be regarded as mass murders.
But the problem arises when you have those crackpots running the country. I don't think history will condemn specific deniers who are just cranks. But when the entire Republican Party platform is built around science denial in general, and AGW denial in particular, that will not be forgotten. Neither will the electorate who voted for them. I think history will look back on this and ask how our entire generation could have been so stupid as to put these fools in power.
  #5  
Old 10-21-2018, 09:30 AM
enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
But the problem arises when you have those crackpots running the country. I don't think history will condemn specific deniers who are just cranks. But when the entire Republican Party platform is built around science denial in general, and AGW denial in particular, that will not be forgotten. Neither will the electorate who voted for them. I think history will look back on this and ask how our entire generation could have been so stupid as to put these fools in power.
Bolding mine.

The electorate that voted for the likes of Trump will continue to believe that they did every thing right, and wonder why someone didn't save them.

They voted for Trump. Think about that.

To point a finger at their support for this moron and administration, is pointing a finger at the mirror. They'll never denounce the decisions that they are making, or made in the past.

The entire republican platform is now based on blaming someone else while robbing the cookie jar.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #6  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:43 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
Absolutely. Because their solutions are the same (do nothing). Therefore they are equally culpable.
  #7  
Old 10-20-2018, 03:52 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
Pretty much. It's worth referencing the steps of denialism:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Regardless of whether they're denying whether or why, they're denying reality and doing nothing about it.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 10-20-2018 at 03:54 PM.
  #8  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:44 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Pretty much. It's worth referencing the steps of denialism:
Expressed more fully here The Denialist Staircase:

Quote:
Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.

1. Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring,[37] pushing the degree of denialism to the verge of the delusional.
2. Simply deny global warming is happening and maintain that no action is necessary[38] — so we don't have to change anything.
3. Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to change anything.
4. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity — so we don't have to change anything.
5. Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don't have to change anything, Ehrlich![39]
6. Global warming is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to change anything.[40]
7. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world's poor from improving their lives] — so we don't have to change anything.
8. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority[41] — so we don't have to change anything.
9. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but it's just human sin, so outside of worthless praying, we don't have to change anything.[42]
10. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything — so we don’t have to change anything.[43]
11. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don't have to change anything.
12. Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to change anything.
13. Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now![44]

When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above — otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order (NWO) as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them.

Global warming deniers have raised a number of slightly more scientific arguments which are covered below.

Many of these claims are thrown into one big denialist soup. However, the problem is that many of them are also contradictory in nature.

For example, the common talking points about it being warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and low climate sensitivity (i.e. "climate is much more stable than that") contradict each other, because the existence of a Medieval Warm Period necessitates high climate sensitivity.

Another common inconsistency lies in asserting that "temperature records and proxies are notoriously inaccurate" (always to some undecidable degree beyond the statistical error scientists already factor in), while in the next breath, suddenly inventing presenting select 'reliable records' as evidence for whichever esoteric conclusion on global climate the individual denialist in question happens to be gunning for this time around.[45]

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-16-2019 at 03:46 PM.
  #9  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:50 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
XKCD: Earth Temperature Timeline.
  #10  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:13 PM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
Are the deniers denying that the climate is changing? Or are they denying what’s causing the change?

Or is anyone in either category considered a denier?
If they are accepting that it is happening, but denying what is causing it (as absurd as that is), then they are still refusing to do anything about it.

If there is an asteroid coming at us, and we have say, 75 years to do something about it, in 74 years, will we still be saying that nothing needs to be done about it, because we were not the cuase?
  #11  
Old 10-20-2018, 05:40 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,090
It's too late to avoid disaster, because climate change is already disastrous, and has been for over a decade at least. And it will continue to be a disaster. And the sooner we do something about it, and the more we do, the less disastrous it will be, going forward.
  #12  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:43 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,866
If something isn't done about it, history won't see them as anything because there won't be anything left to have a history.
  #13  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:46 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor's Avatar
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 31,101
Will there be history, later on?
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
~~~Dom Helder Camara
  #14  
Old 10-20-2018, 06:50 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we're out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it's too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.

And, obviously, that's just not happening. A large part of the problem is straight-up denialism coming out from one of the primary parties in one of the most energy-greedy nations in the world.

Ignoring, for the moment, the normal person on the street who probably fell for propaganda and at least has some excuse...

How will history look back on people like James Inhofe, Charles Koch, and Christopher Monckton? People who staked large parts of their careers on lying about climate change, when they pretty much had to know that what they were doing was wrong? How will history see the propagandists like Frank Lutz who saw the problem and decided that spin and lying was a good idea?

Obviously, it's a fever dream to imagine any of these people standing in Den Haag for crimes against humanity, but I cannot imagine that, once the consequences become more and more clear, these people end up looking like anything other than monsters in the same category as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler. It's just a damn shame that these people will die too soon to see those consequences, and too late to avoid doing any more damage, i.e. not literally right fucking now.
It really depends on how it all plays out. Stalin is still considered, well, less than a monster in may quarters, even here, while Hitler is rightfully vilified. Same goes for Mao. Consider your list there and consider who is really vilified on it and who isn't in the context of what you are asking. All SHOULD be, pretty much equally...yet they aren't. So, how will history see the climate change deniers? IMHO they will probably be seen as the equivalent of the JFK CTers or the Moon Landing Hoaxers...at best, of those who denied tobacco was as dangerous as it turned out to be. Even if things are as bad as I think (let alone as bad as some of the more hysteric climate change enthusiast's are projecting), I don't think that it's going to all come down on climate change denialists...they will simply be seen as the crazy fringe they are, but the reality is that it's you and me and everyone else who still drives around in our cars, still kicks the AC up to frigid in the summer and toasty in the winter, still uses our electronics (making sure they are warmed up and ready whenever we need/want them of course) and still buy tons of crap marked Made in China on the label. We are all pretty much guilty...I seriously doubt that you, OP, have a carbon footprint that much different than the average American or European...certainly I doubt that you have the carbon footprint of the average African, say. And I doubt that most others reading this thread and nodding their heads at the above comments and feeling all righteous about climate change and anger at the deniers are much different than the average.


