• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hide The Decline

TShaitanaku said:
I wouldn't call Shermer a denier.

http://skepticblog.org/2009/09/29/economic-triage-for-global-climate-change/



That in itself says all I need to know about his acceptance of science and the acknowledgement of the primary issue. As to the rest, that is open to discussion, as it should be.
Click to expand...

Shermer is going back and forth. Since this article, he has indicated in at least two podcasts that I've heard that 'new information' has him less certain about AGW and also about whether the consequences will be harmful or beneficial. He didn't elaborate, but said he's been 'reading books'.

I give him credit for being willing to change his mind, but I do believe that he's seeing it through political assumptions.
 
blutoski said:
Shermer is going back and forth. Since this article, he has indicated in at least two podcasts that I've heard that 'new information' has him less certain about AGW and also about whether the consequences will be harmful or beneficial. He didn't elaborate, but said he's been 'reading books'.

I give him credit for being willing to change his mind, but I do believe that he's seeing it through political assumptions.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard the podcasts (generally don't do podcasts, but that's just me), so I have no consideration of them. Given, however, that this article is only a couple of months old and has context, I'm reluctant to pitch him under the bus on the basis of purported, second-hand, sans context statements.

Shermer, however, wouldn't be the first rational skeptic to allow political biases to influence his considerations and thinking, so I'm not beyond changing my opinion if and when faced with compelling evidences to the contrary.
 
TShaitanaku said:
I haven't heard the podcasts (generally don't do podcasts, but that's just me), so I have no consideration of them. Given, however, that this article is only a couple of months old and has context, I'm reluctant to pitch him under the bus on the basis of purported, second-hand, sans context statements.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm pitching him under the bus, in the sense that I'm not dividing the world into two kinds of people: deniers vs skeptics.

Certainly it's clear that Shermer has only recently held the view that GW exists at all, much less AGW. This is pretty well documented.

He changed his mind too long after the scientific experts in the relevant discipline reported great confidence. This is the part that makes him qualify as a denier in my opinion, regardless of his current position. Or maybe we could say that he "was" a denier. Something like that.

The point, though, is that during his denier phase, I'd still have said that he was a skeptic.




TShaitanaku said:
Shermer, however, wouldn't be the first rational skeptic to allow political biases to influence his considerations and thinking, so I'm not beyond changing my opinion if and when faced with compelling evidences to the contrary.
Click to expand...

And this is my point, really. Nobody's a complete skeptic.
 
blutoski said:
And this is my point, really. Nobody's a complete skeptic.
Click to expand...

The only "complete" people I've every met were either complete idiots or or completely insane, beyond that, most seem to be amalgams and various shades of grey.
 
blutoski said:
I don't think I'm pitching him under the bus, in the sense that I'm not dividing the world into two kinds of people: deniers vs skeptics.
Click to expand...


:bigclap

If only the people here who use stereotypical nicknames for everyone with certain opinions would realise this too. Lumping people into groups ('truthers' 'deniers' , etc ) and dismissing them simply for being in that group never progressed anything. Thats why I never say 'deniers' or 'warmers' either way, just comment on what they say.
 
BenBurch said:
Deniers are not actually Skeptics...
Click to expand...

Seconded. I get so tired of these ideologically-driven morons claiming the moniker of "skeptic" - it's an insult to real skeptics.

For example, I was a true climate change skeptic 15 years ago. I didn't accept the notion of GW, but I was open to new evidence and (more importantly) I didn't have any particular ideology/political stance that I clung to regarding GW.

Over the years, as I read authoritative scientific sources, I gradually changed my mind in keeping with the new evidence. And now I accept not only the reality of GW but that a significant component of GW is human induced. I still have questions about some aspects of GW, but the question about whether or not it is real and has a strong human component is settled for me.

If I wanted to act like the deniers around here, I would have dug into ideological conspiracy mongering a long time ago. But then, I have more respect for my rationality than that.

ETA: Just to add... as others have noted, it is very interesting that many of the deniers here (plus others with whom I work) always want to start and end their conversations with some kind of reference to Al Gore, which clearly displays their ideological bias to me. They truly have a hard on for Gore, and I think they all need to just get a room with him together and leave us the hell alone.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
There's a difference between AGW-denier and AGW-and-therefore-a-massive-catastrophe-is-coming-justifying-massive-governmental-regulation, the latter of which could effortlessly cause more harm as actually measured by the quality, number, and length of human life.

Both sides, as you present it, seem to accept that if AGW is true, then massive government intervention is justified.
Click to expand...

And I think this is a big part of the problem with this whole issue: the muddling of the science with the policy decisions which could come out as a result of that scientific consensus. It is possible to make both good and bad policy decisions based upon solid, well-grounded science. Whether the policy itself is good or bad is not a reflection on the standing of the science behind it.

To take the notion that one disagrees with, say cap & trade legislation, and to then transform what could be a legitimate political & economic disagreement into a deep-seated need to deny the reality of all the climate change science itself is just stupid, imo.

Whenever anyone talks to me about this stuff, I start off by telling them that I do not give a rat's ass about the political aspect of the issue (which is what 90% of people want to discuss). I tell them that unless they want to discuss the actual science of GW, then they need to go elsewhere.

I find it amazing that so many people either will not or cannot separate the two. I just don't understand it.
 
Last edited:
I've noticed the past few weeks the "Venusian-ification" of Earth rearing it's head again, after having been buried by AGW people, for years, as non-applicable because of the distance of the Earth from the Sun. "Worst case" was something from 1-6 degrees C, not a hundred or several hundred.

So why is it re-appearing lately? Is it valid, or are some fearmongers getting out of control again?
 
Beerina said:
I've noticed the past few weeks the "Venusian-ification" of Earth rearing it's head again, after having been buried by AGW people, for years, as non-applicable because of the distance of the Earth from the Sun. "Worst case" was something from 1-6 degrees C, not a hundred or several hundred.

So why is it re-appearing lately? Is it valid, or are some fearmongers getting out of control again?
Click to expand...

Unless our water vapor soars above the ozone layer, or unless our ozone layer completely fails us, ultraviolet radiation will not bombard atmospheric H2O, H2O will not disassociate, and hydrogen won't be carried off in solar winds. So, exceedingly unlikely. Then again, I think it's exceedingly unlikely that you've heard any real, authoritative source claim that the "Venusian-ification" of Earth is likely, so I think we both know the answer to your fearmongering question.
 
Beerina said:
I've noticed the past few weeks the "Venusian-ification" of Earth rearing it's head again, after having been buried by AGW people, for years, as non-applicable because of the distance of the Earth from the Sun. "Worst case" was something from 1-6 degrees C, not a hundred or several hundred.

So why is it re-appearing lately? Is it valid, or are some fearmongers getting out of control again?
Click to expand...

Ummm... this is the first time I've ever heard of this. Straw man, anyone? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom