I think those two terms describe only one side of the debate. I know I’m not a supporter of global warming, personally.
I think Hentor is right that “supporter” doesn’t really make sense in the context of global warming (except perhaps to describe the people who want more global warming because they feel it’s good for the crops, if there are still any of those around).
Nor is it useful to use the term “skeptic” as a blanket designation for all who espouse a particular policy viewpoint, including diehard climate change deniers. All of us except perhaps the most credulous are skeptical about at least some of the most extreme inferences drawn from climate change science. What we really have here is a spectrum of opinion that includes, I’d say, the following major categories:
Spectrum of opinion on anthropogenic climate change:
<–|-----------------|-----------------|--------------|----->
Alarmist … Realist … Skeptic … Denier
Chief Pedant, I’d still like to hear how and where you would draw the line between the “alarmists” or Chicken Little types who accept every dire warning about climate disaster in the popular press as gospel, and the category that I’m calling “realists”.
How so?
The reality - and I’m assuming, due to your post, that this issue hasn’t been dealt with earlier in the thread - is that no amount of voluntary action is going to appreciably slow global warming. Even if 100 million people make significant changes in their lifestyles, the other 6.5 billion people on the planet who don’t know about the issue, don’t care, deny its validity, or are simply too caught up in their own struggles to get by are the ones who will keep the CO2 levels rising, absent appropriate carbon pricing mechanisms.
As an analogy, imagine that there’s no global warming problem, but we’ve hit peak oil, yet our government’s mandated $2/barrel petroleum and 30¢/gallon gasoline (and is purchasing and importing as much oil as is needed to maintain those price levels, in view of the resulting higher consumption).
One might, under those circumstances, view it as quite important to reduce petroleum consumption. But no amount of positive choices by those so inclined would have much effect as long as the price of oil and gasoline remained artificially low.
Same thing here: right now, the cost of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is zero, and until that’s fixed, we’re SOL. The important thing isn’t whether Al Gore’s Gulfstream jet dumps a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but whether his doing so helps get us closer to an appropriate pricing mechanism for carbon emissions. If it does, then he’s making a positive difference with respect to controlling global warming. If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t matter one way or the other.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating – having no children and having had the surgery to prevent it in the future, I and my compatriot snippees have already done more to sustain the earth’s resources than any other humans.
That’s why we, and we alone, should be able to fly private jets, drive between rooms in our houses in SUVs, and operate gas-powered toasters and coal-fired reading lamps.
Well, there you have it, folks. If AGW realists are flexible and non-dogmatic in their views about choosing voluntary actions to reduce carbon emissions, Chief Pedant decides that “they haven’t considered the ramifications of their belief”, so he doesn’t have to listen to them. On the other hand, if AGW realists are inflexible and dogmatic in their views about choosing voluntary actions to reduce carbon emissions, Ludovic decides that they’re “absolutist crusaders”, so he doesn’t have to listen to them. Gotta love the catch-22.
If AGW “skeptics” would spend even a quarter as much time and effort considering the actual science and policy issues of anthropogenic climate change as they appear to spend on thinking up reasons to ignore people concerned about climate change, we might actually get somewhere with this problem.
Boy, I sure hope there are no AGW-believing pilots out there. Do you know how much space the cockpit takes up? The carbon footprint of a pilot must be 10 times that of a first class passenger!
For those who have brought up the use of private aircraft for travel, I think there are some good points to be made there. But whether one flies on a plane in first class, coach, the cargo hold, or just being strapped to the wing, there is no logic to attributing a certain amount of CO2 emissions to where a passenger sits. The space argument makes no sense, because the size of the friggin’ airplane doesn’t change according to whether or not there are passengers filling a particular seat, and were that calculation to be true, then flight crews, what with their galleys and cockpits and all, would have a very large moral burden indeed.
