Mods, you are playing their ignorant game if "climate change deniers" is offlimits.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Measure_for_Measure

With respect, you might want to update your question, to wit: can informed global warming skeptics exist in 2012?

In 1992 Nordhaus advocated an optimal carbon tax of $5, and said that it was too small to bother with if passed in a revenue neutral manner. The low figure was tied to his social rate of discount. He has kept his model, but if I understand it correctly harms have moved closer with the passage of time, so now he’s up to $30/ton. Recently he penned the column, “Why Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong”.

Anyway, c. 1992 I’d characterize Nordhaus as a Global Warming Skeptic. c. 2007-8, I’d say that he’s dovish on the topic, if not quite a dove. Well, “Deluded” is certainly a loaded expression. “Confused” might be better, though still derogatory. “AGW theory advocate” has problems of tone that are comparable to “AGW theory denier” IMHO: both concerns are very mild: I don’t see a problem with either in polite debate.

Heh. Here’s a good slam for those who accept mainstream climate science: call them “The warming establishment”.

The point is that you’re getting too close to a “no-true-skeptic” fallacy.
I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an “oh-my-god” catastrophe (or even something worrysome). I have no financial, social, or political advantage to fake my skepticism. I’m more than ready to assess any new information and change my stance.

I know deluded is loaded, as is denier. “The warmin establishment” has a nice ring to it, but it no a good comeback to denier.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Aji_de_Gallina

The point is that you’re getting too close to a “no-true-skeptic” fallacy.

I don’t think so, or perhaps I misunderstand your point. Nordhaus qualified as a skeptic c. 1992 as his position basically was, “Don’t bother to regulated CO2 unless you’re simply trying to raise revenue for deficit reduction.” But he renounced such a label this year and indeed has explicitly called for (modest) action. AFAICT, he wanted to draw a bright line between himself (a very mainstream economist) and the crackpots, albeit tenured ones. I know “Crackpot” is a strong word, but some of the arguments he was addressing truly were of the crank variety, though they received some airplay in conservative channels.
Heh. Here are two other possibilities: the credulous and the dupable. Getting pitworthy, but they have comeback potential.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Measure_for_Measure

I don’t think so, or perhaps I misunderstand your point. Nordhaus qualified as a skeptic c. 1992 as his position basically was, “Don’t bother to regulated CO2 unless you’re simply trying to raise revenue for deficit reduction.” But he renounced such a label this year and indeed has explicitly called for (modest) action. AFAICT, he wanted to draw a bright line between himself (a very mainstream economist) and the crackpots, albeit tenured ones. I know “Crackpot” is a strong word, but some of the arguments he was addressing truly were of the crank variety, though they received some airplay in conservative channels.
Heh. Here are two other possibilities: the credulous and the dupable. Getting pitworthy, but they have comeback potential.

How about “warmists” and “coolists”'.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

How about “warmists” and “coolists”'.

Even I pointed before that warmist could be applied to people like Al Gore that is not a scientist, the problem is that one looks at the contrarian sources and sites and they apply it even to the expert scientists.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

Even I pointed before that warmist could be applied to people like Al Gore that is not a scientist, the problem is that one looks at the contrarian sources and sites and they apply it even to the expert scientists.

Highsensitiviters and Lowsensitiviters?

[Czarcasm]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Highsensitiviters and Lowsensitiviters?

Yangs and Kohms?

[Rhythmdvl]

@Measure_for_Measure

With respect, you might want to update your question, to wit: can informed global warming skeptics exist in 2012?

@Aji_de_Gallina

I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an “oh-my-god” catastrophe (or even something worrysome).

No, no you don’t know the information or understand it. It makes sense that you’re chaffing at the label ‘denier’ because you’re under the false impression that you’re an informed skeptic.

It is absolutely no different from someone, in questioning evolution as a theory, saying, “I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an explanation how such complicated mechanisms as an eye could have developed by pure random chance.” You no more understand climate change than this person understands evolution.

