# Why would climate change be a hoax? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773 "2015-05-11T14:31:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/101 "2015-05-13T22:27:36Z")
The intersection of Science and Politics means that [no greater threat than climate change](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-obama/) becomes [drill, baby, drill](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/opinion/obamas-catastrophic-climate-change-denial.html?_r=0). Thanks, Obama, for making my point that, no matter what you (say) you believe and what you (say) you really care about and no matter what science might say, in the end it’s not the science that is important but what people in power do with that knowledge. Res, non verba. If Obama approves on his own drilling for more oil in Alaska, how can anyone believe that he really, really thinks it’s important. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/102 "2015-05-13T22:51:10Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The intersection of Science and Politics means that [no greater threat than climate change](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/21/us/climate-change-us-obama/) becomes [drill, baby, drill](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/opinion/obamas-catastrophic-climate-change-denial.html?_r=0). Thanks, Obama, for making my point that, no matter what you (say) you believe and what you (say) you really care about and no matter what science might say, in the end it’s not the science that is important but what people in power do with that knowledge. > > Res, non verba. If Obama approves on his own drilling for more oil in Alaska, how can anyone believe that he really, really thinks it’s important. Do you believe not drilling in Alaska reduces our oil use, and thus the carbon released from the oil, one iota? If it doesn’t come from there it will come from fracking or from Saudi Arabia. Opposition to oil drilling in Alaska centers on the direct environmental impact of the drilling. That has nothing to do with climate change. Your second link is an opinion piece clearly from someone opposed to the drilling, and trying to use climate change as an argument against it. Shell could be seriously committed to alternative energy sources and still feel the need to drill in the Arctic - since our thirst for oil is not going away soon. If you can cite Obama saying he has become a denier you might have something. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/103 "2015-05-13T23:44:02Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The green movement predates the global warming prediction. Environmentalists wanted people to use less energy, and live a different lifestyle for decades before global warming became a popular idea. So people were saying that it turns out what they have been wanting all along is suddenly going to solve this huge problem we just found. It would be like if the McDonalds suddenly found a new disease that is going to kill everyone in fifty years and it turns out that Big Macs are the only cure. This is very true and a superb fact-based analysis. For example a European study some years ago showed that there were approximately 35,000 premature and preventable deaths per year in Europe due to air pollution. And now the tree-huggers claim that the same sources causing all that air pollution are **also contributing to climate change**! It’s a conspiracy, I tell you!! Not only that, but the tree-huggers now have some new-fangled story about how trees are a _ **good** _ thing, because trees absorb CO2 or some horseshit like that, that they obviously just made up. Coincidence? I think not. I have trees in my back yard and I’ve never seen them absorb anything. They just sit there and attract noisy birds and squirrels, and the birds poop all over my Ford F-350 (with the giant dual exhausts) which is of course what the tree-huggers secretly want. So nefarious is the evil of the tree-huggers that they’ve now convinced [virtually all of the world’s climate scientists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) to go along with their hoax, probably by threatening their lives if they don’t. They’ve even somehow [forced the US military](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/10/13/climate-change-threatens-national-security-pentagon-says/) to go along with the scam. So who’s left that actually knows The Truth™? Only you and me, brother, and a few other lonely voices in the wilderness. Oh, and the world’s major industries, led by pitiful ragtag groups like Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers, selflessly seeking only The Truth™, and so poor that they can barely afford to feed their own families. It’s a travesty, this conspiracy. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/104 "2015-05-14T00:14:07Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > … no matter what science might say, in the end it’s not the science that is important but what people in power do with that knowledge. “Important” to what? For policy to be rational and effective, it must be informed by facts, which is the business of science. If it isn’t, we ignore the facts at our peril and, sooner or later, inevitably face the consequences. Because, in the end, nature cares absolutely nothing about what you believe or don’t believe. Nature is neither beneficent nor evil – it is utterly indifferent. The forces that create hospitable environments for life are exactly the same ones that, under different conditions, precipitate mass extinctions. It’s up to us to care about the choices we make. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/105 "2015-05-14T04:12:25Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Do you believe not drilling in Alaska reduces our oil use, and thus the carbon released from the oil, one iota? If it doesn’t come from there it will come from fracking or from Saudi Arabia. > Opposition to oil drilling in Alaska centers on the direct environmental impact of the drilling. That has nothing to do with climate change. Your second link is an opinion piece clearly from someone opposed to the drilling, and trying to use climate change as an argument against it. Shell could be seriously committed to alternative energy sources and still feel the need to drill in the Arctic - since our thirst for oil is not going away soon. > If you can cite Obama saying he has become a denier you might have something. I understand the Alaska is more a pollution than AGW thing. However, the point you make “if not Alaska then somewhere else” is key. Someone who says AGW is the greatest threat and really means it, should be able to swallow the pill and say “I won’t make oil cheaper (by increasing usable reserves) and therefore incentivize its use which increases CO2”. It’s an opinión piece, but the key part is the “drill, baby, drill”. I will never claim that Obama is a denier. I’ll claim, however, the whatever he says about AGW and what he actually does, or even better, the actual results of what he does, is what’s important > [@wolfpup](#): > > “Important” to what? > > For policy to be rational and effective, it must be informed by facts, which is the business of science. If it isn’t, we ignore the facts at our peril and, sooner or later, inevitably face the consequences. Because, in the end, nature cares absolutely nothing about what you believe or don’t believe. Nature is neither beneficent nor evil – it is utterly indifferent. The forces that create hospitable environments for life are exactly the same ones that, under different conditions, precipitate mass extinctions. It’s up to us to care about the choices we make. Yes to all of that. However, public policy is not made/enforced by scientists, it is by politicians. The only thing that matter in a person’s life is not the albedo of a lightly forested area or the cooling effect of black carbon. What matter is the tax on my oil or how much money is spent on subsidizing solar energy and not or repairing potholes or school. I’ll repeat my previous question. Let’s see if you can venture an answer. Suppose that it became a 100% scientific fact, proven by countless studies in every (un)imaginable situation that legalizing rape reduced the incidence of forced, unwanted sexual intercourse by 50%. Legalize it and it gets cut in half. That’s the science stuff. Incontrovertable. Can you imagine any mayor, governor, representative, senator, secretary or president who’d sign the law that legalizes rape? And I’ll add; would YOU sign it with the clear scientific conviction of its truth? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/106 "2015-05-14T05:12:18Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > The deniers that I talk to believe that the government will use it to justify a bunch of draconian limits on energy consumption. Which is bad why? It’s not like fossil fuels weren’t running out before the existence of AGW was a consensus. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/107 "2015-05-14T05:18:43Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Well, we are frequently informed of the great economic benefits to getting on board with solar and other renewable energy sources and that phasing out of oil and coal will add lots of jobs. > > So maybe it’s the alternative energy people and their stooges who are hoaxing in order to profit big time. :eek: Yeah, all that cheap, renewable energy, getting cheaper every year as new windmills and solar farms come online! Instead of getting more expensive, scarcer, and less sustainable every year like gas and oil. We already pretty much know when natural gas will be too expensive to heat homes like mine, and Boone Pickens wants to find more uses for it so it runs out faster? I think the conspiracy is one of future societal success and common sense. I’ll gladly join that conspiracy, if I have to man an orbital hurricane-generating satellite to get there. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/108 "2015-05-14T05:25:54Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I just read that the PM of Australia (a major cola producer/exporter) has had unkind words for the AGW community. Which leads to a question: Australia makes a LOT of money by exporting coal-most of which goes to China and India. If these nations are to reduce CO2 emissions, they will have to reduce their purchase of Australian coal. How does the world economy propose to compensate Australia for the loss of its income from coal? Well, considering who makes money off that coal, and how they got their hands on it… ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/109 "2015-05-14T09:32:42Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > I just read that the PM of Australia (a major cola producer/exporter) has had unkind words for the AGW community. And no wonder! One of the major sources of atmospheric CO2 is carbonated beverages! ---
**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:** [May 14, 2015, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/110 "2015-05-14T12:20:14Z")
Is the “hoax” attribution itself a hoax? The typical Denier I’ve read “denies” because: 1. So many TEOTWAWKI predictions have been wrong, even when widely accepted. The further out the predicted events, the more likely it is to be wrong 2. Of a perception that short-term variations which skew away from the broad average prediction are confirmatory that something is amiss in our ability to predict 3. Of a general mistrust of science (boko haram light) 4. The underlying modeling theory is complex enough to be beyond the Denier’s ken 5. Denying leaves room for avoiding personal responsibility in service of a public good–i.e. it enables participation in the tragedy of the commons, where individual sacrifice is not made since not enough individuals in toto will sacrifice to an extent great enough to avoid a problem 6. Hypocrisy and/or secondary gain is easily assigned to major public figures or institutions promoting the Alarm (Al Gore and his consumption; a “concerned” starlet jetting around for recreation in between speeches against AGW; a government agency anxious to promote its reach…) …etc But I don’t see the “it’s all a hoax” promoted very vigorously by Deniers. I’m sure there may be a few. In general though, the “hoax” label seems to be applied unilaterally by Alarmists against those who oppose their concern. ---