A particular plane is going to burn fuel at a certain rate no matter how its layout is arranged. If there is more weight on the airplane, fuel burn will be slightly higher. Does this mean that fat people and those jackasses who insist on bringing 5 bags for a three day trip are hypocrites for going on vacation if they also believe in AGW?
Could we start with less emotionally loaded terms? If you don’t like “supporter”, fine. But to call those you agree with “realists” is a self-referential joke. How about:
<–|-----------------|-----------------|--------------|----->
Alarmist … Believer … Skeptic … Denier
I would say the difference between an alarmist and a believer is billions and billions of dollars. If you think we should spend multi-billions of dollars on untried methods to abate a possible menace fifty years from now based on untested models, I’d say you were an alarmist. We’re now in our third cycle of “ONLY TEN YEARS TO THE TIPPING POINT!!” hysteria, which began back in 1989 and has continued since.
The trouble is skeptical people should believe in AGW. Since the vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence for it to be overwhelming. Those who don’t believe in AGW are choosing not to as a matter of blind faith or belief in a worldwide conspiracy by tens of thousands of working climate scientists from different cultures, countries and ethical stripes.
Those of use who aren’t climate scientists should put our trust in the vast majority of climate scientists around the world who are in consensus. Not the dozens of deniers who make a career of distorting graphs and data in order to sway public opinion, not scientific consensus.
That said:
<–|--------------|----------------------|–>
alarmist…realist…conspiracy theorist
The question was about flying first class. Where Al Gore sits in a plane or even if he doesn’t take a plane makes no difference to the net emissions of CO2 by that plane. There is no hypocracy. The seat is still going to be filled and the plane is still going to fly.
“Believer” is certainly not a less emotionally loaded term than “realist”, so I don’t think that suggestion works.
Really? Do you honestly think that there’s no middle ground anywhere between alarmism and skepticism that constitutes a realistic view of the AGW issue?
You and I might not agree on exactly what views should fall into the “realist” category versus the “skeptic” or “alarmist” category, but are you seriously arguing that you don’t think there exists any scientifically realistic perspective on AGW at all in between those two categories?
Yes. I’m having a little trouble with the notion that the only proper designation for people who accept a mainstream scientific theory is either “alarmist” or “believer”. That sounds more than a little biased to me.
To be fair, I think the argument is more like this: you’ve got the ‘fixed’ cost of flying the plane with just the pilots and crew, and then you’ve got the added cost for the weight of the passengers and luggage. If there were fewer people flying first class, then you’d have fewer first class seats in a given plane, and more total seats, which would mean you’d be spreading the ‘fixed’ costs over more passengers, resulting in more work being done with the same CO2 generation, if we view ‘work’ as the transportation of people from Point A to Point B.
But like I said, I think the entire argument’s flawed: we’re not going to substantially slow AGW by voluntary choices. Appropriate, mandatory pricing of activities that result in more CO2 in the atmosphere is the only way we get there. Once we’ve got that, then there’ll be an added cost to air transport, but the added cost to the airline will be greater for those in first class than for those in coach, regardless of what they actually do with their ticket prices.
Lemme just help you out here, 'cuz it’s really easy to understand the difference.
For a GIVEN flight, yes. For collective change, no.
Here’s the skinny: walk then bicycle then moped then car then fly coach then fly first…you get the idea. There is efficient transportation and there is inefficient transportation. First class is much less efficient transportation then is coach.
I used this as a comparison because the actual rest of the travel experience is identical, so it makes for an easy comparison.
If, collectively, we did not fly first class, first class would cease to exist and air transportation would become more efficient. Think Southwest versus a Gulfstream 5 if you want to understand it more clearly. Or imagine a Saudi prince who uses an entire 737 to get from point A to point B…now THAT’s first class.
What you do, instead, is argue that our individual change is meaningless (and it is) and therefore we should not change (and we don’t).
I’m not asking if flying first class on a given flight makes a difference in net CO2 output. I’m asking AGW alarmists to defend that it’s OK to profess a concern about the impending doom of the planet and at the same time refuse to give up personal comfort and convenience since an individual’s change makes no difference.