Maybe the deniers will be seen as the big losers by the masses, but only if the narrative is able to shift the actual blame fully onto their shoulders and let it off the majority of the population, or the fact that there are several 'emerging' nations who are pumping out staggering amounts of CO2 every bit as much or more than the US or Europe. Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it's really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them. Could happen. But I think that, history is going to look down on all of us...me, you and everyone else in this thread as well as the deniers and that orange haired idiot in the white house...AND our pal Xi, and Modi, and Putin and the various heads of state in Europe, Canada, Australia and the rest. JMHO and all, and I won't live to see it, but I think history is going to rip us all a new one and none of us are going to get off lightly.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #15  
Old 10-20-2018, 08:22 PM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
It really depends on how it all plays out. Stalin is still considered, well, less than a monster in may quarters, even here, while Hitler is rightfully vilified. Same goes for Mao. Consider your list there and consider who is really vilified on it and who isn't in the context of what you are asking. All SHOULD be, pretty much equally...yet they aren't. So, how will history see the climate change deniers? IMHO they will probably be seen as the equivalent of the JFK CTers or the Moon Landing Hoaxers...at best, of those who denied tobacco was as dangerous as it turned out to be. Even if things are as bad as I think (let alone as bad as some of the more hysteric climate change enthusiast's are projecting), I don't think that it's going to all come down on climate change denialists...they will simply be seen as the crazy fringe they are,
How are they the crazy fringe, when they are the party that is currently in control of the government on the federal, and on most state levels?

Trump pulled us out of the climate change deal. Republicans are doing everything in their power to deny climate change and prevent anything from being done to mitigate it.
Quote:
but the reality is that it's you and me and everyone else who still drives around in our cars, still kicks the AC up to frigid in the summer and toasty in the winter, still uses our electronics (making sure they are warmed up and ready whenever we need/want them of course) and still buy tons of crap marked Made in China on the label. We are all pretty much guilty...I seriously doubt that you, OP, have a carbon footprint that much different than the average American or European...certainly I doubt that you have the carbon footprint of the average African, say. And I doubt that most others reading this thread and nodding their heads at the above comments and feeling all righteous about climate change and anger at the deniers are much different than the average.
Sure, we are all guilty here, but that is because it is not something that can be addressed on the individual level. If you went off the grid tomorrow, and consumed nothing but what you could grow within walking distance, you would have how much of an impact? If we all did that, how many of us would simply starve?

It is necessary for the govt to address this problem, to make the use of the commons a cost that we all bear now, rather than a cost we foist onto later generations and upon those who benefit the least from our energy usage.
Quote:

Maybe the deniers will be seen as the big losers by the masses, but only if the narrative is able to shift the actual blame fully onto their shoulders and let it off the majority of the population, or the fact that there are several 'emerging' nations who are pumping out staggering amounts of CO2 every bit as much or more than the US or Europe.
The emerging nations that are trying to emulate the United States and our standard of living are not nearly as much at fault as us, who have benefited from our standard of living for a couple generations now.

It was fine when it was just a few of us being wasteful in our lifestyles of luxury, but now that other people want the same, it is suddenly a problem.
Quote:
Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it's really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them.
Who is that, anymore? Far left wing, maybe, but pretty much all moderate democrats are on board with nuclear, so long as it is done safely and with a fair amount of oversight. Nuclear is something that needs to be addressed at the governmental level, once again.

So, republicans have complete control of the government, what is their plan to expand our nuclear generation capacity?
Quote:
Could happen. But I think that, history is going to look down on all of us...me, you and everyone else in this thread as well as the deniers and that orange haired idiot in the white house...AND our pal Xi, and Modi, and Putin and the various heads of state in Europe, Canada, Australia and the rest. JMHO and all, and I won't live to see it, but I think history is going to rip us all a new one and none of us are going to get off lightly.
History doesn't look kindly on those who allow bad things to happen, but they are a footnote compared to the ones who made bad things happen.
  #16  
Old 10-20-2018, 10:30 PM
Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,647
I agree with pretty much everything XT said but I want to reiterate this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Maybe folks who block continue and in the face of everything the full bore development of nuclear will be able to convince themselves that it's really all the deniers fault and none of the blame splashes on them.
Future historians will see little difference between CC denialists and nuclear power opponents. If we had continued to ramp up on nuclear power we'd be much closer to carbon neutral now then we'll every be from solar/wind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Who is that, anymore? Far left wing, maybe, but pretty much all moderate democrats are on board with nuclear, so long as it is done safely and with a fair amount of oversight. Nuclear is something that needs to be addressed at the governmental level, once again.
I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a "nuclear-free" future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she's agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
  #17  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:46 PM
Batano is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
..liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a "nuclear-free" future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she's agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Agree whole-heartedly with this post. Liberals are not immune from being anti-science. Many of the anti-vax and anti-fluoride crowd are liberals. The anti-GMO movement is guilty of anti-science propaganda as well by using terms like Frankenfoods. While there are benefits to the environment from organic farming most of the purported health benefits of organic food are bullshit. Then there is the embrace by many on the left of alternative medicine like ear candling, homeopathy, and other nonsense.

I say all this as someone well to the left of center. It's tempting to deny reality when it conflicts with your world view. I know that in my youth I made excuses for China, Cuba, East Germany and other oppressive regimes. Tip to youngsters: if a country has guns at their border to prevent people from leaving then they are probably on the wrong side of history.

It's easy to embrace science when it conforms with to your own value system. If you live in an urban area with good mass transit or are healthy enough to ride a bike or walk, then being anti-car is no big deal. If you have enough money to shop at Whole Foods or farmers' markets* then eating organic is possible. For others, spending $1.00 to buy one freaking peach is a ridiculous extravagance.

*Not farm stands in the country, you may find some good deals there, I mean the farmers' markets in places like my home town where I can blow through $20 to get one small bag of veggies.

Last edited by Batano; 10-20-2018 at 11:50 PM.
  #18  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:33 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I agree with pretty much everything XT said but I want to reiterate this:

Future historians will see little difference between CC denialists and nuclear power opponents. If we had continued to ramp up on nuclear power we'd be much closer to carbon neutral now then we'll every be from solar/wind.

I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power.
There were previous discussions that are totally ignored to get a post like that.

What I see here is similar to the coal people that blamed Obama and environmentalists for the closing of coal mines. In one very recent discussion it is clear that many of the proponents of nuclear are ignoring economic forces (and political pressure coming from conservatives too) that are also working against nuclear power nowadays.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=214

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...&postcount=222


Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Obama BTW kept on funding new nuclear power plants under construction, and research.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...nuclear-energy

As for current pushes, what Trump is doing fails once one considers how he is supporting efforts to gut regulations against CO2 emissions and for supporting more coal power.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-21-2018 at 12:35 AM.
  #19  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:31 AM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post

I strongly disagree; liberals have a terrible record with nuclear power. Bernie Sanders (who is, admittedly, more liberal than most Democrats but he got a lot of support from mainstream Democrats) wants to put a moratorium on nuclear power and advocates for a "nuclear-free" future. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as saying she's agnostic about nuclear power. Obama cut all funds to Yucca mountain putting a serious blow to the future and never put up funds for a replacement. For all his nuttery Trump has restored funding for Yucca mountain. To my knowledge all the major environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace) are virulently against nuclear power. Is there any national liberal politician making a strong push for nuclear power?
Yucca mountain is not nuclear power, and it was poorly thought out from the beginning, starting from the idea that the stuff that comes out of a nuclear reactor is waste, and not extremely valuable material.

I agree that Bernie is against nuclear power, and that was one of my biggest things that I held against him. Clinton was "agnostic" because she didn't want to upset the fringe left and Bernie followers in a very close election where she stood to lose far more votes by being for nuclear than being "agnostic."

Yes, the crazy environmental groups tend to be towards the left, as the right has no interest whatsoever on the environment, and many environmental groups are fueled more by FUDD than by science when it comes to nuclear.

As far as national liberal politicians for nuclear power, here's some links:

GOP, Democrats join forces to advance nuclear power bill

Quote:
But nuclear energy appears to be an issue where both parties can find some agreement. Democrats on the environment committee like nuclear energy because it produces no emissions and can help combat the effects of climate change.

"This legislation shows how we can work together, across the aisle, to address issues that are important for our country," said Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the committee. "When done responsibly, nuclear power can help combat the negative impacts of climate change on our environment and public health, while also providing economic opportunities for Americans."
The quick guide to America’s political parties stances on nuclear energy

Quote:
Democratic’s political stances on nuclear energy
Science Issues
Do you support the use of nuclear energy?

Democratic’s answer: Yes
At climate conference, Democrats shift tones on nuclear power

Quote:
"Anything that is a low-carbon solution has to be pursued, and anything that can get bipartisan support ought to be pursued," said Schatz. "That's not to say nuclear power is necessarily a solution in most instances, but there may be instances where it's the best solution."
"I think it can be part of a clean energy environment," Cardin said.
"I'm not saying we've solved any of the problems with fuel storage, but I think in terms of the big vision of saving our planet, it's worth exploring that strategy," Merkley said.
And to be fair, of course, Merkley also has some reservations:
Quote:
"If safety is not compromised, if economics are not compromised, if nuclear nonproliferation issues are not compromised, then I support nuclear power," Markey told me after the press conference in an interview. "If they have to be compromised in order to accomplish that goal, then no I don't. And thus far they have not been able to 30 years overcome those obstacles."
Now, what you are talking about is the far left, who are complaining about moderate democrats getting on board with nuclear. For instance:

'Til Death Do Us Part? Democrats are Still Pushing Nuclear Power and Weapons

Quote:
The most recent absurdity comes from three Ohio Congressional Dems—Tim Ryan (Youngstown), Marcy Kaptur (Toledo) and Marcia Fudge (Warrensville Heights). They can claim a radioactive soulmate in New York’s “liberal” Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Rather than embrace the renewable revolution now remaking the global energy supply and the millions of jobs key to the future of a working-class constituency, these Democrats are pursuing the GOP wet-dream of atomic energy.
As you can tell by the tone of that passage, Wasserman is not a big fan of nuclear, and is calling out the democrats who are. The article is full of poor science and outdated concerns.

Yes, the Green party is completely against nuclear, but I'm pretty sure that, in the end, they are dubious on the benefits of civilization itself. And, yes, the Green party does tend to align with the left, but that is because at least the left wants to do some level of protection of the environment, while the right seems to want to exploit it to maximize profits. I would not count them as part of the democratic party for the purpose of this discussion.

Now, the way I see it is that it was Nixon who caused the most damage to nuclear, when he canceled Oak Ridge's MSR project in favor of the Fast Breeder, not because of any science or technical reason, but for political reasons, and in 1983, the fast breeder was then cancelled by a republican majority senate.

These ideas about nuclear power are a generation or more old, and based on the the very real concerns that the public had about the state of the nuclear industry in the 70's. Carter was the last Democratic president who was strongly against nuclear, and in fact, new nuclear power plants broke ground for the first time in decades under Obama.

Quote:
Obama just gave a speech on clean energy after touring a clean jobs training facility in Lanham, MD. In the speech, he made the announcement that his administration has approved an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the US in three decades.
The problem is, is that we are using 60 year old technology that was designed for one purpose, to propel submarines, and that is not the best method of producing electricity for the grid. We have not developed the newer generations of reactors that should bring down the cost and risk substantially.

It tends to be costly.
Quote:
Costs for the two new nuclear reactors have nearly doubled to more than $27 billion. Partners and politicians are worried the costs will trickle down to rural customers’ electric bills, but the sunk costs of halting construction would also be expensive for consumers.
So, I ask again, with the republicans completely controlling the federal government, what is their plan for expanding our nuclear power generation capacity?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 10-21-2018 at 10:31 AM. Reason: formatting
  #20  
Old 10-21-2018, 01:09 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Carter was the last Democratic president who was strongly against nuclear …
That is not accurate. Carter was mostly in favor of nuclear power, but 3MI was a wrench in the works.

The biggest problem seemed to be the LMBRs. They tend to be much, much safer than BWRs or PWRs, with their hands-off passive safety design. I suspect people would become more confident having them down the road as long as they were well explained. But the LMBR program was canceled in the late '70s.

Why was it canceled? From what I can tell, we still had a robust Cold War at the time. Safe LMBRs are not good in a Cold War because they do not produce explody stuff. In other words, the nuclear power program is highly dependent on the MIC. Nuclear power is difficult and expensive, with negative RoI, so it cannot be done strictly by for-profit business. It is scary to people, and fossil industries have very good, fast profit, which they can funnel into reinforcing the fear.

Reality is that we are a pig in shit, fat, happy and a real pain in the ass to drag out of the shit. Our great-grandchildren will have it pretty hard comparatively, because we are taking the stuff they need and crapping in their salad bar. That we could cut back and act with due restraint for their sake seems a bit improbable at this point.
  #21  
Old 10-21-2018, 02:19 PM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
That is not accurate. Carter was mostly in favor of nuclear power, but 3MI was a wrench in the works.
Personally, sure, but policy wise, he did slow the development of nuclear power. But, agreed, he wasn't actively hostile to it. I was responding to Deeg's assertion that democrats are against nuclear power, and was giving him as much benefit of the doubt as I could on that one.
Quote:
The biggest problem seemed to be the LMBRs. They tend to be much, much safer than BWRs or PWRs, with their hands-off passive safety design. I suspect people would become more confident having them down the road as long as they were well explained. But the LMBR program was canceled in the late '70s.

Why was it canceled? From what I can tell, we still had a robust Cold War at the time. Safe LMBRs are not good in a Cold War because they do not produce explody stuff. In other words, the nuclear power program is highly dependent on the MIC. Nuclear power is difficult and expensive, with negative RoI, so it cannot be done strictly by for-profit business. It is scary to people, and fossil industries have very good, fast profit, which they can funnel into reinforcing the fear.

Reality is that we are a pig in shit, fat, happy and a real pain in the ass to drag out of the shit. Our great-grandchildren will have it pretty hard comparatively, because we are taking the stuff they need and crapping in their salad bar. That we could cut back and act with due restraint for their sake seems a bit improbable at this point.
We don't really have to cut back, we just need to be smarter. Cars get far better gas millage than they did in the 70's, and they are getting even better. We don't need to drive fewer miles if we can produce less CO2 per mile.

Development of nuclear is probably the only realistic way of accommodating our desire to consume more and more energy intensive goods and services, while not ruining our planet. Very few are going to listen to greenpeace and cut back on their carbon footprint voluntarily, not enough to do any good. But even fewer will care much if the energy that produces and powers their Iphone comes from solar, wind, nuclear, or coal.

There are some promising developments in the world of fusion that may make most of this irrelevant anyway. If someone develops a practical electricity producing fusion plant, then pretty much all our problems are solved. Short of that holy grail (which may be slightly more attainable than the actual holy grail), fission is really the best bet for our future.
  #22  
Old 10-23-2018, 12:50 PM
Sailboat's Avatar
Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yucca mountain is not nuclear power, and it was poorly thought out from the beginning
Let's also be clear that the fate of the Yucca Mountain repository is an example of democracy in action, despite strong pro-Yucca propaganda* by various interests.

Yucca Mountain was selected to be a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in 1987. Nevada protested, but was overruled/outvoted -- the other states effectively said, "we will put this waste in your state, because we have political power. That's how it works. When you get political power, you can dictate."

Harry Reid was first elected to the Senate in 1986 -- he was a freshman senator when the bill went through, and politically weak, not able to stop it. But he remained in office, re-elected several times, and due to the seniority system in Congress, Nevada's political fortunes rose with him. He was lucky enough to be an early backer of Barack Obama, and earned political favor when Obama won.

Then Nevada effectively said "NOW we have political power and we're going to use it. Bye-bye out-of-state waste dump!" And everybody cried that Nevada was anti-science. Boo hoo. Nevada played by the rules of the game.

*Example of propaganda in the Wikipedia article:

Quote:
The project has encountered many difficulties and was highly contested by the non-local public, the Western Shoshone peoples, and many politicians.[3] The project also faces strong state and regional opposition.[4]
"highly contested by the non-local public," eh? Someone had to shoehorn in the implication that outsiders did it! But what about "strong state and regional opposition?" Those aren't local?
  #23  
Old 10-23-2018, 04:13 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,489
And after billions of dollars and decades of work we still don't have a central repository for nuclear waste. Yah Team!! I'm sure all that nuclear waste will be fine in situ for the next few thousand years...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #24  
Old 10-20-2018, 09:05 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,499
When your plane crashes in the mountains, you can blame the pilot for fucking up, or the navigator for reading the charts/weather data wrong, or the ground crew for not making sure the plane was in good enough shape to make this trip, but, in the end, you are stuck in the mountains, and you have to deal with the situation at hand.

If there are still people around in the long future, that is what they will be doing: dealing with what we have left them. They might resent us somewhat for leaving them a mess, but what is done is done, there is nothing to be gained from excoriating us (other than to insure that no one goes this way again) when getting by is paramount. If some form of civilization rises phoenixlike, they will most likely view us in the light of the kind of ignorance we ascribe to those who lived in the “Dark Ages”.

Last edited by eschereal; 10-20-2018 at 09:05 PM.
  #25  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:34 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The question is really framed around the ideologues who reject science when it suits them. How do you think such people will be regarded in the long run?

I think they will look like garden variety crackpots, such as those who drink colloidal silver until they turn blue from all those health benefits they are getting. I don't think they will be regarded as mass murders.
People who reject science out of convenience are morons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Absolutely. Because their solutions are the same (do nothing). Therefore they are equally culpable.
Good point. Agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Pretty much. It's worth referencing the steps of denialism:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-stages-denial

Regardless of whether they're denying whether or why, they're denying reality and doing nothing about it.
Yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If they are accepting that it is happening, but denying what is causing it (as absurd as that is), then they are still refusing to do anything about it.

If there is an asteroid coming at us, and we have say, 75 years to do something about it, in 74 years, will we still be saying that nothing needs to be done about it, because we were not the cuase?
Yep, got it.

We should all be reducing greenhouse gasses, and also pressuring other countries to be doing so also.

From epa.gov (emphasis mine):

Quote:
A typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. This assumes the average gasoline vehicle on the road today has a fuel economy of about 22.0 miles per gallon and drives around 11,500 miles per year.
Metric tons!

https://buildingenergy.cx-associates...co2-look-like/
Quote:
Based on the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), the global emissions due to fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacturing for 2010 were 33.5 billion metric tonnes of CO2. To understand how much gas this is, imagine the state of Connecticut (5,500 sq miles) covered in a 3,200 foot thick blanket (a 0.6 mile thick blanket of gas).
But maybe most readers of this thread already know this.
  #26  
Old 10-20-2018, 11:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
But maybe most readers of this thread already know this.
One way to deal with this is a better plan than the "cash for clunkers", but this time geared more towards low income people to get credit to get a hybrid or electric car.
  #27  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:15 AM
Batano is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One way to deal with this is a better plan than the "cash for clunkers", but this time geared more towards low income people to get credit to get a hybrid or electric car.
I never understood why some politician didn't propose a massive program to insulate houses and upgrade heating and cooling systems. Seems like a no-brainer. Especially if you said equipment and parts needed to be domestically produced. While this chart shows residential use as only comprising 11% of greenhouse emissions, the 28% contribution from electricity includes power needed for electric heat and cooling.

Last edited by Batano; 10-21-2018 at 12:15 AM.
  #28  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:47 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batano View Post
I never understood why some politician didn't propose a massive program to insulate houses and upgrade heating and cooling systems. Seems like a no-brainer. Especially if you said equipment and parts needed to be domestically produced. While this chart shows residential use as only comprising 11% of greenhouse emissions, the 28% contribution from electricity includes power needed for electric heat and cooling.
Several decades ago, we were kind of moving in that direction. We had this “energy crisis” thing going on (as I recall, you could only buy motor fuel on odd or even days, depending on what the number at the end of your license plate was). The President was even pro-nuclear, being a Navy man. Then there was a recession, which led us to getting a shiny new President who said, “Pish-posh on that, we will point big guns at the Ayrabs until the give us lots of cheap oil.” So that solved that. That President shut down the expensive Mirror Fusion Test Facility, and because of that loss, we are still 20 years short of solving controlled nuclear fusion when it could be only 20 years away.
  #29  
Old 12-14-2018, 05:27 PM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Transplanted!
Posts: 19,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Several decades ago, we were kind of moving in that direction. We had this “energy crisis” thing going on (as I recall, you could only buy motor fuel on odd or even days, depending on what the number at the end of your license plate was).
And not many years before that, people were just starting to take overpopulation seriously, but then the movement to address that got besmirched with the taints of racism and cultural superiority. Just imagine how much less of a threat climate change would be today, if a program to make contraception available to everyone everywhere had been successfully put through.
  #30  
Old 10-21-2018, 08:39 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
The thing is, we don't need to ask how history will view these people. Many people (including me) view them with utter contempt right now.

The OP is correct that many of the denialists know what they are saying is wrong. Vox did a video recently mashing together clips of how the climate change discussion has changed over the last 12 years. It's interesting to notice some of the figures that are now saying that "the science is not clear" previously accepting the science.

For all the other people, who just watch clips that "prove" climate change is a hoax and are not even aware of the other side and the evidence...I can't hate those people, because they aren't necessarily bad people, just ignorant, including being ignorant of critical thinking. But I hate the culture and circumstances that mean that whole swathes of the public (oh, and the president), can spend their lives immersed in bullshit.

Last edited by Mijin; 10-21-2018 at 08:41 AM.
  #31  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:43 AM
senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,830
I think they'll be seen as irrelevant. They largely exist in countries whose emissions have already peaked and the problem has largely passed Western governments by. If the EU and the US were to completely cut admissions to zero. We'd still be admitting worldwide at 2000 levels. The growth is largely in developing countries and you're never going to convince them to let their people starve just to avoid cheap coal. I assume at some point renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels and that will be what caps emissions, but until that happens, the position of first worlders is of secondary importance.
  #32  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:03 PM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
I think they'll be seen as irrelevant. They largely exist in countries whose emissions have already peaked and the problem has largely passed Western governments by. If the EU and the US were to completely cut admissions to zero. We'd still be admitting worldwide at 2000 levels. The growth is largely in developing countries and you're never going to convince them to let their people starve just to avoid cheap coal. I assume at some point renewables will get cheaper than fossil fuels and that will be what caps emissions, but until that happens, the position of first worlders is of secondary importance.
But, the first worlders can assist the developing nations in rasingin their standard of living without ballooning their carbon footprint.

We are less wasteful now, due to technologies that we developed, which were helped by our wastefulness.

Rather than having all the developing nations go through all the stages we did, we can bootstrap them to a higher level. LED lighting, rather than incandescents or gas. electric vehicles, rather than ICE vehicles. If we step up our nuclear development, we can provide that technology, rather than relying on fossil fuels.
  #33  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:23 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,691
There is historical precedence for this. History will see the climate change denialists like the cigarette smoking denialists. There were experiments that pretty conclusively showed that cigarette smoking was dangerous in 1950. Not just a little dangerous, but "immediately causes substantial tumors in rats". It took about 40 years for anything really substantive to be done about it, and now, almost 70 years later, cigarettes are still legal. I understand that quitting this addictive drug is extremely difficult, but at a minimum, we could make illegal the manufacture and open sale of cigarettes themselves. Chewing tobacco has about half the death rate, we could probably make a gum that was full strength with about 1-10% of the death rate, the evidence says that vaping probably is about 5% or less as harmful, and so on.

People talking about how much they love their trucks and massive inefficient houses and low prices for gasoline remind me of this a little. (none of this would be affordable with a reasonable surcharge on carbon emissions)
  #34  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:14 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem. Plus, according to 2525 morals, segregation was shown to be absolutely the way to go.

Couldn't people in Virginia in 1927 look at people in 1867 and say that their ideals about equality for the black race were wrong and our new enlightened sterilization and segregation laws have shown that society is better now?

I'm sort of joking about the last two, but it illustrates my point. Nobody in 1518 could predict how we would think in 2018 and we cannot either. What frame of history are we talking about?
  #35  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:46 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem.
And I get annoyed by people who have zero understanding of the science but make ridiculous nonsensical proclamations anyway, like "we don't understand enough" or Trump's "climate change is a Chinese hoax", James Inhofe's "only God can change the climate", or Trump's more recent "the climate will change back again".

Or hypothesizing fantastical imaginary inventions that will fix everything all up. We can't predict what we may or may not invent in the future, but we can say that the 37 billion tons of CO2 the world emits every year is no small matter and is not going to be fixed by someone's backyard invention, not to mention the accumulated billions of tons already in the air for the long term.

The radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is not a "value" that we "project", it's an established scientific fact. The destruction wrought by severe weather, floods, and droughts and the large-scale decimation of food crops aren't "values" either; those are very bad things in any culture. We need to be guided by scientific facts and plausible scenarios, not by scientific illiterates who don't know the facts and partisan lunatics who lie about them.

Last edited by wolfpup; 10-21-2018 at 10:47 PM.
  #36  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:56 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
And I get annoyed by people who have zero understanding of the science but make ridiculous nonsensical proclamations anyway, like "we don't understand enough" or Trump's "climate change is a Chinese hoax", James Inhofe's "only God can change the climate", or Trump's more recent "the climate will change back again".

Or hypothesizing fantastical imaginary inventions that will fix everything all up. We can't predict what we may or may not invent in the future, but we can say that the 37 billion tons of CO2 the world emits every year is no small matter and is not going to be fixed by someone's backyard invention, not to mention the accumulated billions of tons already in the air for the long term.

The radiative forcing of greenhouse gases is not a "value" that we "project", it's an established scientific fact. The destruction wrought by severe weather, floods, and droughts and the large-scale decimation of food crops aren't "values" either; those are very bad things in any culture. We need to be guided by scientific facts and plausible scenarios, not by scientific illiterates who don't know the facts and partisan lunatics who lie about them.
This is not the Let's Debate Climate Change thread. That thread is down the hall, second door on the right. It is the How will history see thread.
  #37  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:15 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This is not the Let's Debate Climate Change thread. That thread is down the hall, second door on the right. It is the How will history see thread.
I'm addressing the history aspect. "Facts" are not "values" and this distinction means that history will see denialists as dangerous obstructionists who delayed vital and time-critical progress in mitigating the world's most serious problem.
  #38  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:24 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
This is not the Let's Debate Climate Change thread. That thread is down the hall, second door on the right. It is the How will history see thread.
Turns out that if that is the case, then I'm just under the position of principal of the school.

Looking at history, what is bound to happen is to see the corporations that funded denial to cut their support to yahoos like Soon and other misleaders. Those corporations then will use the government to insulate themselves from liability in exchange of supporting efforts to control emissions, while they will continue to extract oil and coal...

What? Did you think that was going to stop? For the tobacco producers, a lot of that nicotine they also make is going now into vaping, for the fossil material producers of the future a lot of what they are doing now is really wasteful indeed. It is just that in the future many will really wonder what they were smoking in the past when they thought that it was a good idea to burn and dump a lot of that carbon into the atmosphere instead of using all that carbon for the coming nano tube and diamond age.
  #39  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:00 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem.
History has shown that that will not solved by the ones denying that there is a problem.

Also: many of the ones telling us not to do anything are not willing to pay a dime for solutions like that, and on top of everything they disparage now the very same scientists that would be working on that solution in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Plus, according to 2525 morals, segregation was shown to be absolutely the way to go.
But enough about reminding posters that many of the climate change deniers are also creationists that also dislike people with different skin tones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Couldn't people in Virginia in 1927 look at people in 1867 and say that their ideals about equality for the black race were wrong and our new enlightened sterilization and segregation laws have shown that society is better now?

I'm sort of joking about the last two, but it illustrates my point. Nobody in 1518 could predict how we would think in 2018 and we cannot either. What frame of history are we talking about?
How about now? When we already do know enough that we should do more efforts to prevent worse scenarios?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE
Quote:
It's true that Earth's a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works.
-From Republican scientist Richard Alley.

BTW, I did teach history on a past temp position and my background is in social studies and technology, knowing that we have items that are more likely to take place, such as the raising of the oceans, it follows that there will be displacements of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of peoples thanks to that ocean rise. Such displacements in the past (not due to climate but warfare) were not happy occasions nor they were cheap.

http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2017...-refugees-2100
  #40  
Old 10-21-2018, 11:28 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.
Given that you're a republican/conservative, this does not surprise me at all. History has been exceedingly unkind to conservatives recently.

Quote:
We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem.
"Best case scenario, some futuristic technology we currently are expending next to no effort in developing might save us from this very difficult problem, thus rendering our concerns meaningless"? Good news, guess I can keep eating double cheeseburgers every day for lunch, because probably we'll come up with some solution to obesity before my heart gives out.

Quote:
I'm sort of joking about the last two, but it illustrates my point. Nobody in 1518 could predict how we would think in 2018 and we cannot either. What frame of history are we talking about?
Well, given the current evidence, within my lifetime, we're facing incredibly widespread destruction. Within my lifetime, we will be facing extreme consequences from the lying denialists currently in congress and the white house. Not their lifetimes, sadly, but my life time, almost certainly (assuming I lay off the double cheeseburgers). Moral change quickly. They don't change that quickly when it comes to things like "causing incredible death and destruction by denying and obfuscating clear scientific evidence".
  #41  
Old 10-22-2018, 09:15 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I get somewhat annoyed about the "how will history judge us" or "we need to be on the right side of history" comments, nothing personal to the OP.

We seem to be our own judge of history as of the year 2018 and project our own values to all future peoples. Who's to say that in the year 2525 that people will look back and see how silly it was to worry about climate change, when the CO2 Exchanger was invented in 2050 and solved the problem. Plus, according to 2525 morals, segregation was shown to be absolutely the way to go.
Really? Do you think it was silly for people in the first half of the 20th century to worry about polio since a vaccine was invented in 1955?
  #42  
Old 10-21-2018, 10:18 PM
DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,995
"Deniers" are not legitimately denying anything. They are simply lying, intentionally and maliciously. They don't believe their own bullshit.

Last edited by DavidwithanR; 10-21-2018 at 10:20 PM.
  #43  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:53 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
"Deniers" are not legitimately denying anything. They are simply lying, intentionally and maliciously. They don't believe their own bullshit.
There's a lot of science illiteracy out there particularly among politicians in the US. Stuff like bringing a snowball into congress is so dumb it's clear they have fuck all understanding.

Now, that's still despicable in my view: they're cashing the cheques while making no effort (indeed: making an effort to avoid) understanding something that's a massive threat to all humanity*. But it's not lying per se.

* I sometimes say that to Trump supporters: "Even if you think Trump is right about climate change being a hoax, it's clear he's never really studied the topic, right? All that stuff about spraying hairspray in his house...he has not bothered to read one paragraph on the science, which shows a callous disregard for humans and the planet, correct?"
  #44  
Old 10-27-2018, 01:58 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
"Deniers" are not legitimately denying anything. They are simply lying, intentionally and maliciously. They don't believe their own bullshit.
Only true for a few (capitalist exploiter class for the most part). Most believe the right wing/exploiter class media machine.

I think the majority will be rightly judged as pathetic dupes, while those liars who deliberately do everything in their power to accrue wealth and power while perfectly aware they are burning the planet to death will be judged a little more harshly.

Last edited by Ulfreida; 10-27-2018 at 01:59 PM.
  #45  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:21 AM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
The fact that climate change is a serious threat to humanity has been clear since, at the absolute latest, the early 2000s. But given the context of the latest IPCC report, we're out of time to avert disaster. We need to drastically change things right now, or it's too late to avoid massive consequences from global warming.

And, obviously, that's just not happening....
(post shortened)

The IPCC began it's campaign in 1988.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil side doesn't seem to be able to do is CONVINCE enough voters that their story is believable. Back when clean air, and clean water, were major issues, advocates were able to actually CONVINCE people to support their cause. FYI - If you can't CONVINCE sufficient numbers of people to support your cause du jour, you need to figure out what you are doing wrong?
