What is the AGW debate about?

What is at the root of the AGW debate?

  • The debate is a debate of policy, not science.

    Votes: 9 10.7%

  • The debate is a debate of science alone.

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • The debate is a debate of ideology, not science.

    Votes: 21 25.0%

  • The debate is a debate of any number of things, but not science.

    Votes: 39 46.4%

  • On Planet X, Al Gore is loved by both deniers and warmers.

    Votes: 14 16.7%
  • Total voters
    84
CapelDodger said:
mhaze regularly comes out with "Liberal Authoritarian", which never fails to make me giigle.
Click to expand...
Sure. You refer AGW a vehicle for Self Expression of delusional save the world fantasies by persons with a Liberal Authoritarian Controller Personality Disorder.

In short form, climatizoa.

Warmers.
 
mhaze said:
Sure. You refer AGW a vehicle for Self Expression of delusional save the world fantasies by persons with a Liberal Authoritarian Controller Personality Disorder.

In short form, climatizoa.

Warmers.
Click to expand...

You're slipping. No mention of Alinsky's Rule for Radials in this post. Stay on message man!
 
Wangler said:
It seems to me that the debate about AGW isn't just about the science. Who agrees?
Click to expand...

For those who wish to intentionally mix up science with their economic ideology, I'm certain it isn't just about the science.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
You're slipping. No mention of Alinsky's Rule for Radials in this post. Stay on message man!
Click to expand...

Yeah, mhaze slapped at me with that Alinsky nonsense in another thread. The hilarious thing is that before he'd posted that drivel, I'd never even heard of Alinsky before :)
 
mhaze said:
Sure. You refer AGW a vehicle for Self Expression of delusional save the world fantasies by persons with a Liberal Authoritarian Controller Personality Disorder.

In short form, climatizoa.

Warmers.
Click to expand...

Why is it that paranoid conspiracy theorists resort to making up entirely new words and psychological disorders to label skeptics with?

Is English vocabulary as mysterious and unfathomable as the body of climatological evidence?
 
The debate is about the same thing it always is, in one variation or another.

Someone always wants to keep the zinc smelters going, even if it costs the lives of a few peons. Not surprisingly, the people collecting the profits while the air distributes the costs to everyone are the ones most dead set against any admission that any costs even exist.

So, the government has to step in. That sucks, sure enough. Who wants the government, all the world's governments, becoming even more powerful and bloated? It sure would be nice if, instead, the movers and shakers of the free market could steer a moderate course on their own.

But they cannot. Never could, never will.

That's been demonstrated over and over again. Which is fortunate in a way, because now that it really matters, we already know from experience what does and doesn't work, whom not to trust, and why. We know that the threat of physical force (which is what government regulation amounts to) is the only thing that can convince most people, families, corporations, communities, and markets to stop crapping in everyone else's back yard.

The tobacco executives have shown us what's up. We've been watching that show for decades.

We would be fools to expect the carbon dioxide executives to be any different.

Sorry, no free market for you.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Wangler said:
Methinks that Capel was kidding.

What an unhappy lot we are!

:(
Click to expand...

CD can be very serious when the mood takes him but in this sort of thread it's rather rare for the tongue to emerge from the cheek. ;)
 
It’s a clash of science vs ideology. There is no longer any real debate going on scientific circles, where it’s almost universally agreed global warming is happening and it’s mostly caused by humans. The only time debate occurs is when people who can’t fit the facts into their ideology decide to try and re-write the facts.
 
Which debate?

The debate in the journals? Pretty scientific.

The debate in parliament? A mix of ideologies, values, science and economics.

The debate in public? A matter of education and ideologies.

The debate in the media? Acts of sensationalisation to attract attention.

There is far from a single AGW debate.

Athon
 
Myriad said:
The debate is about the same thing it always is, in one variation or another.....We know that the threat of physical force (which is what government regulation amounts to) is the only thing that can convince most people, families, corporations, communities, and markets to stop crapping in everyone else's back yard.

The tobacco executives have shown us what's up. We've been watching that show for decades.

We would be fools to expect the carbon dioxide executives to be any different.