I submit that the sum effect of us taking such a position collectively will result in no change at all. Therefore if it’s OK to fly first class it is hypocritical to promote a pretense that something should be done about AGW.
This has been presented as an attack on AGW by Kimstu, and others. Such is not the case. It’s a request for AGW alarmists to defend whether or not they believe it is internally consistent to lobby for collective change while refusing to change personally.
I have made the observation that AGW, like Religion, is a Great Cause. I make the further observation that, like Religion, when a potential convert to the Great Cause begins questioning which behavioural changes the Great Cause actually requires, they are accused of attacking the Cause itself instead of simply being given a reason why or why not a given behaviour is acceptable.
I don’t think you’ll find any alarmists here, but I’ll attempt an answer from an AGW-realist perspective: Doesn’t it depend on the nature and impact of both the personal and collective change?
If, for example, I vote for my municipality to start a curbside recycling program because it will reduce waste and save the town money, and the measure passes, then the program will indeed reduce waste and save the town money, even if I personally can’t be arsed to separate my trash properly for recycling.
There’s nothing inherently inconsistent about the “free rider” mindset of “I want this problem solved, but solved by means of other people’s actions rather than my own”. Sure, if everybody acted that way then the problem wouldn’t get solved. But the reason that the “free rider” strategy is often successful is precisely because in many cases, most other people do act differently from the free rider.
So it is quite possible for a free-rider type to be sincere both in taking a problem seriously and wanting it solved, and also in refusing to change his/her own behavior in order to solve it.
Of course, most of the people who take AGW seriously, AFAICT, do change their behavior in some respects from how they would act if they didn’t think AGW was a problem. The difficulty is that there’s no general agreement on how much or what sort of behavioral change is enough, or whether personal behavioral change is an effective way overall to achieve emissions reductions.
Now, if you insist that people who take AGW seriously must not only refrain from flying first class themselves but also castigate others who fly first class or risk being internally inconsistent, I’ll be happy to castigate you. “Stop flying first class, you selfish irresponsible Chief Pedant you!” Satisfied? But now, of course, Ludovic will come along and condemn me as a crusading absolutist. Sigh. It’s tough to be a realist sometimes.
By the way, I’m still interested in learning where and how you draw the line between the categories of “alarmist” and “non-alarmist” (or what I’m calling “realist”) on the issue of anthropogenic climate change.
I’d agree with that one … with the obvious proviso that a realist is someone who agrees with me and not you. 
You don’t like “AGW supporter”, you don’t like “AGW believer”, what is your next option?
PS - The world doesn’t even contain “tens of thousands of working climate scientists from different cultures, countries and ethical stripes” as you claim. That’s a typical AGW supporter’s trick, exaggeration. There’s a look at the numbers here. And there’s a relevant quote here:
And for those who still believe in the “consensus”, first we have Michael Chrichton on the subject:
It’s an excellent speech, you should read it.
Next, we have Dr. Tim Ball:
Finally we have a list of over 700 scientists who say there is no consensus. Here’s a few:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - **Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
**
“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC…The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
The full list is here (PDF). In short, the “consensus” is an illusion. How is the illusion maintained? By people like Al Gore, who has developed an organization which is currently spending $300 million dollars to spread his nonsense about “consensus” … three hundred megabucks. And many of you guys say that the skeptics are in it for the money? Get real. Between the government and Al Gore and his ilk, there are billions of dollars out there spreading the climate change consensus “gospel”.
PPS - For those who will predictably respond that some on the list are e.g. geologists, please note that the IPCC’s scientist list contains geologists as well. Why? Because climate science is one of the broadest scientific disciplines known. It involves physics, chemistry, biology, meteorology, solar science, geology, oceanography, cosmology, glaciology, computer science, statistics, economics, cryology, astronomy, and other disciplines as well. If you have complaints about that, tell the IPCC.
Ah, well. Cue the usual ad hominem attacks, claims of “Your facts must be wrong because I don’t like the web site that came from”, and the like …
I assume you aren’t a liar, so you must be very, very uninformed. The seven hundred scientists has been so thoroughly discredited that you can’t even pretend that you have diligently looked into this issue. You are simply arguing from ignorance. The question looms, are you unwilling or unable to examine evidence in an diligent manner?
Of Inhofe 's “700 scientist” foolishness, I’ve already dismissed it personally on another board. I looked at the first fifteen pages of his linked scientist names.
Why do you trust these amateurs as opposed to the vast majority of climate scientists around the world? Is it because you’re willing to believe poorly presented drivel because it supports your personal preferences? You disbelieve AGW because you want to. Not because you have rational reason to.
An Alarmist, for me, is sounding an Alarm: AGW is real. It is dangerous and we must act immediately and vigorously to avoid disaster; indeed, it may already be too late.
This is not the average AGW “realist” as far as I know, although most of my discussion around the issue occurs here since my personal circle is uninterested in the topic. The “realist” term is yours.
So it’s your position that there’s nothing wrong with buying SUVs, running your lights 24/7, or otherwise being wasteful with energy, because these are individual choices and the only thing that will make a difference is government legislation? Anything goes, until the government passes a law?
That’s what you seem to be saying about Al Gore. Or is it that so long as you are working towards getting government to force people to be frugal, it’s okay to be as wasteful as you want to be because if you’re successful at getting government to stop others from doing what you’re doing, you’ll have a bigger effect on global warming?
This sounds pretty much like mindset that causes the rich and powerful to be corrupt in the first place. Like the rich sinners in the Catholic Church buying indulgences. So long as you’re serving the ‘greater good’, your own personal behavior is irrelevant. Is that it?
Of course; that’s how everybody defines “realist”. It certainly seems more logical to use the term “realist” with the understanding that different people draw the boundaries of the “realist” categories in different places than to refuse to acknowledge the existence of any realistic perspective on AGW at all.
“Realist”.
Actually, that article simply examines the number of scientists who officially reviewed and/or endorsed the particular IPCC report discussed therein. It says nothing about the total number of climate scientists in the world nor what percentage of them consider anthropogenic climate change to be a serious problem.
The late novelist and climate-change-denier Michael Crichton was not a credible scientific source about climate, as this analysis of his work points out.
The credibility of that list has been questioned:
I don’t think you can reasonably expect to pre-empt criticism just by complaining about critics. The point of the criticism is that there just aren’t that many reputable scientists out there who reject the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change, and many of those who do are not specialists in climate science. In particular, this list of 700 “scientists” (compiled by the notorious hardcore climate-change-denier Senator Jim Inhofe) is quite suspect as an indicator of serious scientific opinion.
If you expect Inhofe’s list of climate-change deniers to be taken seriously because 700 is a pretty big number, then you should naturally expect the views of the far larger number of scientists who hold the opposing mainstream position to outweigh them.
Would you mind if we call you “Stretch”?
How so? From the standpoint of trying to curb CO2 emissions, an individual flying around in a personal jet aircraft, especially one as large as a Gulfstream, is about as bad as it gets.
I’ve seen global warming protestors chastise people for driving Ford Explorers. But it’s perfectly okay for Al Gore to tool around in a personal jet when other modes of transportation are readily available to him.
The analogy is pretty close to having a religious leader openly flaunt a wildly opulent, promiscuous lifestyle while advocating austerity and abstinence for everyone else, and then having his believers shrug it off by claiming that since he’s helping the world be better, the good he’s doing is greater than the damage from his personal behavior, so hey, no problem. And if he needs a Dirty Sanchez twice a day to give him the energy to teach the evils of sex to everyone else, that’s just fine.
After all, everyone knows that rules a for the masses. The elites really don’t have to pay much attention to them.