# You know, we should chat about global warming **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365 "2015-10-21T16:32:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**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:** [November 13, 2015, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/341 "2015-11-13T01:27:30Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > …and then what? > > People would suddenly stop driving? Stop using energy? > Get real, nothing is going to change. The IPCC and many other proponents of change point was to indeed acknowledge that, no one has proposed that we will stop cold turkey, only the denier propaganda tells their readers and viewers that the scientists and serious environmentalists are demanding that. Stop being so gullible. > [@inscrutable](#): > > Everyone believes in gravity, yet nothing has been done to prevent people from falling! Well, I have seen some robotic technicians that are working on that. > [@inscrutable](#): > > Everyone believes in the Theory of Relativity, yet no time machines! And even the scientists that work with the theory were the first to point out that time travel was not likely, it is harder than it was imagined. So you are only producing more evidence of your ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/342 "2015-11-13T01:45:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The IPCC and many other proponents of change point was to indeed acknowledge that, no one has proposed that we will stop cold turkey, only the denier propaganda tells their readers and viewers that the scientists and serious environmentalists are demanding that. > > Stop being so gullible. > Well, I have seen some robotic technicians that are working on that. > > And even the scientists that work with the theory were the first to point out that time travel was not likely, it is harder than it was imagined. > > So you are only producing more evidence of your ignorance. I’m seeing evidence of inability to recognize sarcasm. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/343 "2015-11-13T02:00:35Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > I’m seeing evidence of inability to recognize sarcasm. I have seen you before, so it is safer to take your say so’s in a context of being a partisan tool. BTW many times before contrarians and deniers that I have encountered in the message board do reach for that fig leaf. What I have seen is that they are not willing to fully come as supporters of science and tell their morbidly denier fellows to take a hike, because they do know that their peers will vote them out of the island. Many historians and researchers have found out that opposition to the science and the changes needed is mostly based on tribalism and powerful interests that are affecting the media and the Republican party. > **[National Geographic Magazine](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/)** > > National Geographic stories take you on a journey that’s always enlightening, often surprising, and unfailingly fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/344 "2015-11-13T02:11:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I have seen you before, > > [National Geographic Magazine](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text) Wait a minute! Were you in 7-11 yesterday morning? Dude! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/345 "2015-11-13T02:35:35Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > What the hell difference would it make if all Republicans did believe in global warming? It would make it politically easier to do something about it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/346 "2015-11-13T02:54:46Z")
So, are there any global warming deniers on this board who aren’t stupid assholes? ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/347 "2015-11-13T03:10:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So, are there any global warming deniers on this board who aren’t stupid assholes? Possibly, but they probably don’t care to engage with you alarmist militant attack dogs. I don’t deny global warming; just don’t believe in the “solutions”. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/348 "2015-11-13T03:26:44Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Has Madeleine Thomas read this ground breaking article? > [@El\_Kabong](#): > > No one said the article is ‘ground-breaking’; in fact, the point is that it not at all ground-breaking. > [@doorhinge](#): > > I said it was ground-breaking. You even quoted the post where I said “ground-breaking”. Wow, that is some next-level trolling. And this is the sort of thing that science deniers think is a reasonable alternative to actually engaging with scientific facts. They’ve been encouraged to think that being anti-science is a bold expression of political astuteness and independent thinking, rather than just a lazy embrace of ignorance. So responding to scientific facts with pointless obfuscation seems to them like striking a blow for their cause. This strategy wasn’t new back in the days of the heliocentrism controversy, when, e.g., Luther sneered at the new cosmology with remarks like > [@](#): > > […] a new astrologer is risen, who presumeth to prove that the earth moveth and goeth about […] Therefore, thus it goeth, when we give ourselves up to our own foolish fancies and conceits. This fool (Copernicus) will turn the whole art of astronomy upside down […] ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/349 "2015-11-13T03:31:46Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Possibly, but they probably don’t care to engage with you alarmist militant attack dogs. > > I don’t deny global warming; just don’t believe in the “solutions”. Clarify, please. What are the “solutions” you are saying you don’t believe in? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/350 "2015-11-13T03:33:41Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > I don’t deny global warming; just don’t believe in the “solutions”. 😕 So what are **your** proposed solutions? I mean, if you don’t deny the scientific findings that anthropogenic global warming is going to have many significant impacts on climate and the environment, then you presumably recognize that humans are going to have to come up with ways of alleviating and coping with those impacts. Is your “solution”, like that of many people decrying alleged scientific “alarmism” nowadays, simply to rely on the fact that you personally are probably going to be dead before the impacts of global warming become very severe, and therefore you personally don’t need to worry much about it? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/351 "2015-11-13T03:37:18Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > I’m seeing evidence of inability to recognize sarcasm. > [@Lobohan](#): > > So, are there any global warming deniers on this board who aren’t stupid assholes? That’s what makes it so difficult know when they are being sarcastic. They say so many idiotic things in perfect seriousness. ---
