Global Warming Skeptics Deserve Bigger Headlines

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
…

So, the environmentalists face an uphill battle. It’s way too easy to come up with slogans or short one-sentence arguments on the other side: “Don’t take away my car!” would be a start. Trying to convince people that they need to make sacrifices and changes in life-style for their own good (and for the good of future generations) is never going to be an easy task. It wasn’t until the smog in LA and London was so think as to cause deaths and obnoxious smells that everyone faced, that we were able to get some sort of clean-air act going. Why would fighting global warming be any easier? When the water covers Manhattan, we’ll get some action. (My pessimism is showing)
[/QUOTE]

Your pessimism seems frighteningly and maddeningly dead on. Good post C K.

Liberal, I am glad I read your apology before I called you an ass. Well done on the apology.

Welcome to the Board Sir Oinksalot. I hope you stick around, great rant.

A large part of Al Gore’s problem is he often did not use hard science in Truth. He offered very few solutions. He seemed to appeal mostly to those already green and those in college. So, I think you are dead on that Global Warming needs a more charismatic and interesting spokesperson.

Jim

22

Uh…“The ice caps are melting and the ozone layer’s going and we’re all gonna die!” isn’t catchy? You seem to be holding your pet causes to a higher standard of accuracy than they in fact practice in the public arena, while painting the opposing group as unscrupulous demagogues.

23

[QUOTE=athelas]
Uh…“The ice caps are melting and the ozone layer’s going and we’re all gonna die!” isn’t catchy? …
[/QUOTE]

You do realize these are tied together, don’t you?

24

[QUOTE=athelas]
Uh…“The ice caps are melting and the ozone layer’s going and we’re all gonna die!” isn’t catchy? You seem to be holding your pet causes to a higher standard of accuracy than they in fact practice in the public arena, while painting the opposing group as unscrupulous demagogues.
[/QUOTE]

If the ice caps are melting, the ozone layer’s going and we’re all going to die it sounds like the problem is going to solve itself, no? From an orthogonal point of view it seems like the entire environmental debate is an argument as to how fast we should be shitting where we eat and how thoroughly should we spread it around after. I’m personally fucking tired of both sides – I’ll deal with whatever natural or manmade disasters that come up to the best of my ability, and unless somebody comes up with a genius plan to get the human population back under a few mil in my lifespan, the whole point, is IMO, pretty much moot.

25

[QUOTE=athelas]
Uh…“The ice caps are melting and the ozone layer’s going and we’re all gonna die!” .
[/QUOTE]

How about this one:

The ice caps are melting and we’re all gonna die!! Quick, throw me your wallet!! No time to argue!!

26

[QUOTE=Liberal]
How about Neil deGrasse Tyson?
[/QUOTE]
Thanks – Yeah, he’s good. I believe he’s doing some sort of NOVA spinoff on PBS; have to look at that. And of course there’s Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, who sometimes shows up here.

I feel that way a lot of the time. Overpopulation is driving all the really big problems, and will just overwhelm any ameliorative efforts we make towards dealing with the symptoms. We’re in the midst of a catastrophic population explosion, and yet I never hear it talked about in the mainstream media anymore. If humans would stop having babies for a couple of decades, we could get a handle on things.

27

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
The problem is that it’s always easy to come up with “slogans” that are catchy, but it’s hard to come up with solid arguments. And it’s not just in the environmental area.
[/quote]
Also, the fact that many of the educated folks don’t want to get “in the trenches” and start duking it out when the pinheads begin their assault on things like evolution in the classroom.

But do we need to get into the whole complicated mess? Evolution is a fact, the “theory” comes in with how it works. Does the average person need to understand that difference? I don’t think so. Too much time is wasted on hairsplitting by highly educated people who have to worry about the details in their daily life. The average person doesn’t, so what the educated folks need to do is stop worrying about the details and make sure that folks know the essential information (i.e. Evolution is real, the planet’s getting warmer.).

Because they’re not really trying. What about, “Fix America First!”? Or “Let Iraq have the terrorists, we’ll keep the soldiers!” Or “If you want our help, stop killing our soldiers!”

