How can we destroy climate change sceptics?

[Seashore]

one word: Climategate

 

[Princeps]

If it was a right-wing organization that was hacked it would not have been illegal to you?

It would have been illegal, yes.

But since it was your fellows with their pants down that is illegal.

Again, its the "skeptic community" which has its pants down, they're the absurd conspiracy theorists we've always known them to be. Now they've exposed their true colours by widely embracing these (illegally acquired, possibly edited) emails, which are impressive in the way they don't meet the skeptic's claims. There is no evidence of fradulence and no context for the emails.

If I was a climate "skeptic" I wouldn't put much stock in these emails.

Anyways it is not our duty to produce anything.

If you make claims, you must produce some argument or piece of evidence to back it.

Frankly I am a big environmentalist for pollution.

You're trying to claim a record which you don't have.

But talks about Chernobyl radiation, industrial dumping and poisoning of land is much more important.

No they're not. Carbon pollution can have far wider effects and can be far more destructive in the long term. Warming of the planet can potentially decimate agriculture, spread diseases, melt crucial glaciers (which it is already doing) and submerge populated areas under water. A lot of lives and property will be adversly affected.

But governments don't care about this because they have no profit to gain from it.

Generally, governments are not inherently profit driven, but politics driven institutions. And of course a government can generate taxes (and fines) from other forms of negative externalities as well, like smoking, improper forms of waste disposal, etc.

Environmentalism, especially climate environmentalism, is a pretty new form of political movement. To credit its rise, which was strenuous, solely on some kind of "tax collecting incentive" of government (which doesn't even exist as most govs try to keep taxes as low as possible, evidenced by the fact that most western governments are very much in debt) is absurd. For a very long time, neither the right nor the left took environmentalism seriously (USSR, for example, didn't even have an environmental policy of any kind really). In my country, for example, the left wing was quite slow to integrate and prioritize environmentalist policies.

Global Climate Change is being jumped on by governments because they can tax everything we do and all it eco taxes.
And this forum has shown how popular taxes are when they are called "Green taxes

I don't object to a regime of taxes that would incentivize the use of cleaner energies, appliances, vehicles and materials, etc. But this isn't because I would like to see people taxed, per se, but because I believe that it is necessary policy to reshape consumption patterns (social engineering has been done before successfully). Governments have been very slow to implement such policies. Most politicians attempt to appear concerned about the climate, as most of the electorate take the scientific community very seriously.

 

[Cutlass]

And you calling it a myth does not make it so.

You can deny it all you want but everyone knows that the self proclaimed saviors of the world spouted that line loud and clear for years. I am not talking about scientists, I am talking about the self deluded zealots like Bast who worship at the alter of "science." The current belief in AGW is no more valid than the belief in the coming ice age of doom back then, a self serving faith based worship of a helpful tool.

Except this is based on the preponderance of scientific evidence.

 

[Zarn]

Climate seems to change. The source appears to be natural.

Stupidity seems constant. It appears to be both natural and man made.

 

[Cutlass]

All of the natural factors I've seen do not answer the question of why the climate is warming.

 

[azzaman333]

Global warming is an excuse to significantly raise taxes, when there is no proof that the warming is a result of human interference.

 

[Cutlass]

Global warming is an excuse to significantly raise taxes, when there is no proof that the warming is a result of human interference.

That doesn't even begin to make the slightest shred of sense. I mean, seriously, if you are going to invent a conspiracy theory, shouldn't you make some attempt to come up with something plausible?

 

[azzaman333]

That doesn't even begin to make the slightest shred of sense. I mean, seriously, if you are going to invent a conspiracy theory, shouldn't you make some attempt to come up with something plausible?

Can you prove that GW is caused by CO2 emissions, rather than it being a natural phenomenon?

 

[Bill3000]

Global warming is an excuse to significantly raise taxes, when there is no proof that the warming is a result of human interference.

Thankfully your scientific literacy is as bad as your taste in music.

 

[Gooblah]

Can you prove that GW is caused by CO2 emissions, rather than it being a natural phenomenon?

Isn't it that climate change is a natural phenomenon being accelerated by human events - industrialization leading to greenhouse gas emissions, etc.?

 

[Cutlass]

Can you prove that GW is caused by CO2 emissions, rather than it being a natural phenomenon?

Most of the science says that. It's not 100%. But then 100% is outstandingly rare in science.

But my point is that the deniers are often flat out making things up. So maybe the science might be wrong. But absolutely arguments like "1000s of scientists world wide are conspiring to make countries raise taxes" is so utterly and completely ridiculous that it's impossible to believe that even radical fanatics could believe it.

 

[Perfection]

I'm in general against destroying people.

Regards.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I do envisage, however, action being taken, and then sceptics saying in 50 years that nothing happened and it was all a giant scam, for the simple reason that the action taken was effective.

The action won't be effective, at least not the actions so far being most discussed. Such as cutting back on coal plants. Agreements will be inadequate to start with, and they will be massively cheated on at least for a while.

The only real hope to avoid significant global warming and ocean acidification is that scientists and engineers come up with a reasonably cheap way to scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it very-long-term. Then, a few countries could share the cost and allow the others to free-ride. Alternatively, maybe accept the ocean acidification, and compensate for CO2-driven warming with aerosol-driven cooling, such as sulfur pollutants in the stratosphere. Joy, oh joy.

 

[Tekee]

<snip>

Thanks for all this. I will cool off the blogosphere for a while now.

 

[Camikaze]

The action won't be effective, at least not the actions so far being most discussed. Such as cutting back on coal plants. Agreements will be inadequate to start with, and they will be massively cheated on at least for a while.

The only real hope to avoid significant global warming and ocean acidification is that scientists and engineers come up with a reasonably cheap way to scavenge CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it very-long-term. Then, a few countries could share the cost and allow the others to free-ride. Alternatively, maybe accept the ocean acidification, and compensate for CO2-driven warming with aerosol-driven cooling, such as sulfur pollutants in the stratosphere. Joy, oh joy.

Well, I'm not saying that the action that is being taken currently is sufficient, or will be effective (although I fail to see how reducing coal plants will not help), I'm basically saying that the more effective any action that is taken is, the more sceptics in the future will be able to criticise that action, given what would seem to be a smaller amount of climate change than otherwise predicted.

Global warming is an excuse to significantly raise taxes, when there is no proof that the warming is a result of human interference.

If the government wanted to significantly raise taxes, why would they reduce economic activity? That would be pretty counter-intuitive.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Bast, the OP was -this- close to being a troll.
Additionally, because both 'skeptics' and 'non-skeptics' are now posting in this thread, please do not engage in blanket statements regarding the stupidity of either side.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I'm basically saying that the more effective any action that is taken is, the more sceptics in the future will be able to criticise that action, given what would seem to be a smaller amount of climate change than otherwise predicted.

True. That reminds me of the old "whatever happened to the ozone-layer crisis??" canard that "skeptics" always seem to pounce on. As if the way that problem was solved somehow supported their case.

 

[Ecofarm]

True. That reminds me of the old "whatever happened to the ozone-layer crisis??" canard that "skeptics" always seem to pounce on. As if the way that problem was solved somehow supported their case.

??

Ozone depletion was shown to be scientific fact when a predicted hole in the ozone appeared and was pictured for everyone to see. Upon the evidencial revelation, we banned CFCs for the most part and restructured a major system in the US (cooling processes). With the new processes, which lacked the previous leak of CFCs, we saw a slowing of hole growth and eventually a stopping of hole expansion. All together, there is little, if any, scientific doubt on the subject/event. Now, the hole has stopped growing (a couple/few years ago) but it is twisting, splitting in two and migrating towards the equator - so we are not completely out of the woods yet.

Comparing a relatively simple system of known inputs and results that has been proven by objective observation to GW is silly. It builds on the singular similarity of climate, with little or nothing else in common. One might as well compare Native American Rain Dances to GW, if we are grabbing random climate stuff to prove points on the legitimacy of the subject as a whole.



On to the thread topic:

Destroy all the evidence (billions and millions of years, thousands of peer-reviewed articles, hundreds of books, graphs, charts and spreasheets of all sorts...) that contradict, in any way, our economically and politically-driven preconceived notions about science that is more complex (and theoretical) than 90% of us even have brains for.

 

[luiz]

All of the natural factors I've seen do not answer the question of why the climate is warming.

Did you know the climate was actually warmer during some points of human history? Just saying.

 

[Cutlass]

Did you know the climate was actually warmer during some points of human history? Just saying.

That's not actually a relevant statement. We know that there are natural variations. However the causes of those natural variations in the past do not seem to be the cause of warming now. So, to misquote Sherlock, when you've excluded those things that don't seem to be the cause, what you are left with, no matter how politically inconvenient, is probably the truth.