  #46  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:00 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

The IPCC began it's campaign in 1988.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil side doesn't seem to be able to do is CONVINCE enough voters that their story is believable. Back when clean air, and clean water, were major issues, advocates were able to actually CONVINCE people to support their cause. FYI - If you can't CONVINCE sufficient numbers of people to support your cause du jour, you need to figure out what you are doing wrong?
Same thing the scientists and good policy makers did against tobacco smoking, they did nothing wrong, but the industry and the politicians getting money from the bad leaders of industry prevented and prevent progress.

So, as usual, time to vote and throw the rascals out.
  #47  
Old 10-22-2018, 02:19 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

The IPCC began it's campaign in 1988.

What the man-made-CO2-is-evil side doesn't seem to be able to do is CONVINCE enough voters that their story is believable. Back when clean air, and clean water, were major issues, advocates were able to actually CONVINCE people to support their cause. FYI - If you can't CONVINCE sufficient numbers of people to support your cause du jour, you need to figure out what you are doing wrong?
It's pretty obvious what's wrong - there's an extremely well-funded propaganda campaign that has completely coopted half of American politics. Denialists have succeeded in turning climate change into a partisan issue, and thanks to the breakdown in trust in nonpartisan institutions and the way media bubbles have taken over, the vast majority of the time that those on the right hear about climate change at all, it will be people downplaying or denying the issue. Just to put this in context, a study of three major networks in 2013 found that Fox News's coverage of climate change was misleading 72% of the time. A similar study from 2009 found that frequent viewership of Fox News was directly correlated with being wrong on climate change.

This is why I explicitly excuse the rank and file here. Uncle Cletus is certainly misinformed about climate change and voting for people who will make things worse, but there's a huge ethical difference between falling for a propaganda campaign and creating a propaganda campaign.

We know why climate outreach is failing. The better question, given that you're here and have access to all the information, is this: what the fuck is your excuse? Forget everyone else; you are aware of the facts and yet still willing to be wrong. Why?
  #48  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:49 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
We know why climate outreach is failing. The better question, given that you're here and have access to all the information, is this: what the fuck is your excuse? Forget everyone else; you are aware of the facts and yet still willing to be wrong. Why?
(post shortened)

My excuse? I firmly believe that global warming is occurring. OTOH, I find the IPCC and UN efforts, and your OP, to be unconvincing.

Has the MMCO2IE side finally settled on the expected level of sea rise after all of the glaciers, and poles, have melted? Is it 0.5m? 1m? 2m? 20m? With all of the "science" currently available, something like that would be both easy to prove, and to sell.
  #49  
Old 10-22-2018, 01:12 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
(post shortened)

My excuse? I firmly believe that global warming is occurring. OTOH, I find the IPCC and UN efforts, and your OP, to be unconvincing.

Has the MMCO2IE side finally settled on the expected level of sea rise after all of the glaciers, and poles, have melted? Is it 0.5m? 1m? 2m? 20m? With all of the "science" currently available, something like that would be both easy to prove, and to sell.
Explained and linked to this before, many times in the past:

https://youtu.be/VNgqv4yVyDw?t=299
Quote:
With a hundred fifty cubic miles of this ice melting every year, basic physics tells us that this will cause sea levels to rise and basic physics also tells us that as water warms up it expands.

So on top of the rise due to ice melt researchers say sea levels will also rise because of thermal expansion. There are two ways to calculate this: one is to estimate how much ice will melt and how much the oceans will expand for a given rise in temperature and that gives us a figure of between 0.8 and 2 meters by the end of the century depending on how much co2 is pumped into the atmosphere. Another way of estimating it is to see how much sea levels rose in the past for a given rise in temperature and that gives a similar range: between 1 and 2 meters by the end of this century.

0.8 meters, the low end of the estimates, may not sound like much; it's about 3 feet. But it's enough to submerge large areas of coastline including parts of coastal cities like Miami, New York, Calcutta and Tokyo. Hong Kong, Bangkok, New Orleans, Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Two meters, the high end of the scale, is over 6 feet.

Still the urban myths persist and who better to demonstrate them than our old friend 1000 Frawley who calls my reporting on sea-level rise "misleading tosh". "Potties claim of a 100 centimeter rise, that's a meter by 2100, is pure fiction based on IPCC alarmism". Well, first of all, of course this isn't my claim. I'm just doing what I always do in my videos which is to report what's published in the scientific literature. Secondly, I don't use the IPCC as a source...
Mind you, many of those projections have the caveat that they depend also on what would happen if an acceleration on the rate of melting of the cap ice was observed; as it is being observed, that low end is not what we are going to get.

And yes, a lot of that cap ice is still in Greenland, and is still melting a lot now, regardless of where it is located on a map.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-22-2018 at 01:13 PM.
  #50  
Old 10-22-2018, 08:54 PM
doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Explained and linked to this before, many times in the past:

https://youtu.be/VNgqv4yVyDw?t=299


Mind you, many of those projections have the caveat that they depend also on what would happen if an acceleration on the rate of melting of the cap ice was observed; as it is being observed, that low end is not what we are going to get.
(post shortened)

Thanks for the video. It didn't my question because, according to it's caveat at 18:35, "This video is only looking at the consequences of climate change over the next 100 years __". Thanks for trying.

I also noticed that at 06:43 the author stated, "Secondly, I don't use the IPCC as a source." Which is interesting because I don't use the IPCC as a source either.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017