Conservatives and climate change

[uke2se]

Someone really is in love with himself around here.

 

[DC]

Nonsense. Realizing there are limitations to the predictions that can be made with out current understanding of science does not require rejecting science.

My original username was just such an example. Unfortunately that was a little above the average pay grade around here.

so the reality could be even worse than predicted.

 

[Furcifer]

lol it's so cute that you think the paper you linked to supports your claim.
want to try again? must be the wrong link you posted, this paper does not support the idea that we have to stop using energy.

Strawman.

Nobody said we had to stop using energy. I thought you just made a mistake but I see you're starting to believe your own strawman.

is this your attempt at reductio ad absurdum?

eta: incidentally congratulations on reading a 17 pages scientific paper in 11 minutes. It took me about 45 minutes.

 

[KwamiFabu]

I'm always happy to concede what I don't know, but can someone kindly tell me this: what would it cost us, as a society, to save Montauk, NY? Or Key West, or Malibu, or Kennebunkport?

Cause that's really what were talking about, isn't it. Protecting the wealthy by imposing huge taxes on those who can least afford it.

 

[Furcifer]

so the reality could be even worse than predicted.

Absolutely.

Unfortunately there is a history of people claiming it could be even worse than predicted and it's almost always proven incorrect.

Sadly it's this type of thinking that has limited the needed expansion of nuclear power generation.

So shame on you for that.

 

[SezMe]

WE ARE DOING SOMETHING, WE AREN'T "WAITING AROUND"

YES, WE ARE.

The things you cited, for example, are using the absolute best garden hose we can find to drain Lake Tahoe. But, goddamnit, we aren't just waiting around, that's for sure.

 

[DC]

Strawman.

Nobody said we had to stop using energy. I thought you just made a mistake but I see you're starting to believe your own strawman.

is this your attempt at reductio ad absurdum?

Cute, it's your strawmen, i just used it.

here you give birth to your strawmen.

You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP.

then i asked you

and where did you get the idea that we have to stop using energy?

and then you linked to a paper that did not support that.

but now its my strawmen?

cute

 

[mhaze]

Well, this raises the question - if the current understanding is that we are heading for a potentially catastrophic effect on the human race, and the vast majority of experts on the subject believe this to be so, should we wait around in the hope that new evidence will come to light that completely reverses the position, or should we act while we still can to try to mitigate the effects?

Would you, in all sincerity, be able to look your grandchildren or great grandchildren or whatever descendants in the eye in two generations time and say "sorry about the mess, but only 97% of the experts believed it to be our fault, so we decided to do nothing and wait and see if they were wrong"?

Interesting bit of perverse logic there.

Since the actual argument is phrased in terms of "adaptation or mitigation", and much study has gone into the various options, with nothing like 97% in agreement.

Yet you seek to play the guilt card.

YES, Brother in the Faith. Play all the cards in your hand given you by Most Holy Gore of the Clear Sky, and rub the guilt in the eyes of the minions of the Chief Deniers.

I'm going to tell those grandkids "We wanted nuclear plants in large numbers, which were the only way to calculate a certain reduction in pollutions, but green fanatics put every obstacle in the way they could".

Then I'm going to tell them "Here, check out this Internet thread from January 2012 and look at these clowns and morons...don't take my word for it."

 

[DC]

Absolutely.

Unfortunately there is a history of people claiming it could be even worse than predicted and it's almost always proven incorrect.

Sadly it's this type of thinking that has limited the needed expansion of nuclear power generation.

So shame on you for that.

what percentage of your electricity is Nuclear?

mine is 40% rest is mostly hydro.

 

[Furcifer]

what percentage of your electricity is Nuclear?

mine is 40% rest is mostly hydro.

56.9% by actual output

And by the end of the year mine will be the 2nd biggest in the World

(Bruce should be 6500MW sometime this year)

eta: yes I think it's cute you want to compare reactors

 

[Furcifer]

Cute, it's your strawmen, i just used it.

here you give birth to your strawmen.



then i asked you



and then you linked to a paper that did not support that.

but now its my strawmen?

cute

*sigh

So where did I say we shouldn't have a GDP then?

logic fail bro.