**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:** [May 14, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/111 "2015-05-14T12:42:59Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > “Important” to what? > > For policy to be rational and effective, it must be informed by facts, which is the business of science. If it isn’t, we ignore the facts at our peril and, sooner or later, inevitably face the consequences. Because, in the end, nature cares absolutely nothing about what you believe or don’t believe. Nature is neither beneficent nor evil – it is utterly indifferent. The forces that create hospitable environments for life are exactly the same ones that, under different conditions, precipitate mass extinctions. It’s up to us to care about the choices we make. Exactly. Climate change is not a concern to the natural world. The natural world does not care what happens to the natural world. Nature will have her utterly indifferent consequences to the invasiveness of man as a species. Were humans to overrun the earth in any of a hundred ways, it would not be assigned any more import in the universe than a comet obliterating an uninhabited moon. Climate change is a concern for humans, and only humans, since only humans are both prescient enough and sentient enough to care. The trickiness around the AGW message is that there is no proximate individual peril to be suffered by ignoring the facts. “We” as a species may collectively pay a price–even extinction–down the road. But if that price does not personally accrue to me, here, now, it becomes difficult to persuade me that I should personally undertake any cost. I am not overly optimistic about our willingness to bear immediate burdens for any except immediate harms. We need Sandy, but we also need to avoid having the following North Atlantic hurricane season be one of the most quiescent on record…until we get to in-your-face, all-the-time, obvious-to-a-dullard, accurate predictions of personal harm, climate change Alarm will remain the hooting and hollering of a hobbyist Great Cause to the average joe. ---
**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:** [May 14, 2015, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/112 "2015-05-14T12:59:04Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > But I don’t see the “it’s all a hoax” promoted very vigorously by Deniers. I’m sure there may be a few. In general though, the “hoax” label seems to be applied unilaterally by Alarmists against those who oppose their concern. Besides giving away the real political ideology by once again concentrating on Gore, you only showed that you did not pay attention to what was said in the thread, also that there is no attention on what Republicans (and other conservatives like in Australia) are doing in government. As pointed before, the weakest link are the current Republicans that are not only denying this, but actively engaged in gutting the EPA, and preventing any regulations that would include taxes for emissions or can-n-trade. The lie that it is a hoax is promoted in congress constantly by the congress people in the pockets of the fossil fuel interests. > **[Watch a US senator cite the Bible to prove that humans aren't causing global...](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/inhofe-climate-change-bible/)** > > "Biblical evidence." > [@](#): > > Addressing his Senate colleagues before the vote, Inhofe once again cited the Bible to argue that the climate does indeed change but that humans aren’t the cause. “Climate is changing, and climate has always changed,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee. "There’s archeological evidence of that. **There’s biblical evidence of that. There’s historic evidence of that." He continued: “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful, they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.” You can watch the back-and-forth above.** > > And with that, every Republican except Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), voted “aye.” The amendment passed 98-1, and the Senate was on record agreeing to the obvious fact that climate change sometimes occurs. > > But they weren’t done. Next, Republicans brought up their own climate amendment, which stated that climate change is indeed “real” and that human activity “contributes” to it. This amendment got 59 votes (one short of the 60-vote threshold for passage), but just 15 of the chamber’s 54 Republicans supported it. > > \*\*And of course, the scientific consensus isn’t merely that human activity “contributes” to climate change. Rather, scientists say that humans are the “dominant cause” of the recent warming. That was the subject of a third amendment, from Democrat Brian Schatz (Hawaii), which stated that human activity “significantly contributes” to climate change. That was too much for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who objected specifically to the word “significantly.” Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who chairs the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, urged her colleagues to vote no. In the end, Schatz’s amendment received just 50 votes, and only five of those came from Republicans. > > On Thursday morning, the Senate began discussing yet another amendment, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This one declares that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity, that it’s already causing significant problems, and that it is “imperative” that we actually do something about it—specifically, that we transition our economy away from fossil fuels. We’ll see how many GOP votes that one gets. Update: Zero. Sanders’ amendment received zero Republican votes.\*\* And of course, this shows once again who is really using religion to deny science; in reality the accusation seen before, that the proponents of humans causing the current warming are using religion or dogma, is just a massive projection; because deniers do think that the same move of ignoring science must be being done by their opponents. ---
**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:** [May 14, 2015, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/113 "2015-05-14T13:04:35Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I am not overly optimistic about our willingness to bear immediate burdens for any except immediate harms. Of course, how we dealt with problems that would get worse or were invisible to many was not done ever. :rolleyes: Except how we controlled cholera, and then acid rain, ozone depleting gases, lead in fuel and paints and other issues. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/114 "2015-05-14T16:40:31Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I understand the Alaska is more a pollution than AGW thing. However, the point you make “if not Alaska then somewhere else” is key. Someone who says AGW is the greatest threat and really means it, should be able to swallow the pill and say “I won’t make oil cheaper (by increasing usable reserves) and therefore incentivize its use which increases CO2”. > It’s an opinión piece, but the key part is the “drill, baby, drill”. > > I will never claim that Obama is a denier. I’ll claim, however, the whatever he says about AGW and what he actually does, or even better, the actual results of what he does, is what’s important Making oil more expensive is a critical part of a solution. However simply reducing the supply provides money to those who still have a supply - especially those overseas. A carbon tax or other method of increasing the price gives the money to us which can be used in a variety of purposes. The oil shock of 40 years ago did lead to more fuel efficient cars, but also gave money to a lot of people I wish hadn’t gotten it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/115 "2015-05-14T20:10:16Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Is the “hoax” attribution itself a hoax? Well, there is a film called [_The Great Global Warming Swindle._](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle) “Swindle” is for these purposes synonymous with “hoax.” [Senator James Inhofe (R-KY-but-not-the-useful-kind) calls it a “hoax.”](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Inhofe) His word. [“Climategate”](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Climategate) is all about a purported hoax. See also [“Global warming conspiracy theory.”](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory) So, no. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/116 "2015-05-14T20:15:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Making oil more expensive is a critical part of a solution. It’s not generally a popular move, though, and elected politicians have limits as to how far they can go in doing things that are not popular. Particularly elected politicians who have to work with their political rivals in the government, as Obama does with the Republican-controlled Congress. He’s not an absolute monarch who can do as he sees fit to curb AGW. There would be political repercussions for other Democrats if he did, and he knows this. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/117 "2015-05-14T21:12:37Z")
> [@Anne\_Neville](#): > > It’s not generally a popular move, though, and elected politicians have limits as to how far they can go in doing things that are not popular. Particularly elected politicians who have to work with their political rivals in the government, as Obama does with the Republican-controlled Congress. He’s not an absolute monarch who can do as he sees fit to curb AGW. There would be political repercussions for other Democrats if he did, and he knows this. There is precious little that they can do, besides tax rebates and giving carpool stickers to electric cars, which going to be popular. But I’d say that shutting down current oil wells to make the price go up is going to be even less popular than a carbon tax. Especially since opponents can point to people newly out of work. That appears to be what **Ají de Gallina** thinks Obama intended to do. In the long run higher prices are going to drive innovation for greater efficiency, like how high California gas prices have driven the large numbers of hybrids and electric cars we have here. But it won’t be popular at the beginning. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/118 "2015-05-15T00:11:34Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Exactly. Climate change is not a concern to the natural world. [snip] > > Climate change is a concern for humans, and only humans, since only humans are both prescient enough and sentient enough to care. The trickiness around the AGW message is that there is no proximate individual peril to be suffered by ignoring the facts. “We” as a species may collectively pay a price–even extinction–down the road. But if that price does not personally accrue to me, here, now, it becomes difficult to persuade me that I should personally undertake any cost. > > I am not overly optimistic about our willingness to bear immediate burdens for any except immediate harms. [snip] This is a patently bizarre line of argument. You seem to see no level of social concern between the selfish individual human and the universe as a whole. What about one’s family, or tribe, or city, or country, or race? What about biogeographical regions of interdependent life? What about the future? _What about_\* any \*_of the levels of social concern we normally think about?_ Not the fragile, replaceable mortal individual, nor the infinite and remote totality of the cosmos, but the exact sort of thing politics and statecraft have always been about. the management of moderately large systems and realms to address moderately large-scale concerns. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Senator James Inhofe (R-KY-but-not-the-useful-kind) calls it a “hoax.”](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Inhofe) His word. R-OK, actually. Definitely not okay, though. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/119 "2015-05-15T03:20:42Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yes to all of that. However, public policy is not made/enforced by scientists, it is by politicians. The only thing that matter in a person’s life is not the albedo of a lightly forested area or the cooling effect of black carbon. What matter is the tax on my oil or how much money is spent on subsidizing solar energy and not or repairing potholes or school. Is that “the only thing that matters”, really? People _ **only** _ care about the tax on oil and resent money spent on mitigating climate change, promoting sustainable energy, and creating a cleaner environment? Really? If that were true, climate change wouldn’t be an issue, government wouldn’t have climate change offices like the ones that you were just complaining about in #79, the IPCC wouldn’t exist, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Perhaps you’re thinking of those whose science education didn’t extend past the third grade and whose ability to follow a chain of consequences doesn’t extend past the ends of their own noses, like the ones we were discussing earlier who wonder where the sun goes at night. Like some that I’ve had these discussions with elsewhere, who pride themselves on never recycling, driving a gas-guzzler, and turning on every light in the house during Earth Hour just out of spite, as a symbol of… I’m not sure what, perhaps some imagined intellectual superiority. But a great many of us, particularly those with some appreciation for science, and those of us with children with real concerns about the future, really do care. Here’s an example, [quoted from the Environics Institute] ([http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/news/environics%20institute%20-%20focus%20canada%202012%20-%20public%20opinion%20on%20climate%20change%20-%20december%2014-2012.pdf](http://www.environicsinstitute.org/uploads/news/environics%20institute%20-%20focus%20canada%202012%20-%20public%20opinion%20on%20climate%20change%20-%20december%2014-2012.pdf)), an independent Canadian polling organization similar to Gallup [link is a PDF file] – I’ve bolded some interesting bits from the summary: Despite the lack of media and political attention given to climate change over the past year, the Canadian public’s focus and concern about this issue has nudged upwards. While there is no public consensus, a clear majority believe the problem is real, that government must take the lead role through new regulations and standards, and that citizens like themselves must help pay for the necessary actions through taxes and higher prices for the goods and services they consume. British Columbians are increasingly embracing their three-year old carbon tax (64% now support it), and there is clear support for this type of climate change tax in most other parts of the country. Opinions differ somewhat across the country. Public concern and support for policies like carbon taxes are most widespread in Quebec, among younger, urban Canadians and those who support the federal NDP, Green Party and Bloc Quebecois; **they are less evident in the Prairies, among older, less educated Canadians and those who support the federal Conservatives**. But these differences are one of degree rather than fundamental disagreement, and **are modest in comparison to the starkly partisan divide on this issue among Americans**. Canadians are no longer relying on their elected representatives to tell them whether they should be taking climate change seriously; **they care about this issue and are looking for leadership from those who can marshal collective action**. P.S.- re “cooling effect of black carbon” – no offense, but I hate seeing incorrect science, like your earlier incorrect drive-by inference about Antarctic sea ice. Black carbon surface deposits are a source of warming, not cooling. Black carbon on snow is a measurable warming factor in the Arctic. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I’ll repeat my previous question. Let’s see if you can venture an answer. > Suppose that it became a 100% scientific fact, proven by countless studies in every (un)imaginable situation that legalizing rape reduced the incidence of forced, unwanted sexual intercourse by 50%. Legalize it and it gets cut in half. > That’s the science stuff. Incontrovertable. > > Can you imagine any mayor, governor, representative, senator, secretary or president who’d sign the law that legalizes rape? > And I’ll add; would YOU sign it with the clear scientific conviction of its truth? This is the classic straw man argument writ large. I know we often get straw man arguments in this forum, but they rarely sink to that level of meaningless absurdity, or demonstrate such a basic misunderstanding of the subject under discussion. It also conveniently implies that the findings of climate science about the consequences of AGW are so preposterous that they are equivalent to the total nonsense in your straw man, so the