Note further that there are great areas of controversy and knowledge-building in evolutionary theory, as in climate science. This is distinct from being a creationist or a denier, and merely proclaiming to be an informed skeptic is far from adequate to be considered one.

So being lumped in with creationists, birthers, and truthers is noisome to you because those people don’t *really *understand the issues, whereas you (mistakenly) believe that you do. Given the low reputation they have on the Board, it is understandable that you do not like being a member of that cohort.

On the other hand, the ‘denier’ moniker can imply a conscious choice to be duplicitous. It suggests that the person is aware of something, yet chooses to speak out against that thing for some other purpose, whether profit, faith, political bent, or some intangible abstraction that escapes even the speaker. It is, in this aspect, tantamount to calling someone a liar or zealously self-deluded. It is never clear whether the Stormfrnt visitor that cherry picks his evidence and twists logic to match his theory is intentionally doing so or is lying even to himself. Again, it is understandable why you would not be comfortable with the characterization.

Your umbrage is understandable. No one on a board dedicated to ‘fighting against ignorance’ wants to be lumped in with creationists, dowsers, homeopathic practitioners, scientologists, etc. And as the OP was premised on, dancing around terminology to avoid offending the crystal practitioners gives undue credence to their woo; the same is with climate change deniers. Though the terms can be used as an ad hominem (and already against the rules), the general application is appropriate.

[RaftPeople]

@Rhythmdvl

No, no you don’t know the information or understand it. It makes sense that you’re chaffing at the label ‘denier’ because you’re under the false impression that you’re an informed skeptic.

How do you know that?

Just because he/she isn’t very worried about the possible consequences doesn’t mean he/she doesn’t understand.

Are the consequences all negative and to a degree that any rational person should be afraid?

[Rhythmdvl]

@RaftPeople

How do you know that?

Just because he/she isn’t very worried about the possible consequences doesn’t mean he/she doesn’t understand.

Are the consequences all negative and to a degree that any rational person should be afraid?

You are correct. This, actually, is the easy case, but I should have accounted for it in my post.

I should have added that someone who actually does understand the range of implications of climate change impacts and still states that it “falls short of an “oh-my-god” catastrophe (or even something worrysome)" is either inherently sociopathic (for a lay understanding of the term) or inherently evil (for a common understanding of the term).

It is the equivalent of someone in the 1980s saying that though they recognize, understand, and accept as true that AIDS will kill millions of people, they just don’t think that such widespread death falls short of an “oh-my-god” catastrophe (or even something worrysome).”

ETA:

@RaftPeople

Are the consequences all negative and to a degree that any rational person should be afraid?

Afraid is a difficult term. I’m not afraid; I have the resources and am in a location to be personally safe. However, there are tens of millions of people (note there is a time element here) that are directly vulnerable to both death and increased suffering due to the direct and indirect results of climate change. Another reason why taking the position that this is not a concern is that most of those people are not the proximate cause of climate change; those safest and least likely to suffer bear the greater responsibility.

Note, however, that he/she did not take the position (AFAIK) that the IPCC reports are largely correct, etc., but just doesn’t give a shit about the impacts. That’s largely why I didn’t include it above.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Rhythmdvl

No, no you don’t know the information or understand it. It makes sense that you’re chaffing at the label ‘denier’ because you’re under the false impression that you’re an informed skeptic.

It is absolutely no different from someone, in questioning evolution as a theory, saying, “I consider myself a skeptic: I know the information, I understand it, and it still (for me) falls short of an explanation how such complicated mechanisms as an eye could have developed by pure random chance.” You no more understand climate change than this person understands evolution.

Note further that there are great areas of controversy and knowledge-building in evolutionary theory, as in climate science. This is distinct from being a creationist or a denier, and merely proclaiming to be an informed skeptic is far from adequate to be considered one.

So being lumped in with creationists, birthers, and truthers is noisome to you because those people don’t *really *understand the issues, whereas you (mistakenly) believe that you do. Given the low reputation they have on the Board, it is understandable that you do not like being a member of that cohort.