 

[mhaze]

*sigh

So where did I say we shouldn't have a GDP then?

logic fail bro.

I must change my view, in accordance with the evidence. I have learned that climate change has caused massive die off of vegetation. I am now a believer in climate change. I am ready to be ordained into the priesthood and expect to be able to negotiate a starting coronation reasonably high up.

Here is the evidence that has moved me to the core. I cannot stand by while this sort of thing occurs. Action is required. Urgent Action Now.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/NASA-vegetation.htm

It will take much practice for me to gain competence in the lying, exaggeration and hysterical alarmism but with the help of those accomplished and practiced in these arts on the JREF forum I pray to the Gore of Gaia and the Suzuki idols that within a few short months I may have the competence at the dialectic of Warmers to convince you, Furcifer, to cease your evil ways and humbly submit to the Truth through Untruth, and experience the Peace through Bitterness, and then begin to reform the many errors of your ways.

 

[uke2se]

I'm always happy to concede what I don't know, but can someone kindly tell me this: what would it cost us, as a society, to save Montauk, NY? Or Key West, or Malibu, or Kennebunkport?

Cause that's really what were talking about, isn't it. Protecting the wealthy by imposing huge taxes on those who can least afford it.

Bangladesh is a wealthy country now?

Oh wait... a denialist wouldn't care about brown people, right?

 

[DC]

*sigh

So where did I say we shouldn't have a GDP then?

logic fail bro.

why did you link to the paper when i asked where you got the idea that we have to stop using energy?

you were the one that came up with "You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP. "

 

[DC]

56.9% by actual output

And by the end of the year mine will be the 2nd biggest in the World

(Bruce should be 6500MW sometime this year)

eta: yes I think it's cute you want to compare reactors

Canada must have changed alot. Has Nuclear energy already taken over your coal plants in % of total produced electricity?

aslong you guys burn coal for electricity, don't point fingers at me.

(Ontario is second in Canada when it comes to burning coal for Electricity and you want to point fingers at me, LOL thats not cute anymore, thats just dumb)

 

[DC]

I must change my view, in accordance with the evidence. I have learned that climate change has caused massive die off of vegetation. I am now a believer in climate change. I am ready to be ordained into the priesthood and expect to be able to negotiate a starting coronation reasonably high up.

Here is the evidence that has moved me to the core. I cannot stand by while this sort of thing occurs. Action is required. Urgent Action Now.

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/NASA-vegetation.htm

It will take much practice for me to gain competence in the lying, exaggeration and hysterical alarmism but with the help of those accomplished and practiced in these arts on the JREF forum I pray to the Gore of Gaia and the Suzuki idols that within a few short months I may have the competence at the dialectic of Warmers to convince you, Furcifer, to cease your evil ways and humbly submit to the Truth through Untruth, and experience the Peace through Bitterness, and then begin to reform the many errors of your ways.

more psychological projection from you, typical for you religious fanatics.

 

[Trakar]

Wrong.

Question that was debated was:

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis."

Ah, I apologize for the misreading! But I stand by the assessment made even when I was under the impression that the question and polling supported the opposite position; "Personally, I wouldn't read too much into such surveys,..."

To give the debate a fair hearing I went to the NPR site and listened to the unedited debate. After listening to the actual debate the poll numbers are even more peculiar given the arguments presented by each of the six panelists. On the second listen I paid particular attention to the crowd responses and I have to question the initial poll responses more than the post debate responses after doing so. There were significant numbers of vocal responders who had made their minds up long before the debate began. All of the deniers were given polite and even distributed applause as they were introduced, but interspersed in polite applause given to the AGW supporters were hisses and boos. This pattern intensified throughout the debate, despite, sound, well supported rational arguments from the supporters

(like this statement:

“Particularly when scientific results are perceived to have economic or moral implications, it’s common for political debates to get shifted into the scientific arena. It makes the political argument seem much more scientific, and therefore logical. But since the basic disagreement is still political, this is a disaster for any kind of action.

