What is the AGW debate about?

[Wangler]

It seems to me that the debate about AGW isn't just about the science. Who agrees?

 

[Darth Rotor]

It seems to me that the debate about AGW isn't just about the science. Who agrees?

Me. The policy is the hard part. The problem is global, the solution set is fractured due to about 192 differently weighted sorts of self interest.

DR

 

[Bikewer]

I agree. The scientific communty (at least, that part of it in the related fields, and who are not employed by energy corporations) seem to be in consensus that global warming is taking place, and that some portion of it is anthropogenic.

However, the implications for all this are complex. Developed countries have much of their economy invested in energy-intensive sectors and use huge quantities. The cheapest way to produce all this energy is dirty...
The developing countries are energy hungry and again, fossil fuels are relatively cheap.

There is considerable evidence that doing a massive switch-over to friendlier energy sources is do-able and would result in a net gain for the economies of all concerned...But not the existing energy companies who are so heavily "involved" with government...

 

[Wangler]

thanks for the response, folks!

Keep 'em coming!

 

[Wowbagger]

It might depend on who's debating.

Some see it as a science issue, but those are usually the sorts of folks who get their science wrong.

For others, it is a policy issue, and that is indeed the hard part. But, even that ranges from sensible concern to downright paranoia of Government Control.

There is also another faction that might think the debate is about Leftist Liberals vs. Righty-Tighty Republicans, or something like that.

 

[CapelDodger]

It seems to me that the debate about AGW isn't just about the science. Who agrees?

What is "the" debate? Please define your terms .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The debate is about countering the lingering effects of a successful multimillion dollar anti-science propaganda campaign.

 

[CapelDodger]

Me. The policy is the hard part. The problem is global, the solution set is fractured due to about 192 differently weighted sorts of self interest.

DR

Did you count India, China, the US and Australia each as 1 of the 192? I hink it's a lot trickier than that. I see it more as fractal, having a similar mix of +/- at any resolution.

 

[Wangler]

The debate is about countering the lingering effects of a successful multimillion dollar anti-science propaganda campaign.

Awwm c'mon!

Have AGW proponents really spent that much?

 

[Herzblut]

Awwm c'mon!

Have AGW proponents really spent that much?

Spent?

They made it!

 

[CapelDodger]

Awwm c'mon!

Have AGW proponents really spent that much?

One day, as the seas keep rising, you may be forced to declare where you stand. Or sit. Whatever, if someobody else wants to stand or sit in the same place that's when your particular debate really begins.

I have a well-laid plan. I intend to live long enough to say "Told you so!" but not so long as to suffer serious consequences.

 

[CapelDodger]

Spent?

They made it!

Have you never been blessed with an expense-account? If so you've missed a lot.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is also another faction that might think the debate is about Leftist Liberals vs. Righty-Tighty Republicans, or something like that.

mhaze regularly comes out with "Liberal Authoritarian", which never fails to make me giigle.

 

[macdoc]

Almost inevitable since the Republican party is almost bereft of scientists in its ranks

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll

http://www.huffinagtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

 

[CapelDodger]

The debate is about countering the lingering effects of a successful multimillion dollar anti-science propaganda campaign.

What's left to counter? Sound and fury on the internet and in the popular media but that'll count for squat at Copenhagen. Even in US American terms it's another stake for the GOP to impale themselves on. It's all over bar the shouting, and the bargaining.

 

[Herzblut]

I have a well-laid plan. I intend to live long enough to say "Told you so!" but not so long as to suffer serious consequences.

Now that is just exemplary for skepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Wangler]

One day, as the seas keep rising, you may be forced to declare where you stand.

I believe I have, on another thread post.

 

[Wangler]

I noticed that I don't have any options like "It's about both science and ideology", or similar.

Probably wouldn't have made a diff..............

 

[Wangler]

Now that is just exemplary for skepticism and critical thinking.

Methinks that Capel was kidding.

What an unhappy lot we are!

 

[Herzblut]

I noticed that I don't have any options like "It's about both science and ideology", or similar.

OK. It would be interesting to know how both could (not only be contributing to but) be the root of the discussion.

And you explicitely asked for "AGW discussion", not simply "climate discussion" or so.

So, I voted for ideology, one which I would call "radical environmentalism".