**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:** [November 13, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/352 "2015-11-13T03:49:28Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Possibly, but they probably don’t care to engage with you alarmist militant attack dogs. > > I don’t deny global warming; just don’t believe in the “solutions”. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Clarify, please. What are the “solutions” you are saying you don’t believe in? > [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 So what are **your** proposed solutions? I mean, if you don’t deny the scientific findings that anthropogenic global warming is going to have many significant impacts on climate and the environment, then you presumably recognize that humans are going to have to come up with ways of alleviating and coping with those impacts. > > Is your “solution”, like that of many people decrying alleged scientific “alarmism” nowadays, simply to rely on the fact that you personally are probably going to be dead before the impacts of global warming become very severe, and therefore you personally don’t need to worry much about it? I wonder that too, **inscrutable** is also showing ignorance when he does not know that his position is also a common one, (a usual fall back after finding that the usual points that deniers use do not work) and in Skeptical Science has been pointed as equal to the 3rd stage of denial. > **[Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes](https://skepticalscience.com/lukewarmers-third-stage-of-climate-denial.html)** > > It’s the hottest trend in climate denial. Long gone are the days when people can publicly deny that the planet is warming or that humans are responsible without facing widespread mockery. Those who oppose taking serious action to curb global warming... So either #3 or #4. And it usually means no solution to speak of. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/353 "2015-11-13T04:08:24Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > I don’t deny global warming; just don’t believe in the “solutions”. [The Denial Staircase:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_warming_denialism#The_denial_staircase) > [@](#): > > Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken. > > ``` > Not only deny global warming, but insist the opposite is occurring (taken from the Conservapedia homepage). This probably goes beyond denialism and verges on the psychotic. > Simply deny global warming is happening[31] — and maintain that no action is necessary — an increasingly uncommon position. > Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity — so we don’t have to do anything. > Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but mostly it's caused by solar activity — so we don't have to do anything. > Global warming is happening, and it is in part caused by humanity, but predicting future emission levels is equivalent to astrology — so we don't have to do anything, Ehrlich![32] > Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing — so we don’t have to do anything.[33] > Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but [insert emotional appeal and/or false dichotomy about how doing anything about it would prevent the world's poor from improving their lives] — so we don't have to do anything. > Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it may be a bad thing, but there are still more serious crises that deserve higher priority — so we don't have to do anything. > Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China and India aren't doing anything — so we don’t have to do anything.[34] > Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, and maybe China and India are willing to do something, but I've heard about this new energy source/technology that's going to completely solve the problem in 10-20 years — so we don't have to do anything. > Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a shitload of dough — so we don’t have to do anything. > Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments could and should have done something, but it's too late now! > > ``` Pick your step. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/354 "2015-11-13T05:32:57Z")
Thank you, **GIGObuster** and **BrainGlutton** ; I’m pretty confident that you’re correct, but I’d really like to see how **inscrutable** responds in his own words. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/355 "2015-11-13T05:47:56Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Thank you, **GIGObuster** and **BrainGlutton** ; I’m pretty confident that you’re correct, but I’d really like to see how **inscrutable** responds in his own words. Does he ever? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/356 "2015-11-13T07:10:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > I said it was ground-breaking. You even quoted the post where I said “ground-breaking”. :smack: > > Whoever is reading these posts to you is doing a terrible job. Congratulations. That was an impressively nonsensical response, even given the high standard you have already set in this thread. Do tell us, what did you find ‘ground-breaking’ about that article? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/357 "2015-11-13T08:53:30Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Thank you, **GIGObuster** and **BrainGlutton** ; I’m pretty confident that you’re correct, but I’d really like to see how **inscrutable** responds in his own words. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Does he ever? Beats the hell out of me. I never opened that other thread, and I only decided to check this one out because **FXMastermind** is gone, and I thought it would be safe. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/358 "2015-11-13T11:24:39Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Hussain el’Obama may have just cut Big Oil’s throat by denying the permit for the XL pipeline’s northern section. The basic argument is that by the time this thing gets back on track, there will be many many many more solar panels installed and whatnot. > > Sorry to interrupt the hate-fest with positive news … Um…you are of course aware that domestic oil production has soared during the Obama administration, right? That the number of oil rigs is way, way up? [That petroleum net imports are the lowest in over 20 years](https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/13/driving-toward-greater-energy-security)? Obama didn’t cut Big Oil’s throat; he’s given them a hot towel shave. > [@Colibri](#): > > Like teaching algebra to an aardvark. Or chess to a pigeon. ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/359 "2015-11-13T14:57:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Clarify, please. What are the “solutions” you are saying you don’t believe in? Well, from this thread and others here, the “solution” seems to be to simply get those Evil Republicans to believe in AGW. Might be possible, but do you honestly think that enough people would actually give a damn, and be willing to change their lifestyle, give up their jobs, homes, HVAC, transportation, etc. ? Would they accept government mandates/taxes that make energy use so expensive that it be rationed? Are there billions of third-worlders that want to advance to a first-world lifestyle? Just trying to realistic here, folks… ---
**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:** [November 13, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365/360 "2015-11-13T15:12:42Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > Well, from this thread and others here, the “solution” seems to be to simply get those Evil Republicans to believe in AGW. Might be possible, but do you honestly think that enough people would actually give a damn, and be willing to change their lifestyle, give up their jobs, homes, HVAC, transportation, etc. ? Would they accept government mandates/taxes that make energy use so expensive that it be rationed? Are there billions of third-worlders that want to advance to a first-world lifestyle? > > Just trying to realistic here, folks… I though you were ironic, but you remain moronic. As usual you rely on the denier (and usually republican) propaganda that affirms that the current way of living is going to end, in reality it will change , but not as bad as the real fear mongers are telling us. [QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE] Indeed the real fear mongers are the denier ones that use FUD to prevent the change. > **[Clean Energy Transition Is A $25 Trillion Free Lunch](https://cleantechnica.com/2015/11/03/clean-energy-transition-is-a-25-trillion-free-lunch/)** > > I’ve been pointing out for a while that following the steep decline in the cost of wind and solar energy, an energy transition is a free lunch. It’s a simple calculation. > [@](#): > > Citibank are just the latest team of experts to confirm the “no or negligible net cost” conclusion. (Pdf report page 23; press coverage.) They make the total world outlays on energy to 2040 in a fossil-heavy BAU at $192 trillion, those in an energy transition at $190.2 trillion, net saving $1.8 trillion. The last number is well within the error range, and should not be taken too seriously. The less precise “next to nothing” conclusion is solid. I stress that is the consensus expert position: the IPCC WG3 (pdf, page 15) say the same thing, as do Fraunhofer IWES in Kassel for Germany. Can any reader cite a credible study suggesting the contrary? In case you are worried, these professional scenarios do include the costs of grid integration for variable wind and solar energy, it’s not back to candles. > > ``` > Net cash cost of energy transition to 2040 ≈ $0. > > ``` > > Fossil fuels are also responsible for huge amounts of local and regional air pollution. This contributes to a steadily lengthening list of health problems and premature deaths. UNEP gives the world total of premature deaths from all air pollution at 3.5 million a year. The OECD has estimated the annual health costs (basis 2010) attributable to outdoor air pollution in its member states plus India and China at $3.5 trillion a year (pdf, page 2). Half of this is due to road transport. This estimate (endnote) excludes a good number of countries including Brazil and Indonesia, plus the effects of indoor air pollution from wood fires and kerosene stoves. It is almost certainly a major underestimate. A full energy transition eliminates all of these costs in time. There will be a few deaths from solar and wind installers falling from heights, and electrocutions from electric vehicles. More significantly, air pollution has improved in OECD countries since 2010, but not enough to change the overall picture. > > A complete energy transition would eliminate these health costs gradually, and in the end completely. Using a straight-line reduction from $3.5 trn a year in 2015 to zero in 2060, we get a total saving of $25.3 trillion. > > ``` > Health saving to 2040 from energy transition ≈ $25 trillion. > > ``` > > So the net undiscounted cost to 2040 of the energy transition (cash for energy plus health) is minus $25 trillion. That’s a $3,500 bonus for every man, woman and child alive today. > > I have not included anything for avoided GDP costs from extreme weather, hotter summers, and sea-level rise. Citi guesstimate these at $44 trn to 2060 (pdf, page 8). Here’s a higher estimate. On top of that, there are avoided burdens in loss of biodiversity and the risk of catastrophic disaster. These impacts are all real but methodologically difficult. It’s not downplaying these to leave them aside as superfluous to the proof. Discounting (what rate?) would also add a layer of technical difficulties and does not affect the conclusion. The reality is that Republicans are only thinking on fossil fuel jobs, not the jobs of everyone else, and that is why many other corporations like Citibank do not want to follow the few misguided corporations that ignore that preserving the environment also preserves jobs and humans too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-know-we-should-chat-about-global-warming/735365.md?page=19)