On the other hand, the ‘denier’ moniker can imply a conscious choice to be duplicitous. It suggests that the person is aware of something, yet chooses to speak out against that thing for some other purpose, whether profit, faith, political bent, or some intangible abstraction that escapes even the speaker. It is, in this aspect, tantamount to calling someone a liar or zealously self-deluded. It is never clear whether the Stormfrnt visitor that cherry picks his evidence and twists logic to match his theory is intentionally doing so or is lying even to himself. Again, it is understandable why you would not be comfortable with the characterization.

Your umbrage is understandable. No one on a board dedicated to ‘fighting against ignorance’ wants to be lumped in with creationists, dowsers, homeopathic practitioners, scientologists, etc. And as the OP was premised on, dancing around terminology to avoid offending the crystal practitioners gives undue credence to their woo; the same is with climate change deniers. Though the terms can be used as an ad hominem (and already against the rules), the general application is appropriate.

I see, skeptics can exist but in a catch-22 sort of way. If you don’t accept AG you’re ignorant, because if you understood it you wouldn’t be a skeptic.

I know that the supposed consequences are terrible, but I don’t believe those consequences are going to happen because I don’t believe temperatures are going to rise to any worrysome levels because feedbacks as stated do not match mathematical realities.

It’s “fighting ignorance” (not against) and you cannot imagine how little I care about being classified with creationists, birthers or even vegans, in an anonymous board.

[Rhythmdvl]

I see, skeptics can exist but in a catch-22 sort of way. If you don’t accept evolution, you’re ignorant, because if you understood it you wouldn’t be a skeptic.

The same thing applies to those that deny climate change.

No, emphatically and unequivocally no, you do not understand climate science.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Rhythmdvl

I see, skeptics can exist but in a catch-22 sort of way. If you don’t accept evolution, you’re ignorant, because if you understood it you wouldn’t be a skeptic.

The same thing applies to those that deny climate change.

No, emphatically and unequivocally no, you do not understand climate science.

Good to see that your crystal ball is working so well. I hope you use it only for good and not for evil.

[Rhythmdvl]

That made absolutely no sense.

Crystal ball?

Science. It works, bitches.
You are, without any doubt, from any rational point of view, equivalent to a creationist that suggests she knows and understands evolution but denies that it can account for the creation of an eye.
Pretending that it’s okay to be ignorant of basic science because otherwise you’re caught in a catch-22 doesn’t help.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Rhythmdvl

That made absolutely no sense.

Crystal ball?

Science. It works, bitches.
You are, without any doubt, from any rational point of view, equivalent to a creationist that suggests she knows and understands evolution but denies that it can account for the creation of an eye.
Pretending that it’s okay to be ignorant of basic science because otherwise you’re caught in a catch-22 doesn’t help.

The crystal ball you use to gauge my actual knowledge and understanding of climate science.
Or do you have a specific example¿ (as opposed to. “I know it because you don’t believe in AGW like I do”)

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

The crystal ball you use to gauge my actual knowledge and understanding of climate science.
Or do you have a specific example¿ (as opposed to. “I know it because you don’t believe in AGW like I do”)

Well, a few questions can clarify that:

1. Why do you trust non experts sources like Forbes Magazine over the published science journals or science magazines regarding climate change?

2. Why do you trust non expert sites or your opinion over what expert in polling or surveys are finding regarding the actual levels of consensus among the climate scientists on the issue?

[Rhythmdvl]

@Aji_de_Gallina

The crystal ball you use to gauge my actual knowledge and understanding of climate science.
Or do you have a specific example¿ (as opposed to. “I know it because you don’t believe in AGW like I do”)

The closest example at hand:

@Aji_de_Gallina

I know that the supposed consequences are terrible,** but I don’t believe those consequences are going to happen because I don’t believe temperatures are going to rise to any worrysome levels because feedbacks as stated do not match mathematical realities. ** (* emphasis added*)

You don’t seem to be hingeing your statements on an inhuman callousness, nor on duplicity. Given the state of climate science and body of evidence, that only leave one option: ignorance. Again, it makes sense that you would object to the term, as sharing a label with creationists et al can’t be very comfortable on this board.