This, IMHO, is a case of not picking the right battles. Instead of screaming, “Get rid of the SUVs!” Environmentalists should have been screaming about stopping imported goods, since the environmental damage caused by goods made in countries where regulations aren’t as strict as those in the US and then shipping them to the US is probably greater than that caused by driving around a bunch of Chinese built SUVs. It also helps get Joe Sixpack on their side, since they’re trying to keep jobs here at home. Then, when they get the political tide turned towards bringing the jobs back here (to reduce imported goods), start screaming about the lack of movement on fuel economy. Drag out the UL of 100 MPG carbs, screetch about the exorbitant profits of the oil companies, and Joe Sixpack will flock to their side. Stick to the baby steps, don’t bring up sacrifice (when it may, in fact, not be all that necessary), and most importantly, teach people to think!

Hell, I’m all in favor of doing what the Aussies are planning on: Ban incandescent lights. Compact fluorescents work just as well, cost only a little bit more, and are better for the environment, even if you don’t recycle the bulbs. Guess I should get off my lazy ass and write my kongress kritters, huh? Would that we all stopped being so damned lazy.

28

[QUOTE=Sir Oinksalot]
…

I then go to junkscience.com, a website run by a known fraud (Steven J. Milloy, a man who’s first act after 9/11 was to write an article blaming the Clinton Administration for the collapse of the twin towers by taking the asbestos out of them)
…

[/QUOTE]

Does the fact that you haven’t provided a cite to support your untrue claim that Milloy blamed the Clinton Administration for the collapse of the Twin Towers make you a “known fraud”? …

Milloy’s columns made a simple claim – that the lack of asbestos insulation could have been the reason that the Twin Towers fell. He even provided evidence that this was known before the fact.

Milloy has made some doubtful claims, but then, so have you … me, I don’t think either of you are “known frauds”, but YMMV …

w.

29

No, he didn’t. The most he was able to do was to speculate that asbestos insulation might have delayed the melting and collapsing of the steel structure for somewhat longer than it actually took.

Even that speculation appears to be completely unsubstantiated:

And yes, Milloy is a fraud. From his attempts to portray his industry-funded “astroturf” foundation TASSC as a grassroots institution, to his bogus arguments that radiation exposure at the Capitol in Washington is much higher than EPA limits would have permitted for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site, Milloy has made it all too apparent that he has no scientific or journalistic integrity. He is a con man whose self-appointed mission is to provide a fig leaf of ersatz scientific respectability for whatever ideas are espoused by the industries who fund him.

There are plenty of honest and competent researchers providing much-needed criticisms and improvements of mainstream scientific theories. There’s no need to waste any sympathy or respect on someone like Steven Milloy.

30

I don’t think it makes any difference at all what the global warming scientists say, Sir Oinksalot. People don’t want to hear their message, so they aren’t hearing it. Period. It never benefits anyone to underestimate the average person’s capacity to delude themselves and rationalize what they want to do. There should be a special level of hell reserved for the politicians and corporate decision-makers who understand the situation and still choose to not do the right thing (and force Joe Sixpack to do the right thing, too, whether he wants to or not).

I personally think our goose is already good and thoroughly cooked, and I’m very glad that I was born without the drive to reproduce. I think humans will manage to off ourselves, and if we do manage it, we deserve what we get. The real crime is not human beings going extinct; it’s that we’ll take a whole lot of innocent organisms with us when we do.

31

Are we still talking about global warming here? Because AFAICT, not even the most dire realistic scenarios proposed by climate scientists involve global warming causing the complete extinction of the human species.

A lot of suffering, deaths and displacement, yes. The end of the world as a habitable planet for human beings, no. Not even close.

32

[QUOTE=Kimstu]

And yes, Milloy is a fraud. From his attempts to portray his industry-funded “astroturf” foundation TASSC as a grassroots institution, to his bogus arguments that radiation exposure at the Capitol in Washington is much higher than EPA limits would have permitted for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site, Milloy has made it all too apparent that he has no scientific or journalistic integrity. He is a con man whose self-appointed mission is to provide a fig leaf of ersatz scientific respectability for whatever ideas are espoused by the industries who fund him.

There are plenty of honest and competent researchers providing much-needed criticisms and improvements of mainstream scientific theories. There’s no need to waste any sympathy or respect on someone like Steven Milloy.
[/QUOTE]

Hasn’t he also claimed that DDT was harmless to the environment?

33

I don’t know whether he’s claimed that it’s literally harmless. But yes, DDT advocacy is one of his schticks, and as usual for Milloy, he’s bolstered it with a number of spurious claims. For instance, he’s claimed that DDT bans are responsible for millions of malaria deaths. (Actually, DDT is not banned for public health use in most areas where malaria is endemic; the vast majority of places where DDT is banned have extremely low malaria incidence rates.)

By the way, Milloy is also the guy who believes that the evolution of human beings is scientifically undetermined: “Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way - i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study - for explaining how humans developed.”

Apparently Milloy doesn’t believe that, e.g., protein homology or gene sequencing techniques are scientific. He seems to hold the naive view that since we’re never going to reproduce the course of human evolution from a non-human ancestor in the laboratory, we’ll never be able to have an actual scientific theory about human evolution, as opposed to mere “hypothesis or conjecture”.

Of course, Milloy is not a scientist, so it’s maybe not surprising that he manifests little scientific understanding or scientific responsibility. What does seem rather surprising is that he is so successful in some circles in presenting himself as a competent arbiter of scientific validity.

34

Kimstu, good to hear from you. However, your linking to someone’s interpretation of what Milloy’s radiation study said need to be put in context. As in this case, it is always better to go to the original documents. You say

[QUOTE=Kimstu]

… his bogus arguments that radiation exposure at the Capitol in Washington is much higher than EPA limits would have permitted for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site …
[/QUOTE]

While the site you reference claims that Milloy is in error, and that he doesn’t know the difference between background radiation and increased radiation, Milloy’s study gives the actual data. It makes a very clear distinction between background and increased radiation, both of which are specifically measured, so the folks you cited clearly did not read the study either.

The readings done for the study showed that because of the granite and marble (both weakly radioactive) in the Capitol buildings, the levels inside the buildings are an average of 197 mREM/year (high reading 263, low reading 140), much higher than the background level of 45 mREM/yr outside the buildings. On average, inside the buildings is 152 mREM/yr above background levels.

Permitted Yucca Mountain increases, on the other hand, are to be limited to 15 mREM/year above the background.

Now me, I think that (for a variety of reasons) the Yucca Mountain site is not a good one for nuclear waste.

But Milloy is right, the levels in the Capitol buildings are many times higher above the background level than those proposed for Yucca Mountain.

You need to get out of the habit of getting your science from press releases.

w.

PS - The background radiation level in Denver is about 95 milliREM/year, which is also higher than Yucca Mountain background plus the 15 milliREM/yr of permitted increase … go figure.

PSS - Please don’t mistake this for an endorsement of Milloy. I put no more trust in him than in anyone else. Like everyone (including myself), some things he claims are right, some are wrong … but it is foolish to automatically disbelieve everything he says. As in climate science … a healthy scepticism is indicated.

35

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
The type of atheist most beloved by theists, I suppose, is the softer, mushier kind.
[/QUOTE]
The type of atheist most beloved by me is the rational, articulate kind. Voyager. Darwin’s Finch. Sentient Meat. Gaudere. Spiritus Mundi. The most rational and articulate atheists off the board are Eugenie Scott, Daniel Dennet, and Pete Suber, in my opinion.

36

IMHO the biggest problem the AGW movement has is its treatment of those who don’t agree. AGW is the new religion and those who disagree are heretics who must be burned at the stake. Ok, that’s hyperbole, but one has only to look at what happenned to Lomborg and others to see that it’s not that far off.

37

[QUOTE=Quartz]
IMHO the biggest problem the AGW movement has is its treatment of those who don’t agree. AGW is the new religion and those who disagree are heretics who must be burned at the stake. Ok, that’s hyperbole, but one has only to look at what happenned to Lomborg and others to see that it’s not that far off.
[/QUOTE]

What did happen to Lomborg? He’s one of the people who says it’s too late to do anything about it, so lie back and relax, right? Was he maltreated in some way?

