Any Other Lefties Dubious on AGW?

[elucidator]

Energy is the only value on Spaceship Earth. Its the only thing that counts, everything else is exchanged in order to obtain it.

I want to feed the starving in Bangladesh and the Congo. So, I grow crops here in the US, with the huge energy investment in machinery, fertilizer, irrigation, etc. Then I bag it, ship it to the coast, put in on a boat, ship it to Wherever, and truck it to the starving. Who can’t pay for it, of course. Did I build a road for the truck?

Investment of energy, huge. Return, paltry. They live another day, die of malaria tomorrow.

But what if I invest in finding the Golden Chalice of Energy: cheap, clean, abundant. So I can just ship the information, electrons are pretty cheap, overall. The downtrodden can feed themselves, today, tomorrow, next week, next year.

We are one genius away from a golden age, and that ain’t even hyperbole. It can be done, and if it can’t, we’re most likely boned anyway.

In poker, you learn that to bet a dollar to win a dollar when the odds are ten to one against you isn’t very smart. The obverse is also true: if the odds are ten to one against, but the payoff is a million, make the bet.

The payoff of clean, cheap energy is a world we can hand off to our grandchildren with smug aplomb. (Suck on this, D-Day generation!) Energy is what makes possible, make energy possible, you make everything possible.

If not possible, then we’re fucked. Possible, then we must. The moon is more beautiful with footprints.

[Der_Trihs]

@Chief_Pedant

I’m entirely uninterested in debating AGW itself; the reaction of ardent supporters is, on average, inseparable in kind from the reaction of religious believers assuring the world that God is Real and the proof is all around us.

The problem with that argument is that it means you are going to be more skeptical the more likely something is to be true. Especially since you seem unwilling to distinguish between people who just SAY they have evidence ( religious believers ) and the people who actually DO have evidence ( scientists ).

[jakesteele]

I graduated High School in 1969 and back then the environmentalists were like the Boy Who Cried Wolf that that if we didn’t stop fucking up the environment it was going to create an ice age. They had ‘Inconvenient Truth’ distorted, exaggerated and false pseudoscience crapola like the AGW people have now.

I didn’t get icecycles on my nuts back then and I doubt if I will end up with ‘Chestnuts Roastin on an Open Fire’ now.

[WarmNPrickly]

@jakesteele

I graduated High School in 1969 and back then the environmentalists were like the Boy Who Cried Wolf that that if we didn’t stop fucking up the environment it was going to create an ice age. They had ‘Inconvenient Truth’ distorted, exaggerated and false pseudoscience crapola like the AGW people have now.

I didn’t get icecycles on my nuts back then and I doubt if I will end up with ‘Chestnuts Roastin on an Open Fire’ now.

This is wrong. Scientists have been discussing AGW consistently since the nineteenth century. There were no serious investigations into an ice age in the seventies. It was just some hype by the popular press. I am not aware of a singe peer reviewed article suggesting a comming ice age.

[NoJustice]

@Lightnin

Okay, let’s see some examples of the hysteria you say you’re seeing in this thread.

Already posted. I wonder why you fail to see what is right in front of you.
ponder… ponder

While you’re at it, you can explain why “hysteria” on either side (assuming you can spot any) means that AGW isn’t a valid theory.

and what makes you think I would or should even try to do that? Considering the statements I’ve made like:

@NoJustice

I never denied AGW.

@NoJustice

… it’s enough to make me doubt. I never said it disproves anything.

@NoJustice

I had no intention to discredit AGW supporters

@NoJustice

I have no “opposition to acceptance of the existence of AGW”

I wonder where this idea comes from that I am somehow claiming AGW isn’t a valid theory? Are you reading the posts you’re responding to at all? Or is it that instead of reading them with your brain, you’re reading with your uterus?

[elucidator]

Hell, I’d pay good money to see that!

[GIGObuster]

@jakesteele

I graduated High School in 1969 and back then the environmentalists were like the Boy Who Cried Wolf that that if we didn’t stop fucking up the environment it was going to create an ice age. They had ‘Inconvenient Truth’ distorted, exaggerated and false pseudoscience crapola like the AGW people have now.

I didn’t get icecycles on my nuts back then and I doubt if I will end up with ‘Chestnuts Roastin on an Open Fire’ now.

I would have to say that the crapola is coming from the blogs of the deniers.

That bit of misleading information has been a favorite of many deniers. Please learn who is really pushing the BS.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

The most comprehensive study on the subject (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…”

Contrast this with the US National Academy of Science’s current position: “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities… The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” This is in a joint statement with the Academies of Science from Brazil, France, Canada, China, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Other indications of current consensus

Other scientific bodies that have released statements endorsing anthropogenic global warming include:

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) draws upon the work of over 850 peer reviewed studies

None of these bodies (at least the ones that existed back then) endorsed ice age predictions in the 70s. More on scientific consensus…

So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of studies, even then outweighed by global warming predictions. Today, an avalanche of studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse anthropogenic global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.

[athelas]

@elucidator

So, let me get this straight: if Obama makes a poor decision about nuke waste disposal, that proves the cupidity of the environmental movement?

Do you disagree that environmentalists oppose many measures that would help achieve their stated goal of reducing atmospheric CO2, but would violate their cultural norms? Geoengineering, nuclear energy, and more spectulatively, stopping immigration from third-world countries (which would reduce the population increase from those pollutin’ first-world countries) are all viable solutions, yet are not well represented among the Starbucks sipping, Mac totin’ crowd. Again, it’s a form of cultural/tribal loyalty, not a coherent ideology and certainly not a search for a solution.

And thus, it comes as no surprise that their most extreme claims are, as Pedant said, are exaggerations of the science.

[tomndebb]

@NoJustice

Or is it that instead of reading them with your brain, you’re reading with your uterus?

Take any personal insults to the BBQ Pit. Do not post them in this thread or in Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]

[Der_Trihs]

@jakesteele

I graduated High School in 1969 and back then the environmentalists were like the Boy Who Cried Wolf that that if we didn’t stop fucking up the environment it was going to create an ice age. They had ‘Inconvenient Truth’ distorted, exaggerated and false pseudoscience crapola like the AGW people have now.

I didn’t get icecycles on my nuts back then and I doubt if I will end up with ‘Chestnuts Roastin on an Open Fire’ now.

First, science has advanced enormously in 40 years. Second, some speculation exaggerated by some environmentalists isn’t the same as the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, which is what AGW has. There IS no serious anti-AGW argument anymore; just political and industry shills, and claims like you see in this thread of people who refuse to believe the facts Just Because.

[elucidator]

@athelas

…yet are not well represented among the Starbucks sipping, Mac totin’ crowd. Again, it’s a form of cultural/tribal loyalty, not a coherent ideology and certainly not a search for a solution.

And thus, it comes as no surprise that their most extreme claims are, as Pedant said, are exaggerations of the science.

So, the problem is that people who disagree with you are blinded by cultural and tribal loyalties which preclude their acceptance of your trenchant and perceptive analysis? Yes, that must be it.

[GIGObuster]

@athelas

Do you disagree that environmentalists oppose many measures that would help achieve their stated goal of reducing atmospheric CO2, but would violate their cultural norms? Geoengineering, nuclear energy,

I’m in favor of nuclear energy, Geoengineering needs also more research and evidence to be viable but I would not be opposed once a good plan is put forward.

and more spectulatively, stopping immigration from third-world countries (which would reduce the population increase from those pollutin’ first-world countries) are all viable solutions, yet are not well represented among the Starbucks sipping, Mac totin’ crowd. Again, it’s a form of cultural/tribal loyalty, not a coherent ideology and certainly not a search for a solution.

It has been demonstrated that by helping other nations develop (not by neocolonialist solutions) that then people do their own population control as they find out how expensive kids really are. Helping them develop with alternative energy sources will take care of many issues.

And thus, it comes as no surprise that their most extreme claims are, as Pedant said, are exaggerations of the science.

Not from the majority of the scientists, I have to blame the popular media for that.

I’m afraid that the main reason why in the USA this has become a “lefty” issue is that many Republicans still cherish anti-science ideals.

[Der_Trihs]

@GIGObuster

I’m afraid that the main reason why in the USA this has become a “lefty” issue is that many Republicans still cherish anti-science ideals.

“Reality has a well known liberal bias.”

[Lightnin]

@NoJustice

Already posted. I wonder why you fail to see what is right in front of you.

hys·ter·i·a (h-str-, -stîr-)
n.

1. Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.
2. A mental disorder characterized by emotional excitability and sometimes by amnesia or a physical deficit, such as paralysis, or a sensory deficit, without an organic cause.

You can either point out the examples of hysteria, or you can concede that there aren’t any. Your choice. If they’re already posted, surely you can quote 'em- I mean, hell, they’re right here in this thread (according to you)- you won’t even have to go look for 'em.

[NoJustice]

@tomndebb

Take any personal insults to the BBQ Pit. Do not post them in this thread or in Great Debates.

Let me clarify for the benefit of those who don’t know the etymology of the word ‘hysteria’. (you can look that up now if you’re interested)

It was not my intention to insult but rather to suggest that **Lightnin’**s latest post might itself be the very example he/she was looking for. I suggested it with an obscure reference so as to demonstrate that I still had my wits about me. I think the contrast between this and the state of mind behind **Lightnin’**s responses makes his/her state of mind easier to recognize.

@Lightnin

You can either point out the examples of hysteria, or you can concede that there aren’t any. Your choice. If they’re already posted, surely you can quote 'em-

Of course I could… but why would I? You could baldly assert that I haven’t quoted them, just as easily as you can baldly assert that I haven’t provided them to begin with.

I mean, hell, they’re right here in this thread (according to you)- you won’t even have to go look for 'em.

…and neither will you.

[Lightnin]

@NoJustice

Of course I could… but why would I? You could baldly assert that I haven’t quoted them, just as easily as you can baldly assert that I haven’t provided them to begin with…and neither will you.

So you don’t, actually, have any evidence of hysteria in this thread? No big deal, dude- all you had to do was say so. Although I must admit that failing to back up your claims certainly isn’t helping your credibility.

[GIGObuster]

@NoJustice

Of course I could… but why would I? You could baldly assert that I haven’t quoted them, just as easily as you can baldly assert that I haven’t provided them to begin with…and neither will you.

What examples of female sexual deprivation are in this thread?

:dubious:

[elucidator]

So far as I know, Oprah Winfrey has no public stance on global warming, nor is she likely to post here.

[NoJustice]

So literal GIGObuster

The real irony here is that the examples I gave were so easy to refute, I have no doubt the reason nobody attempted to do so (nobody competent anyway) was because my post was so unconvincing as to not be worth the effort to address. But then along comes Lightnin’ to provide a much better example…

If his/her bluster were motivated by a zeal for debate, one would expect him/her to jump at the chance to refute me, but instead he/she blows right past and tries to refute arguments I never made, then tries to deny I ever gave examples at all, despite the fact they are plain for everyone to see. Now he/she is reduced to simply quoting me and responding with non sequiturs. At any time, Lightnin’ could easily admit what everyone already knows, and move on to refuting the examples everyone has already read, but he/she just cannot bring him/herself to do so. All of this smacks of, shall we say, excessive emotion.

[tomndebb]

@NoJustice

Let me clarify for the benefit of those who don’t know the etymology of the word ‘hysteria’. (you can look that up now if you’re interested)

There are fewer than a half dozen posters on this board who are more acquainted with etymology than I am.

Let me clarify for you the concept of “insults.” Personal insults, (however glibly they are rationalized, later), are not permitted on the SDMB outside the BBQ Pit.

Stick to a direct discussion of the topic and drop this line of comments before it lands you in trouble.

[ /Modding ]