But still, I am not convinced this is the fault of AGW deniers!
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
History shows otherwise, many bills and changes proposed have been stopped by people like Inhofe in the senate by relying on flawed science furnished by deniers.
[/QUOTE]
Never said otherwise, but, again, what would be different? Would we be building nuclear power plants like crazy if there were no deniers? Would we be building solar and wind plants like crazy as well? Would we be replacing a large portion of our automobiles with CO2 free vehicles? When would all this be happening…and how would we be affording it? I have no doubt that denier types have made a non-zero difference, but it isn’t them who have prevented change on the scale that would be necessary to make a real, substantial difference…it’s reality that is doing that.
Yeah…and who is voting for them? And why? And how are they getting traction? Again, I’m not saying that they are having no effect, or that what they are doing is good or right…just that they aren’t the real problem, and if they disappeared tomorrow we STILL wouldn’t be able to address something like CO2 on a scale that would make a large difference any time soon. Even if the US followed the Kyoto Protocols to the letter it wouldn’t make a large difference in the near future, because even if the US and Europe did this you’d have to get everyone else on board too…and even then I have my doubts the run away freight train is going to be shifted on the scale of years or even decades…more like centuries. So, trying to blame deniers for this problem, as the OP is doing, is, to me, silly. Now, if you want to Pit them for being idiots and fuck heads…well, that’s a different story, and I might could get on board with dat.
-XT
I wouldn’t argue that the current fires are the fault of contemporary AGW deniers; it’s more like anti-science-ism (pardon the clumsy neologism) of all stripes, past and present. AGW-denialism just represents the current strain (and a very virulent one). My main point is that AGW-denialism will continue us down this road of environmental devastation.
I blame anti-science-ism rather than anti-environmentalism because plenty of environmentalism is anti-scientific and equally destructive. But well-intentioned foolishness gets more of a pass because at least woolly-headed environmentalists have the right ultimate aim and might, possibly, be persuaded by evidence. AGW denialists genuinely don’t care about the future of the environment.
James Hansen did warn us about it since the 80’s (including the increase in forest fires) the reality is that right now it is thanks to the efforts from outfits like the Heartland institute that politicians today are influenced to do nothing, specially the Republicans.
So, yea, I have seen this movie before, nowadays many do know that tobacco had to be regulated, and so it eventually it was, but not before many had died already.
If we are prepared I do not think that people die for this inaction in controlling global warming gas emissions, but I’m not optimistic of even being prepared to adapt because one of the political parties in America has decided that we should not even prepare as this problem “is not happening”.
Bolding mine. I don’t know that I’d make that sweeping generalization. I am still not 100% convinced that the impact of anthropogenic GHG’s is making a significant impact on climate change, but I deeply care about our environment.
I think the drivers to continuing environmental destruction lie within policy issues - a lack of scientific understanding combined with poor policy is preventing positive change, not the deniers of AGW.
Ideas drive history. The advocates of AGW denialism, and their anti-scientific forebearers, change minds. If Western society had decided decades ago to declare environmental degradation a top priority, technological innovations and social changes might have developed that could, possibly, have mitigated our current problems. More to the point, AGW deniers are unquestionably making the future worse than it would be otherwise.
I believe, based on my understanding of climate and energy science and of history, that our society and our scientists are capable of altering the trends of CO2 emissions and environmental degradation. But this will only be possible if most people buy in. AGW denialism is a powerful force working against this development. Hence the pitting.
Dude, I sure hope you’re right, but I am scared.
[QUOTE=spazurek]
Ideas drive history. The advocates of AGW denialism, and their anti-scientific forebearers, change minds. If Western society had decided decades ago to declare environmental degradation a top priority, technological innovations and social changes might have developed that could, possibly, have mitigated our current problems. More to the point, AGW deniers are unquestionably making the future worse than it would be otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
You have to see a real threat and understand it, and be able to project into the future in a cost to benefits ratio in order to get a society like the US on board. Again, pretend that there are and never were AGW deniers. Everyone believes that global climate change is happening and humans are causing it. How would things be different today? Would the average American be on board with a huge and costly lifestyle change in his or her life? Would they be willing to simultaneously increase their taxes and recurring costs for things like energy by a large enough amount to make real change? Would they be willing to change out our current use of personal transport, abandon the suburbs, or replace the current fleet of literally hundreds of millions of automobiles for (even today) vehicles that are both more expensive and have lesser performance capabilities? I’d say anyone answering this as ‘of course we would’ or something along those lines is dreaming. I look at many of the environmentalists, even on this board, who are fully agreeing that AGW is real, happening and CO2 is the major issue who refuse to even talk about nuclear energy. Could you see Americans willing to pony up literally hundreds of billions to start rapidly replacing coal fired plants with clear nuclear energy? I can’t see that…I can’t see that even TODAY, when we know a lot more about AGW and there are more people than ever on board with the concept. Even TODAY people don’t see the threat…and if they don’t see the threat they aren’t going to be willing to make the huge sacrifices necessary to combat it in any meaningful way. That’s not because of deniers, that’s because of reality and human behavior.
I don’t believe that, not in the short term. I believe that, in the long term, we’re already headed in that direction, and that we’ll get there eventually. In the US and Europe, our machines have gotten vastly cleaner in the last 2 decades, and that trend is going to continue IMHO. But it’s not going to accelerate without a public willing to commit to large sacrifices…and I don’t see that as happening. Even in countries where they don’t have a large and vocal AGW denial crowd. That’s because while I agree the AGW deniers have an effect, I think the larger effect is due to simple economics and the fact that the general public doesn’t see the threat, and thus isn’t willing to make great sacrifices for something they don’t think they need to make great sacrifices for.
-XT
You are not the problem. Reasonable people (you) may disagree about the severity of impact that humans are having on the environment. But with your above statement, you would never succeed in gaining elected office in the Republican party. Reasonable people are not welcome on the conservative side of the political environment.
Yes, but you are talking here about deniers of the actual rates of the danger of nuclear there, something that even I do not agree with the radical environmentalists.
Most of what you mention here would be financed with an emissions tax, something that a former darling of the deniers like Lonborg is even proposing now.
With energy companies financing the denial machine and now financing political campaigns this is getting into naive territory. There is a lot of of pressure for powerful interests to pretend change, just check “The Merchants Of Doubt” by Oreskes.
One of the biggest items IMHO that is ignored in arguments like that one is that once you have a big markets on board, then others that try to ignore it actually change suddenly as they feel a lot of pressure to produce things like better solar panels and wind engines. As Europe does not have to deal much with a denier industry, they are making a lot of progress in deploying alternative technologies, and then places like China produce more of the stuff. The results are something of an open secret: in the case of solar panels they are becoming so cheap that very soon if not already the cost of generating electricity from the sun is matching the cost of coal-fueled plants.
I guess I have enough faith in the optimism of humanity, and of Americans especially, to say that we could have made a difference. Many of our most deeply-held beliefs evolved and matured in startlingly little time – views on women, blacks, gays. All of these were wars of ideas and ideology, and success came when good ideas superceded bad ones. They all involved practical sacrifices, but truth won nevertheless. I think the same could happen with global warming/envonmentalism. The only obstacle is bad ideas.
I agree, but it has to be remarked that what we have here are bad ideas with heavily financed [del]stink[/del] think tanks.
I hear ya. The only thing I hate worse than moving is big old bitey desert arachnids like tarantulas & scorpions. I’ll get my ass right back to Seattle if it starts looking like NM or AZ around here. At least there I’ll have a canoe so I can escape when the ice caps melt, or will die pretty quickly when the Cascades pop.
Woah, I was in Seattle before here too! Seattle might actually be quite awesome when global warming kicks in. Well, the higher ground anyway. Recent housing crash + warming climate = profit? Though as you point out, volcanoes. Does global warming make eruption more likely? Wouldn’t surprise me.
On the other hand, maybe changes to prevailing winds would blow all the ash East. Watching Ranier explode from the top of the Space Needle might just be worth devastation of half the world’s population.
Had to dig into the sands of time to find a Facebook post I made last August: “Funny how nobody makes any jokes about global warming as Dallas starts its 34th straight day of over-100 degree weather.”
Might or might not surprise me, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it made earthquakes more likely, as changing temperature expands the rock in a way that it hasn’t experienced in millennia.
Hm. According to Scientific American, it’s a vicious cycle – climate change leads to more forest fires, and the fires add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and so on.
What’s the difference?
[This bit](Various claims by global warming denialists) from RationalWiki on “Various claims by global warming denialists” is informative.
Or if that’s too dry for you, let’s play "Global Warming Denial Bingo! 