38

[QUOTE=Quartz]
IMHO the biggest problem the AGW movement has is its treatment of those who don’t agree. AGW is the new religion and those who disagree are heretics who must be burned at the stake. Ok, that’s hyperbole, but one has only to look at what happenned to Lomborg and others to see that it’s not that far off.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The whole “GW is real and you must be stupid if you don’t believe like we do” attitude is setting up my BS meter something fierce. So now I’m looking for the contra argument. And I’m kinda buying it.
The thing that gets me is that out of the range of temperatures the earth has experienced in the past, why do we pick 1972 (or 1934 or 1962 or whichever) as the “correct” setting?
Also, regardless of wether or not global warming is occuring or not, or caused by human activity, or if so, by which human activity - I’m not sure it’s a problem to me Ok, so it sucks to be a polar bear, the Dutch need to build a few more dikes, and maybe they need to show the Bangladeshis how to - but then crop yields everywhere else go up, and Canada gets to be more pleasant to live in. All pretty much in the “stuff happens” sliver of my attention span.

So show me what it costs me to fix this, show me that that will actually fix this (which is a biggie) tell me what misery/doom/suffering is avoided by fixing this, and tell me for sure what happens if we don’t. Do this without having 16 year old runescape addicts tell me that “duh! everyone knows this” -And maybe then you’ll get me to listen.

Or, just keep yelling at me. Call me ignorant, selfish, an economic imperialist. Try to legislate me into submission. I’m still tickled pink that after hearing Tommy Matlhus’ theories, my great great whatever granddaddy didn’t decide that having children was pointless an cruel.

39

[QUOTE=Isosleepy]
Exactly. The whole “GW is real and you must be stupid if you don’t believe like we do” attitude is setting up my BS meter something fierce. So now I’m looking for the contra argument. And I’m kinda buying it.
The thing that gets me is that out of the range of temperatures the earth has experienced in the past, why do we pick 1972 (or 1934 or 1962 or whichever) as the “correct” setting?
Also, regardless of wether or not global warming is occuring or not, or caused by human activity, or if so, by which human activity - I’m not sure it’s a problem to me Ok, so it sucks to be a polar bear, the Dutch need to build a few more dikes, and maybe they need to show the Bangladeshis how to - but then crop yields everywhere else go up, and Canada gets to be more pleasant to live in. All pretty much in the “stuff happens” sliver of my attention span.

So show me what it costs me to fix this, show me that that will actually fix this (which is a biggie) tell me what misery/doom/suffering is avoided by fixing this, and tell me for sure what happens if we don’t. Do this without having 16 year old runescape addicts tell me that “duh! everyone knows this” -And maybe then you’ll get me to listen.

Or, just keep yelling at me. Call me ignorant, selfish, an economic imperialist. Try to legislate me into submission. I’m still tickled pink that after hearing Tommy Matlhus’ theories, my great great whatever granddaddy didn’t decide that having children was pointless an cruel.
[/QUOTE]

A rather large chunk of the human population lives in cities built up on natural harbors and bays. As the water does rise, many of these cities will be endangered as New Orleans and the Dutch currently are. The cost of protecting these cities will be enormous, very likely as much as the cost of trying to stop Global Warming if we start today.

Additionally, there are some legitimate fears that drought and desertification will increase around the world; this will endanger vast productive areas. If Canada and Russia’s growing seasons did increase, will it offset the loss of productive lands in current areas?

The information about how to fix this problem is out there, it is not proven, but you can get a good outline by reading science magazines like Scientific America. Last Year they had a special issue that had a good roadmap to solutions that are achievable. Please note, that is Scientific America, not a Green Peace or Sierra Club monthly magazine. Indeed, SA’s roadmap is far sounder than anything I have seen from Gore or the various Green magazines I have seen. It is doable, it is expensive, but if the 90% certainty is correct, a lot cheaper than not doing it.

BTW: How much higher do you think the world’s population can go before we completely overwhelm our ability to feed and support the population? Do you think we can just keep going forever or is there a limit? Should we have any hopes of maintaining wild places for animals or is it okay if most end up only in Zoos and preserves? How many more green revolutions do we have up our sleeves?

Finally, I am not a scientist, I cannot hope to answer all the questions, but I would think a consensus opinion of 3000 leading climatologist that GW is 90% certain should have more weight than random pot shots addressing usually one piece of data.

Jim

40

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
but I would think a consensus opinion of 3000 leading climatologist that GW is 90% certain should have more weight than random pot shots addressing usually one piece of data.
[/quote]

This is arguing from authority. And in science, consensus should mean little, evidence and proof should weigh a lot.