Your “actual” knowledge of climate science is extremely limited. You would be much better off educating yourself than pretending that an accurate description of your lack of knowledge is somehow inimical to debating the issues.

[John_DiFool]

Actually, I would welcome a substantive discussion on the predicted extent of AGW, along with other various side issues. This however would require that all parties share a common ground of theories and data, and that said discussion would not get hijacked in short order by those with their axes to grind. I can’t remember the last time we had such a discussion here, too bad…

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

Well, a few questions can clarify that:

1. Why do you trust non experts sources like Forbes Magazine over the published science journals or science magazines regarding climate change?

2. Why do you trust non expert sites or your opinion over what expert in polling or surveys are finding regarding the actual levels of consensus among the climate scientists on the issue?

1. Who says I do? and if I do, have you provided something of real value except the pedantically written articles of your favourtie webstie or long videos I’ve told you I won’t watch?
2. Polling like 75 of 3000?

@Rhythmdvl

The closest example at hand:
You don’t seem to be hingeing your statements on an inhuman callousness, nor on duplicity. Given the state of climate science and body of evidence, that only leave one option: ignorance. Again, it makes sense that you would object to the term, as sharing a label with creationists et al can’t be very comfortable on this board.

Your “actual” knowledge of climate science is extremely limited. You would be much better off educating yourself than pretending that an accurate description of your lack of knowledge is somehow inimical to debating the issues.

(and this will be the last specific topic I’ll talk about, this is an ATMB thread about denier, not an AHW thread.)
The specified feedback of a doubling of CO2 concentration is estimated (in pro-AGW sources) at about 3ºC. Tracking back that high sensitivity backwards in the instrumental record, doesn’t fit observed temperastures. Also, high sensitivities would point to an inherently unstable system and climate isnt.
The 3ºC per doubling would get us fro the 1850 to now with a 1.5º increase and not the 0.8º observed. Aersols are brought to save the day, but their short lves an poor mixing means that, to average out, they would need to provide astonishing cooling in the areas where they are very high (we’re talking 5º).

@John_DiFool

Actually, I would welcome a substantive discussion on the predicted extent of AGW, along with other various side issues. This however would require that all parties share a common ground of theories and data, and that said discussion would not get hijacked in short order by those with their axes to grind. I can’t remember the last time we had such a discussion here, too bad…

This being an ATMB thread about the use of the word denier, this isn’t the place to have yet another AGW thread. Open one and I’ll see if I can be bothered.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

1. Who says I do? and if I do, have you provided something of real value except the pedantically written articles of your favourtie webstie or long videos I’ve told you I won’t watch?

And here is the problem, that pedantic website links to the published science, claiming in essence that that source should be dismissed is being done by you without any good reason whatsoever. One meta point that do like to do is that the inability to identify bad sources is what allows many unsavory contrarian sources to poison the discussions.

@Aji_de_Gallina

2. Polling like 75 of 3000?

And here we go again, it is clear to other observers that even a well documented item, that shows that there is virtually no controversy on the basic items of AGW among the scientists, has to be rejected a all costs, my beef as always will be with the merchants of doubt that were identified already many times before.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

And here is the problem, that pedantic website links to the published science, claiming in essence that that source should be dismissed is being done by you without any good reason whatsoever. One meta point that do like to do is that the inability to identify bad sources is what allows many unsavory contrarian sources to poison the discussions. .

That’s why I go straight to the source (the actual science), not to the pedantic rehashers nor those with no personal view..

And here we go again, it is clear to other observers that even a well documented item, that shows that there is virtually no controversy on the basic items of AGW among the scientists, has to be rejected a all costs, my beef as always will be with the merchants of doubt that were identified already many times before.

You’re saying it isn’t 75 out of 3000? I can quote the study.
Did you miss the several ocassion where I said that I (and most skeptics) would also agree with both of the questions posted in the survey? Or is that too inconvenient?