only sensible thing to do (obviously!) is to ignore the science. You admitted quite clearly earlier that these findings are supported by a very broad consensus: [your own words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18347182&postcount=304): “_I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t believe that the majority of climate scientists agree with AGW … I’ll ammed [sic] any quote to the contrary by clearly and unequivocally stating ‘It’s not a mere majority of specialists. It’s an overwhelming one’_.” Your position is therefore strangely inconsistent and downright inexplicable. Your position, in short, is that either the vast majority of the world’s scientists are conspiratorial liars, or you actually accept the science but prefer to ignore it anyway, a form denial often referred to as cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2015, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773/120 "2015-05-15T05:48:49Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Is that “the only thing that matters”, really? People _ **only** _ care about the tax on oil and resent money spent on mitigating climate change, promoting sustainable energy, and creating a cleaner environment? Really? > …(massive snip) I don’t get what’s so hard to understand. People \*\*say \*\*they care about AGW or micronutrients for pregnant red pandas. This has a total effect of zero in changing anything. It is only what people \*\*do \*\*what matters. Many men who swear they love their wives beat the crap out of them. Doesn’t matter what they **say** , but rather what they **do**. For most people, caring about AGW demands so little effort (especially considering that act as if they deserve a medal for using a plastic bottle twice) that it is a piece of cake to say they not only say but do. However, what they do has no real effect. I’d love to see them actually making drastic changes in their lifestyles the inconvenience them. > [@](#): > > P.S.- re “cooling effect of black carbon” – no offense, but I hate seeing incorrect science, like your earlier incorrect drive-by inference about Antarctic sea ice. Black carbon surface deposits are a source of warming, not cooling. Black carbon on snow is a measurable warming factor in the Arctic. Yup. I really wasn’t trying to be scientific, but, yup, my bad, should’ve said “peristaltic effect of black carbon in short-order-cook bass-playing Vanadium atoms” I was right, however, that no matter the reason, Antarctic ice was a record high. It wasn’t a drive-by. I stopped and peed in the front yard. It may have been alien tacos or Voldemort’s semen, by it was a record high and I’m sorry facts offend you, especially after your I’m-so-sciencey post. Or are you saying that it wasn’t a record high? Please, don’t forget that it was originally a comment not on the science, but on how science is reported. You avoided that fact then and not conveniently forget it. > [@](#): > > This is the classic straw man argument writ large. I know we often get straw man arguments in this forum, but they rarely sink to that level of meaningless absurdity, or demonstrate such a basic misunderstanding of the subject under discussion. It also conveniently implies that the findings of climate science about the consequences of AGW are so preposterous that they are equivalent to the total nonsense in your straw man, so the only sensible thing to do (obviously!) is to ignore the science. It doesn’t imply anything. It’s a hypothetical, we get hypotheticals all the time. Extreme? Sure. It’s exactly the point because it has no ambiguities. So, simply say that your “science rules” stance is simply a pose and that’s it. Say that, in real life you understand that, no matter what science says, people **who completely understand the science** will act against that knowledge. > [@](#): > > You admitted quite clearly earlier that these findings are supported by a very broad consensus: [your own words](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18347182&postcount=304): “_I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t believe that the majority of climate scientists agree with AGW … I’ll ammed [sic] any quote to the contrary by clearly and unequivocally stating ‘It’s not a mere majority of specialists. It’s an overwhelming one’_.” Your position is therefore strangely inconsistent and downright inexplicable. Your position, in short, is that either the vast majority of the world’s scientists are conspiratorial liars, or you actually accept the science but prefer to ignore it anyway, a form denial often referred to as cognitive dissonance. This is the only thing I like about AGW debates: seeing warmists at a loss when their knucle-dragging denier opponents won’t say what they “should” (because that what they read in their wamist blogs). Even if you repeat something over and over, they still can’t hear it because it goes against what the “know” about you. I’ll re-re-re-re-re-re-repeat. I fully, 100%, unreservedly believe these things: 1. The average temperature of the Earth increased about 1°C from 1900 to today. 2. An increase of CO2 in the atmosphere will, _ceteris paribus_, increase temperatures. 3. CO2 concentration has increased from about 295ppm in 1900 to about 404 now. 4. Human activity has played a part in this increase. I’d say 1/3 at the very least, probably much more. 5. Climate is a super-complex system and the cause-effect relations of the many factors are not always clear. Many are clear, at least in first and second order. 6. The vast majority of the world’s scientists are **not** conspiratorial liars. I’m sure a teeny tiny part are, but that’s true for anything. How do you feel about these first six? I have some more on my list but if we don’t agree on these, it’s pointless to go on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-would-climate-change-be-a-hoax/719773.md?page=7)