Let me give you a few examples of how that works – creationists have argued that the eye is too complex to have evolved. Not because they care about the evolution of eyes, but because hey see the implications of evolution as somehow damaging to their world view. If you demonstrate the evolution of eyes, their world view won’t change, they’ll just move on to something else.

Another example, when CFCs from aerosol cans and air conditioners were found to be depleting the ozone layer, the CEO of DuPont, the main manufacturer, argued that because CFCs were heavier than air, they couldn’t possibly get up to the ozone layer, so there was no need to regulate them. That was pure fantasy, but it sounded scientific… These arguments are examples of pseudo-debates – scientific-sounding viewpoints that are designed not to fool the experts, but to sew confusion and doubt in the mind of the lay public. This is a deliberate strategy, and you’re hearing it tonight.”

)

being met with logical fallacies, anecdotal trivia and clear pseudoscience like the following from the deniers:

“There is a time when I worked in a clinic and one day a young woman came in. She was in her early 20s and in for a routine checkup, I said ‘what’s going on with you?’ and she said ‘I’ve just become blind,’ and I said, ‘Oh my gosh, when did this happen?” and she said “just coming to the clinic, just walking up the steps to the clinic, I became blind.’ And I said ‘oh’ and by now I’m looking through the chart and I said ‘well, has this happened before?’ and she said ‘yes, it’s happened before, I’ve become blind in the past.’

What she had, of course, was hysterical blindness, and the characteristic of that is that the severity of the symptom is not matched by the emotional response that’s being presented. Most people would be screaming about that, but she was very calm, ‘oh yes, I’m blind again.’ And I’m reminded of that whenever I hear whether you want to call it a crisis or not, a significant global event of importance where we’re going to have species loss and so on and so forth, but that we can address this by changing our light bulbs. Or that we can really make an impact by unplugging our appliances or not using them.

It’s very much out of whack. And so if we’re going to only do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that might really mean something. One of them is very simple, 99 percent of the American population doesn’t care, is to ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And in addition, let’s have the NIDC, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members cannot fly on private jets, they must take their houses off the grid, they must live in a way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?”

Mix this in with the types of questions coming from the audience like:

“My name is Heather Higgins, I’m not a scientist, so pardon my ignorance when I hear ‘the scientific establishment believes in something’ I immediately think of flat-earth consensus, and the fact that there’s no geography that should be admitted as science, and that women are all hysterics not to be bled. So that assurance that the scientific community believes something does not take me very far.”

And in toto, I can't help but wonder exactly what this polling demonstrates beyond the fact that it seems that a lot of people in that particular cowd were swayed more by folksy pleadings than sound evidence and fact. This is not unusual in America. A land where many would rather decide with, and trust in their "gut" because thinking things out is hard work and often does not produce an ideologically satisfying resolution.

 

[Furcifer]

Canada must have changed alot. Has Nuclear energy already taken over your coal plants in % of total produced electricity?

aslong you guys burn coal for electricity, don't point fingers at me.

(Ontario is second in Canada when it comes to burning coal for Electricity and you want to point fingers at me, LOL thats not cute anymore, thats just dumb)

I'm looking at the IESO which is in real time

Demand is 19549MW; coal accounts for 697MW and nuclear 9215MW

If you can find numbers for your backwoods little country then we'll talk.

 

[Furcifer]

why did you link to the paper when i asked where you got the idea that we have to stop using energy?

you were the one that came up with "You don't need time on a super computer to figure out if you don't use energy you don't have a GDP. "

We're all wondering where you got the idea we need to stop using energy from that

 

[mhaze]

Ah, I apologize for the misreading! But I stand by the assessment made even when I was under the impression that the question and polling supported the opposite position; "Personally, I wouldn't read too much into such surveys,..."

To give the debate a fair hearing I went to the NPR site and listened to the unedited debate.....

Congratulations. I listened to it about two years ago and thought it good.

A question.

Is a "Denier", then, someone who thinks "Global Warming is not a Crisis"? Or are you simply labeling those scientists who took that side in the debate in that fashion?

Because there are implications....