# Climate change: "You are among the last people that will ever walk the Earth." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096 "2013-02-22T18:27:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/161 "2013-03-14T09:47:52Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I find no hypocrisy in a guy who says taxes in general should be structured differently but doesn’t personally choose to optionally pay higher taxes. I was describing as “hypocritical” the people who stupidly condemn Buffett for not increasing his taxes voluntarily. “Hypocritical” may not seem like the best adjective to use, but I lacked the motivation to defend the hypocrisy charge elaborately or to consult a thesaurus for a weaker adjective. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But I am wondering who you do think is natteringly hypocritical toward Al Gore in your above post, and how it is they are being hypocritical. Analogy. The wrong-headed charge against Gore has essentially the same flaws as the charge against Buffett. To explain why I charge the natterers with hypocrisy would be a diversion. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > … would require draconian reductions in the current standard of living for all with the benefit to accrue to future generations. To date, not a single strategy advanced (at least, none of which I am aware) has any real hope of actually fixing anthropogenic climate change given the number of Tanzanians coming on line and wanting stuff, coupled with those of us already living well who aren’t about to give up stuff. I will continue to fly private jet when I can … “Draconian reductions” will seem hyperbolic to Europeans, largely more content than Americans with far less carbon use. I agree that directing public policy intelligently on the issue is difficult. _That’s a reason to try harder, not give up._ If you’ve understood my comments about Gore and Buffett, you know you have my blessing to selfishly fly private jet. _Change will come, if at all, from intelligent governance, not personal sacrifice._ ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/162 "2013-03-14T10:01:37Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Again though, there are countries with comparable living standards to the US but with a fraction of the CO2 emissions. > e.g. Switzerland has approximately the same GDP per capita as the US, yet with CO2 emissions per capita less than a third of the US’. > > So the implication that the only way to reduce emissions would be to go back to mudhuts or whatever is spurious. > > (Yes, obviously a major reason for Switzerland having much lower emissions is that it’s a small country with much greater population density. But it does not explain all the difference. > And even if it did, all it suggests to me is that efforts to reduce urban sprawl and promote public transport could make a big difference.) When you are assigning a CO2 footprint, the only way to do it fairly is to assign to the end consumer (on a per capita basis, for a whole country) the total CO2 required to sustain their lifestyle. If I make a lot of money because I have a banking-based economy, but I import my food, cars, carpets and golf clubs, I don’t get to boast about my low footprint until I calculate into the equation the CO2 production cost of all I consume. While carbon footprint calculators like to focus on easy stuff like what kind of car you drive or where you like to fly, it’s also things like whether or not you want to fly first class (much less efficient), or change out your carpets, or stay in high end hotels, or…well; you get the idea. It would, in fact, require a severe reduction in consumption from the developed world to literally reduce world emissions because much of the world is still developing, and on their way up they are increasing their consumption rapidly. All of that consumption has a very large energy requirement and a rapidly expanding carbon footprint. In addition, it’s unfair to assign to a developing country the carbon output required for them to manufacture goods purchased elsewhere. I don’t get to purchase my new golf clubs every year and assign the CO2 cost of producing them to China. I’m the one whose profligacy generated that carbon, and whose personal behaviour change can stop it from being generated while I wait for them to swap out their energy grid for renewables. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/163 "2013-03-14T10:13:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > _Change will come, if at all, from intelligent governance, not personal sacrifice._ Change will not come. I do not share your faith in intelligent governance. Beyond that, I see no mechanism by which government could successfully reduce consumption. We all want to be Al Gore (and thank you for your blessing there). Given that we all want to live as high off the hog as possible, no government intervention is going to be successful at lowering our standard. Government does not have the remotest hope of getting me and Al to stop flying first class. What is left, then, is cleaner energy. That’s pretty much it. Clean energy lets us consume like crazy. Cheap clean energy will let us consume the entire earth (another issue). I haven’t seen any numbers for a swap to clean energy add up. By 2050 or so, 9 billion people will be clamoring to be like me. We’ll need every Kw of energy from every possible source to get them all their stuff. It’s fun to preach doom, and fun to demand change. Doom may happen, but change won’t, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/164 "2013-03-14T13:47:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Change will not come. > > I do not share your faith in intelligent governance. Beyond that, I see no mechanism by which government could successfully reduce consumption. Carbon tax. You could even graduate it so the first x tons are taxed at a lower rate. I can see how this might not reduce consumption, but it it would push people toward smarter consumption. Why do you think this would be unsuccessful? Economic incentives almost always work, invisible hand and all that. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I haven’t seen any numbers for a swap to clean energy add up. By 2050 or so, 9 billion people will be clamoring to be like me. We’ll need every Kw of energy from every possible source to get them all their stuff. Yes, this is probably true. I have a lot of hopes for greater efficiency (which we have been doing a decent job of obtaining, not enough but we have not been trying that hard) and new technologies like algae based Bio fuels. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/165 "2013-03-14T14:05:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Change will not come. > > I do not share your faith in intelligent governance. Beyond that, I see no mechanism by which government could successfully reduce consumption. We all want to be Al Gore (and thank you for your blessing there). > > Given that we all want to live as high off the hog as possible, no government intervention is going to be successful at lowering our standard. Government does not have the remotest hope of getting me and Al to stop flying first class. And all that rethoric only to fall for more straw men. Al Gore’s point is to take that use of planes into account, he does not ignore it. Nor there is a demand from the ones reporting this problem that we should take measures that will stop civilization, civilization did not end when we finally made the effort to control an issue brought forth thanks to our civilization. Finally, continuing to rely on straw men of what Gore said just shows where your sources of information are coming from. > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. The straw men used are just political points disguised as rhetorical ones. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/166 "2013-03-14T14:17:33Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If I make a lot of money because I have a banking-based economy, but I import my food, cars, carpets and golf clubs, I don’t get to boast about my low footprint until I calculate into the equation the CO2 production cost of all I consume. The point was simply that you can have a good standard of living and yet low CO2 emissions. I don’t think that can really be disputed as there are obviously ways of generating power that emit little or no CO2. For your point that wealthy countries with low CO2 are only that way because they import their goods, that can be refuted by pointing to examples of countries with export surpluses, high GDP and low CO2 per capita e.g. Singapore. > [@](#): > > In addition, it’s unfair to assign to a developing country the carbon output required for them to manufacture goods purchased elsewhere. I don’t get to purchase my new golf clubs every year and assign the CO2 cost of producing them to China. I’m the one whose profligacy generated that carbon, and whose personal behaviour change can stop it from being generated while I wait for them to swap out their energy grid for renewables. Well, as long as we’re calling it a shared responsibility, and not saying it’s all the US fault for the emissions of the countries they export from. A model where everyone’s allowed to emit whatever CO2 they like making something, as long as they export it, and the totals are on the head of the buyers, is unworkable. I can explain why I think this is the case, but first I’ll let you say whether this is a fair paraphrase of what you’re saying. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/167 "2013-03-14T17:39:07Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > The point was simply that you can have a good standard of living and yet low CO2 emissions. I don’t think that can really be disputed as there are obviously ways of generating power that emit little or no CO2. > > For your point that wealthy countries with low CO2 are only that way because they import their goods, that can be refuted by pointing to examples of countries with export surpluses, high GDP and low CO2 per capita e.g. Singapore. > > Well, as long as we’re calling it a shared responsibility, and not saying it’s all the US fault for the emissions of the countries they export from. > > A model where everyone’s allowed to emit whatever CO2 they like making something, as long as they export it, and the totals are on the head of the buyers, is unworkable. > I can explain why I think this is the case, but first I’ll let you say whether this is a fair paraphrase of what you’re saying. Singapore’s energy source is [100% fossil fuel.](http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sn-singapore/ene-energy) Therefore if they have a high standard of living, they are not achieving it by using clean energy. I seriously doubt they have a standard of stuff (house; car, goods) anything close to a US standard. Am I incorrect about this? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/168 "2013-03-14T17:46:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And all that rethoric only to fall for more straw men. > > Al Gore’s point is to take that use of planes into account, he does not ignore it. Nor there is a demand from the ones reporting this problem that we should take measures that will stop civilization, civilization did not end when we finally made the effort to control an issue brought forth thanks to our civilization. > > Finally, continuing to rely on straw men of what Gore said just shows where your sources of information are coming from. > > [Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm) > The straw men used are just political points disguised as rhetorical ones. If you think Mr Gore’s purchase of carbon offsets means he takes his planes into effect, well…I’m unpersuaded. You see, we all want to be Al Gore. And paying an indulgence to permit a sin is not a very good way of eliminating sin. Look at this way: Imagine that we are all rich (as in fact, we are all trying to get there). Do we all get to pay a carbon offset indulgence and then live profligately? Because aside from the fact that carbon offsets are mostly bogus, there aren’t enough to go around for us all to offset our carbon footprints even if they did work. There isn’t enough clean energy to go around either. What we are in is a race to get it while we can. Al Gore (and I) are winning, and the fact that we find ways to pay an indulgence does not mean that is a workable solution if everyone could afford to do it. If I buy up all the available clean energy and live high off the hog, that’s hardly the solution for the world. By using way more than my share of clean energy, I’ve forced everyone else to use dirty energy. That’s not a solution to the problem of dirty energy. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/169 "2013-03-14T17:59:27Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Singapore’s energy source is [100% fossil fuel.](http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sn-singapore/ene-energy) Therefore if they have a high standard of living, they are not achieving it by using clean energy. I seriously doubt they have a standard of stuff (house; car, goods) anything close to a US standard. Am I incorrect about this? You are incorrect about the last point: singapore is very wealthy country with a significantly _higher_ GDP PPP than the US. On your first point though, yes, it would seem it is incorrect to say Singapore is a low carbon emitter. Or rather, it depends whose figures you use: the IEA’s figures are **one third** of what the EIA reckon ([cite](http://www.lowcarbonsg.com/2009/05/14/singapores-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-capita-and-carbon-intensity/)). Obviously this discussion of individual countries could go on for some time, so let’s just cut to it: are you suggesting that a western standard of living, and low CO2 emission are mutually exclusive? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/170 "2013-03-14T18:00:03Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If you think Mr Gore’s purchase of carbon offsets means he takes his planes into effect, well…I’m unpersuaded. > > You see, we all want to be Al Gore. And paying an indulgence to permit a sin is not a very good way of eliminating sin. Look at this way: Imagine that we are all rich (as in fact, we are all trying to get there). Do we all get to pay a carbon offset indulgence and then live profligately? Because aside from the fact that carbon offsets are mostly bogus, there aren’t enough to go around for us all to offset our carbon footprints even if they did work. There isn’t enough clean energy to go around either. > > What we are in is a race to get it while we can. Al Gore (and I) are winning, and the fact that we find ways to pay an indulgence does not mean that is a workable solution if everyone could afford to do it. If I buy up all the available clean energy and live high off the hog, that’s hardly the solution for the world. By using way more than my share of clean energy, I’ve forced everyone else to use dirty energy. That’s not a solution to the problem of dirty energy. Missing the point again, once again, Gore is not proposing an end to our way of living, and you need a fat cite for claiming that the point is to just force others to use dirty energy. And once again, you seem to ignore the other point made: "Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. " ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/171 "2013-03-14T20:56:24Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If you think Mr Gore’s purchase of carbon offsets means he takes his planes into effect, well…I’m unpersuaded. > > You see, we all want to be Al Gore. And paying an indulgence to permit a sin is not a very good way of eliminating sin. Look at this way: Imagine that we are all rich (as in fact, we are all trying to get there). Do we all get to pay a carbon offset indulgence and then live profligately? Because aside from the fact that carbon offsets are mostly bogus, there aren’t enough to go around for us all to offset our carbon footprints even if they did work. There isn’t enough clean energy to go around either. > > What we are in is a race to get it while we can. Al Gore (and I) are winning, and the fact that we find ways to pay an indulgence does not mean that is a workable solution if everyone could afford to do it. If I buy up all the available clean energy and live high off the hog, that’s hardly the solution for the world. By using way more than my share of clean energy, I’ve forced everyone else to use dirty energy. That’s not a solution to the problem of dirty energy. Well said. Reminds me of Don Corleone. He was extremely generous when giving to the church, but to say that munificence erased his sins would be a bit of a stretch. Now, if your religion is global warming, well, whatever is in latest epistle is gospel and adherents will sing in unison! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2013, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/172 "2013-03-14T23:40:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well said. Reminds me of Don Corleone. He was extremely generous when giving to the church, but to say that munificence erased his sins would be a bit of a stretch. > > Now, if your religion is global warming, well, whatever is in latest epistle is gospel and adherents will sing in unison! Piffle, the record shows who is using religion to dismiss what science is reporting. > **[Inhofe: Global Warming Isn't Real: "God's Still Up There"](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/inhofe-global-warming-isn_n_300208)** > > Inhofe: Global Warming Isn't Real: "God's Still Up There" Again, just prop up Gore as the one to beat, when the only reason for that is that then what the science says can be avoided. And it is clear who are the ones that are using religion to avoid the science. > **[Tom Junod: How the 2012 RaceWill Kill the Environment (Again)](https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a10092/global-warming-religion-5912388/)** > > From Romney to Limbaugh, an issue of fact has become one of faith > [@](#): > > And yet no sooner had Romney dared say that global warming was a problem that had to be dealt with than Rush Limbaugh accused him of falling for a hoax, and it became clear that although we might not know who the Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012 is going to be, we know for certain that he — or she — will not “believe” in global warming any more than he or she “believes” that the great operative force in all biological creation is evolution. He or she will not be allowed to express such a belief, by Rush and Roger, the two crafters — and enforcers — of the Republican narrative. > > And so it is that already Tim Pawlenty has recanted his governor-of-a-liberal-state support for cap-and-trade — “the biggest clunker of my career” — and Chris Christie, this election cycle’s wish-list undeclared candidate as well as the “moderate Republican” of fanciful myth, showed that he has at least some interest in running for president by pulling New Jersey out of a multistate agreement to limit greenhouse gases and telling a reporter who asked if he believed in evolution that it was none of his business. And so it is that the other wish-list Republican, Rick Perry of Texas, not only responded to his state’s historic drought by asking his constituents to pray for rain but also doubled down by asking them — and all Americans — to pray to Jesus, and only Jesus, by name, for America’s salvation and their own. > > Now, there is a distinct possibility that Governor Perry has fallen for a hoax more comprehensive and far-fetched than the one supposedly exposing the credulity of Mitt Romney. But Rush Limbaugh would never say that, because it is in his interest that the Republican party remain less a political organization than a theological one. When Limbaugh derides global warming as a “religion,” he’s on to something, and not just because Tom Friedman’s “The Earth Is Full™” column ends with a hopeful vision of a world deciding to exchange a “consumer-driven growth model” for a “happiness-driven” one — not just because all end-of-the-world scenarios are just veiled exhortations for repentance. > > No, global warming has become a religion because Rush and Co. have succeeded in making it one. He has succeeded in recasting the global-warming debate in the same way he has succeeded in recasting the debate over everything else, from taxes to health care to gay marriage. He has made an issue that should be amenable only to fact amenable to faith, indeed subservient to it, so that if people don’t “believe” in global warming, it’s not happening. The great secret to the success of the Republican party since it became an arm of the American church and the American corporation is that it pretends to abide by “absolutes” while remaining committed to the relativism at the heart of all religion, which is that if you believe in something, it exists, and if you don’t, it doesn’t. > > **The result is not simply a recipe for denial, it’s a closed loop, in which evidence that global warming is happening is interpreted as evidence that it’s not.** ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/173 "2013-03-15T00:51:46Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Obviously this discussion of individual countries could go on for some time, so let’s just cut to it: are you suggesting that a western standard of living, and low CO2 emission are mutually exclusive? I think so… I just can’t get excited about the whole AGW hoopla, period. I’m not particularly passionate about any of the arguments. But I do think human nature is to want stuff. To consume. To live like me and Al Gore. Rich, basically. While I understand that, in theory, someday we might get to enough clean energy to get me and my 7 billion pards (9 billion by then?) all the stuff we want in the lifestyle we want, in practice I don’t think it’s possible. Sure; we need green energy. We also need fossil fuels. And both of those put together won’t be enough to sustain the default lifestyle everyone wants. If you are talking about the next ten or twenty years, absolutely the western standard of living is mutually exclusive with lowering total CO2 emissions. It cannot, and will not, be done. Lip service; yeah. Getting me and Al to consume less; nope. Replacing the energy grid in time; nope. International agreement on carbon tax; nope. And without international cooperation among all major nations, anything short of a universal agreement on how to execute such a tax or similar strategy amounts to a unilateral trade advantage. That never ends well. Neither, for that matter, does propping up otherwise market-failing energy sources by taxing the less costly ones. We can’t get windmills and sunfarms in our backyards, except for the ones sold for corporate feelgood decos. We can’t get nuclear anywhere. We can’t dam the rivers anymore. Everyone is opposed to something, unless it costs the other guy. And no one I’ve met–literally no one–plans to live lighter, unless your’re talking about stuff like those reusable grocery bags. But real sacrifice: nope. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/174 "2013-03-15T00:58:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Missing the point again, once again, Gore is not proposing an end to our way of living, and you need a fat cite for claiming that the point is to just force others to use dirty energy. > > And once again, you seem to ignore the other point made: > > "Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. " Please note, before you bother pulling up any more quotes, that I am NOT villifying Al Gore. I am claiming that I am Al Gore, for goodness’ sakes (figuratively; not literally). Nor am I making the point that Al wants to force anyone to use dirty energy. Rather, I am making the point that the green energy available is a finite resource. If I swipe all of it for myself so I can live large, I have no moral high ground whatsoever, nor have I helped out the environment by that action. If I cut my consumption to the bone, and leave everyone else their share of green energy, then I’ve done something for my cause. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/175 "2013-03-15T01:05:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, the record shows who is using religion to dismiss what science is reporting. The aspect of AGW that strikes me as parallel to religion is the fervor with which its proponents promote it while living out their daily lives as they damn well please. We are drawn to Great Causes, and take joy in promoting inconvenient truths to the masses. We are not inclined to let our daily lives actually be constrained by inconvenience behavioural consequences which follow from our Great Cause. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/176 "2013-03-15T01:12:05Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > The aspect of AGW that strikes me as parallel to religion is the fervor with which its proponents promote it while living out their daily lives as they damn well please. And it remains just a condescending point to just deny that it is normal for groups of people to not do much before the change takes place, everyone around the Thames in England was also not willing to change, but the smell and cholera told them otherwise, the good that came from that change remains priceless to this day, and the costs to control the sewage problem, worthy indeed. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > We are drawn to Great Causes, and take joy in promoting inconvenient truths to the masses. We are not inclined to let our daily lives actually be constrained by inconvenience behavioural consequences which follow from our Great Cause. Sorry, but history shows that the real inconvenient truth is directed at sorry ideas like that one that once again is posted mostly with the intention to even deny that very similar changes were done before to control bad results coming from our technology, it will happen here also, and there will be no end to our civilization. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/177 "2013-03-15T01:19:54Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Please note, before you bother pulling up any more quotes, that I am NOT villifying Al Gore. > > I am claiming that I am Al Gore, for goodness’ sakes (figuratively; not literally). Being proud of missing his point does not lead people to take your ideas seriously. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Nor am I making the point that Al wants to force anyone to use dirty energy. Rather, I am making the point that the green energy available is a finite resource. If I swipe all of it for myself so I can live large, I have no moral high ground whatsoever, nor have I helped out the environment by that action. If I cut my consumption to the bone, and leave everyone else their share of green energy, then I’ve done something for my cause. So yeah, no good cite for what you claimed, but that is not unexpected. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/178 "2013-03-15T01:25:23Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I think so… > > I just can’t get excited about the whole AGW hoopla, period. I’m not particularly passionate about any of the arguments. > > But I do think human nature is to want stuff. To consume. To live like me and Al Gore. Rich, basically. While I understand that, in theory, someday we might get to enough clean energy to get me and my 7 billion pards (9 billion by then?) all the stuff we want in the lifestyle we want, in practice I don’t think it’s possible. Sure; we need green energy. We also need fossil fuels. And both of those put together won’t be enough to sustain the default lifestyle everyone wants. > > If you are talking about the next ten or twenty years, absolutely the western standard of living is mutually exclusive with lowering total CO2 emissions. It cannot, and will not, be done. Lip service; yeah. Getting me and Al to consume less; nope. Replacing the energy grid in time; nope. International agreement on carbon tax; nope. And without international cooperation among all major nations, anything short of a universal agreement on how to execute such a tax or similar strategy amounts to a unilateral trade advantage. That never ends well. Neither, for that matter, does propping up otherwise market-failing energy sources by taxing the less costly ones. > > We can’t get windmills and sunfarms in our backyards, except for the ones sold for corporate feelgood decos. We can’t get nuclear anywhere. We can’t dam the rivers anymore. Everyone is opposed to something, unless it costs the other guy. And no one I’ve met–literally no one–plans to live lighter, unless your’re talking about stuff like those reusable grocery bags. But real sacrifice: nope. That is only the result of demanding that we all will remain ignorant of the fact that the sacrifices that we will have to make to deal with the results of doing nothing will be more expensive than if we did something now. > **[Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money](https://skepticalscience.com/nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money.html)** > > Yale's William Nordhaus is one of the foremost experts on climate economics.  His research has frequently been misrepresented by climate 'skeptics' to argue that CO2 limits will harm the economy.  For example, Christopher Monckton cited a climate... > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > "My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums. > > > > ``` > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities." > > > > [...] > > > > "The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science." > > > > ``` > > Despite the economic reality that CO2 limits will save money, the myth that they will harm the economy is a pervasive one. However, this myth is based on nothing more than a misunderstanding of climate science and economics, and misrepresentation of the climate science and economics body of research. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/179 "2013-03-15T05:08:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Piffle, the record shows who is using religion to dismiss what science is reporting. > > [Inhofe: Global Warming Isn't Real: "God's Still Up There" | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/inhofe-global-warming-isn_n_300208.html) > > Again, just prop up Gore as the one to beat, when the only reason for that is that then what the science says can be avoided. And it is clear who are the ones that are using religion to avoid the science. > > [http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/global-warming-religion-5912388](http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/global-warming-religion-5912388) You know, the incidence of you using phrases like “Piffle” and “silly” in these threads is pifflingly silly. But the gospel says to disparage, that no man shall stand against The True Religion without believers making them seem like mice among men. Would be more effective it it weren’t so transparent. Hell, even the father of the whole global warming movement called you guys religionists. Now, if you don’t counter this with at least six paragraphs of approved cites you will be banished for not being a good enough religionist. So, get to work, brother. Can I get an AMEN?! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2013, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096/180 "2013-03-15T06:20:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You know, the incidence of you using phrases like “Piffle” and “silly” in these threads is pifflingly silly. But the gospel says to disparage, that no man shall stand against The True Religion without believers making them seem like mice among men. Would be more effective it it weren’t so transparent. Hell, even the father of the whole global warming movement called you guys religionists. Now, if you don’t counter this with at least six paragraphs of approved cites you will be banished for not being a good enough religionist. So, get to work, brother. Can I get an AMEN?! Nope, as I already replied to what you say here in other threads, (there was even a long explanation why your tale of the “father” you are referring here was a complete misrepresentation, virtually all scientists do not take him seriously as the post showed) so the only thing you demonstrate to all is just that you did not paid any attention and so your personal attack is easy to dismiss. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-you-are-among-the-last-people-that-will-ever-walk-the-earth/651096.md?page=10)