Sorry, no free market for you.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...
Your imagined jackbooted thugs implementing a bizarre plan of collectivism only would cause larger carbon emissions from China and India as industry moves there to dirtier conditions with fewer restrictions.

They really are laughing their heads off at this sort of moralizing and silly radical left environmentalism.

It plays right into their hands.

Read the Kyoto treaty. It is nothing but paragraphs describing how to move wealth from rich nations to poor ones.
 
Last edited:
athon said:
Which debate?

The debate in the journals? Pretty scientific.

The debate in parliament? A mix of ideologies, values, science and economics.

The debate in public? A matter of education and ideologies.

The debate in the media? Acts of sensationalisation to attract attention.

There is far from a single AGW debate.

Athon
Click to expand...

Good points all.
 
It's both science and policy: whether AGW is occurring is a scientific question. What to do about it is both a scientific question (whether a given action may be effective) and a policy question (whether or not to do it).
 
It's about increasing the density of logical fallacy electrons on the Internet.

glenn
 
It's both science and policy: whether AGW is occurring is a scientific question.
Click to expand...
That has been answered in the affirmative....loudly and with confidence by the mainstream climatology community.

What to do about it is both a scientific question (whether a given action may be effective) and a policy question (whether or not to do it).
Click to expand...
Has not been answered and has many paths of approach....policy and how quickly is indeed a fair venue of discussion

already cities and companies are being assessed by the insurance industry for climate related risk.....doing nothing will soon be a non-starter for many.
 
athon said:
Which debate?

The debate in the journals? Pretty scientific.

The debate in parliament? A mix of ideologies, values, science and economics.

The debate in public? A matter of education and ideologies.

The debate in the media? Acts of sensationalisation to attract attention.

There is far from a single AGW debate.

Athon
Click to expand...

Thanks for sparing me having to write much, Athon!

That there is global warming occuring is not really debatable; how much is human-caused is debatable, but only within certain error ranges. What to do about it is a wide-open debate that includes everything from religion to political beliefs to economic theory to personal whims.

It doesn't help matters that both "sides" are conveniently ignoring presenting their perspective with any acknowledgment of what is and is not known. An awful lot of the projections are, of necessity, based on computer models with a number of assumptions. That means there is a range of possible outcomes, and we don't know which ones are most correct. The same is true of the mooted "solutions": In the most basic split, there are 'adapters' versus 'reversers'; and within each of those groups, "marketers" versus "gov't enforcers"; within enforcers there is "nationalists" versus "internationalists", etc.

I freely confess I don't know the answers, but I do know that in my experience, neither governments nor corporations have shown any reason to be trusted with global authority to decide correct responses. (Witness the idiocy of the corn-based ethanol "green fuel" legislation in the United States.)

I suspect the most likely solution path will involve government set, internationally enforced, target values, with some kind of tradeable market in carbon and sulfur emissions letting the "low-lying fruit" get taken care of first. I also suspect that this is *not* the model that most governments or corporations will want to pursue.

Sort of like the attempts to eradicate infectious disease, we will need both private and public initiatives to achieve a limited success. And there will be setbacks and fiascos and 'needless' suffering -- but we'll gradually learn what does and doesn't work.

And the world will be very different than it is now, and it *will* cost a lot of money. It would help a lot if Every Damn Politician from Every Damn Party just admitted that up front. That doesn't buy a lot of votes, but it is the truth.

Just my opinion, MK
 
How about this point to debate:

The "No Trend" of 22 years of satellite data means that the GW has leveled off. There for, there is no A in GW."

About 15% of the 150 year long GW trend. 22 years seems like a significant time frame to me. Seems to me a long enough term to eliminate it being a 'cluster'. I guess one of the statistician members will chime in here with umm a "P" factor?

Have there been other "no trend" eras of that duration?

How long would a 'no trend' have to last for YOU to declare "No A" ?
 
casebro, it would help if you told us where you are getting those numbers from because they do not agree with any of the major data sets. Given the odd 22 year period, I suspect some has snowed you. The two main Satellite data sets run 30 years, back to 1979. The *upper stratosphere* data set, however goes back to 1987 and is exactly 22 years long so I suspect this could have something to do with your odd numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom