Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
How is either one an insult? Certainly there are plenty of green on the outside, red on the inside "watermelons" in the environmentalist ranks. Indeed, as an environmentalist of the libertarian variety, I'd say pretty much the entire Green Party grew on vines.
|
Up to you, I don't think making it political helps - but to each his/her/it's own. I'm a skeptic of the socialist variety myself. We are both political enigmas...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
As for "denialist", what is it but an accurate description? When confronted with a) the fact that the laws of physics say global warming should happen; and b) overwhelming evidence showing that it is in fact happening pretty much as physics says it should be; they deny that it is happening.
Now you can't really call these people "skeptics", even though some would prefer the term, because their self-proclaimed skepticism is pretty darned selective, and turns into utter credulity when they come across anything seeming to contradict AGW.
|
My issue is with the way the word was first used, which you haven't really addressed. There are alternatives available which don't have such a link, but again your choice which may speak volumes about you, or say nothing at all.
As for AGW - nope that isn't contended. If a person came on (as has happened in previous versions of this debate) and said there was no such thing as AGW and it was a big conspiracy, I would be arguing with them too.
In fact let's have a summary, just for fun :
Has the climate changed.
Yep.
Has the world temperature increased.
Yep. 0.8 DegC in the 20th century as far as we know. There are issues with the record and adjustments but it is the best we have. Making a global temp is an awesome undertaking, the people involved deserve all the support they need, but they also need to be more open - IMHO.
Does CO2 affect climate ?
Yep. Maybe in ways we don't even know yet because we focus on others.
Does man create more CO2 ?
Yep. That stuff about "volcanos making ore CO2 than us" is a nonsense smokescreen of rubbish.
Do man's other activities affect the climate ?
Yep - we have cleared trees to make farmland, dammed or changed the courses of major rivers even connected seas together. We have even removed mountains to make mines for things we can only make into jewelry or store in bank vaults - how mad is that ?
When mankind moves into a wilderness it never improves it.
Has man's creation of CO2 contributed to warming ?
Probably, it won't have reduced it any. But then again how much given it has been warmer and colder before ?
So what is being "denied" ? Well it is the missing C in front of AGW - "Catastrophic", or even the sometimes used D for "Dangerous". So lets go with those questions :
Are today's temperatures unusual ?
Maybe, we don't know. History suggests not - at least on a questionable local level (MWP / LIA). More open science please.
Has CO2 been higher ?
Yep.
Has CO2 been lower ?
Yep.
Does CO2 drive temperature ?
Maybe. "Basic physics" says yes but evidence suggests only maybe. It also suggests strongly that CO2 follows temp. Needs more open research IMHO.
But what about the 20th Century Rise ?
Well it could be CO2 from the Industrial Revolution or it could be warming from the end of the LIA or it could be a combination of both.
But what about the "Pause ?"
Well you tell me ? Scientists said when the pause started in 1997 that 16 years would be the limit before the models would be invalid. They chose the start and the parameters, so are the models now invalid ?
OK so what to do ? Thats the nub of the gist here.
Following the precautionary principle seems obvious, but that has a huge opportunity cost.
In the short term we will run our economies into the ground trying to cut CO2 which won't happen anyway - did anyone notice Kyoto is now dead and Carbon Credits are worth less than the ink used to make them ?
In the medium to long term we will ensure that those in the developing world will not advance because we won't let them have cheap energy - that means kids like some of us here have in our own homes - becoming sick and possibly losing their lives to simple, treatable conditions we take for granted. So your kids are going to live, theirs are less likely to. They will continue to have more of them and if some of them live they will need more land to support themselves, which reduces land for wildlife etc.
On the other hand we could focus on learning what is happening and going to happen, and mitigate for it. We could potentially save millions of lives, billions of £s / $s, reduce our impact on nature and stabilise the population.
In any case mitigation may work, prevention (by the original post here) is not going to.
So take your choice folks - cut CO2 and feel good about it and ignore those "others who will probably die, including kids" or decide to do something else.
It is your choice really.
They don't have one.
I'm done here - good luck.
