A question about climate change/global warming.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1318 of them)

The consensus opinion is that there is some global warming but there is not consensus on the cause or the impact or the solution

!?! There is consensus and its called the majority opinion. And the majority opinion is that human causes are contributing to increasing in global temperatures, and that this will mjorly impact human civilization if it stays on its present course. Or have you not been paying attention. Now its true there is not 100% agreement, but there is never 100% consensus on anything in the scientific community - just look at evolution or AIDS-HIV.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:12 (nineteen years ago)

I mean there are STILL people (scientists with degrees even!) who don't think HIV causes AIDS, that evolution is a hoax, etc. Does that mean we should encourage people to fuck prostitutes without condoms cuz there's no "consensus"?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

here's a dirty needle, don't worry, there's no consensus that you'll get infected

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:18 (nineteen years ago)

speaking of strawmen.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

I hate all these reactionaries who instantly label critics of the HIV-AIDS link as "deniers". IS THIS WHAT SCIENCE HAS COME TO

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

my point is that yr definition of "consensus" is unrealistic and nonsensical.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

not to mention potentially disastrous and life-threatening.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:28 (nineteen years ago)

My point is that if HIV doesn't actually cause AIDS, do you want to be responsible for making ill-informed decisions that could cost lives? Do you want to waste the governments money on prevention programs based on a politically-motivated sham?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

so Don what's your tipping point in terms of how many scientists does it take to convince you? 75%? 80%? 99%?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

He will tell you that it is not about the percentage. It's not about the consensus. It's about the science.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:32 (nineteen years ago)

(and yes I know the HIV-AIDS thing is a bit of a strawman - but I do think there are some legitimate and clear analogies to be made in terms of the development of the science and evidence, the potential threat to human life, the political jockeying involved, and the willful ignorance and denial of people too stupid or too evil to accept the fact that things have to change).

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

He will tell you that it is not about the percentage. It's not about the consensus. It's about the science.

wtf is Don a climatologist/research scientist? I thought he was just an ex-marine or something.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

And then you will ask him what he thinks about the science and he will say, "I don't have enough information."

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

I apologize, Don, if I'm wrong. I don't know you and I am being presumptuous, but this all sounds very familiar.

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

here ya go:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/07.03.13.StretchingTruth-X.gif

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.12.06.WinterBlunder-X.gif

http://www.creators.com/comics/37/3390_thumb.gif

― kingfish, Saturday, 17 March 2007 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

oh yeah, and you wanna know what helps "consensus"? When political apparatchiks actually EDIT the docs stating there's consensus, get installed into NASA and go after their own scientists, etc

A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

[...]

They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures...

but THE SCIENCE IS STILL OUT OH YES

― kingfish, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

the only way to tell if a gun is loaded is to kill something with it

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

Joe Barton = douchebag

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/21/national/w115923D90.DTL

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 21:36 (nineteen years ago)

ahem

(btw kingfish that's what I was referring to upthread - I have copies of some of the docs referenced in that NYT article complete with strikeouts, margin notes, etc.)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 21:38 (nineteen years ago)

gotta love how Inhofe brings up that bullshit about Gore's home energy usage.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 21:44 (nineteen years ago)

I'm basically fascinated by what desires lead people to believe this kind of thing (apocalypse/revelation/end-of-millenium scenarios), especially if they have no control or even real influence over it. It seems like people basically choose who to believe based on their personal preference.

That said, global warming is real. That also said, I think if it's not the end of the world that many people are going to be disappointed.

― Spencer Chow, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 21:44 (nineteen years ago)

nihilism is a funny thing

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 21:48 (nineteen years ago)

Thing about the end-of-the-world bits is multi-faceted, and interesting; you have some Rapture-happy folks who are eagerly awaiting the End of the World, so who gives a fuck about the planet, we ain't gunna be here.

The other thing is that we live in such a damaged media culture that you have to present your case in dramatic terms, otherwise plenty of folks won't listen to you. Humans have a way of ignoring problems until they're staring them in the face, and even then, some folks have a difficulty in thinking anything bad can happen to them. How else are you going to budge the richest and most comfortable nation on the planet out of its sedentary state? Hell, we don't give a fuck about much unless it stands to fuck us up tomorrow. I'm amazed that we were able to do the CFC-removal thing 15 years ago to let the ozone layer repair itself.

Al Gore gets a lot of shit for going doomsday, which isn't always that warranted. I think that a lot of his arguments and conclusions get mis-reported and exaggerated in the process(by both sides, tho usually not the left). It's something the dude's used to; he'll get attacked for things he didn't actually say, like all those Algore made internets lol joeks. (a claim that started with Mark Foley of all people 8 years ago)

― kingfish, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:11 (nineteen years ago)

summarily dismembering and scientifically annihilating original research that is contrary.

What research is this? That which evidences natural variability in the climate cycle? It has no relevance - the research demonstrates conclusively that there now exists man-made warming above and beyond that natural variability.

― gabbneb, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

Holy shit, nedra pickler still works for the AP? i like her mention of "the sigh" and him answering "at length", and extra fun added speculation about him running again.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:31 (nineteen years ago)

Also, a guy Thom Hartmann argued with today on his show had a crucial(if obv) point: talking about environmental policy is talking about energy policy, since the vast majority of consternation and foot-dragging around green reforms is resistance to changing current habits of energy production and distribution.

Even if the environmental problems weren't as dire as they could be, we still have a horribly unsustainable infrastructure in america where the only way most of us get food is from diesel trucks that travel 3000+ miles, supported by a network of gas stations refueled by more trucks.

― kingfish, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

watched Gore's testimony on C-Span last night. Inhofe is a really rude, cranky guy wtf. Also when did Al develop those supervillain eyebrows...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

I was shocked that J-Pod shook his finger at Inhofe:

The thing is that Inhofe was behaving boorishly toward Gore during his questioning. He'd ask questions, Gore would answer them and then Inhofe would whine that Gore was eating up Inhofe's time. It was very discomfiting, and Boxer was in the right to bust him on it. If a Republican had ever done the same, we would have cheered it. Senators and congressmen get the idea that it's okay for them to act like bullies because some people in their home state cast votes for them, but it isn't, and it doesn't matter what party they belong to. Message to Inhofe: It's inappropriate behavior to ask a witness, even Al Gore, a question that contains an insult and then ask for the answer in writing so you can go on to your next, also presumably insulting, question.

I just had a rather angry exchange with a very liberal friend who, surprisingly, believes every word Al Gore says about the issue. To be skeptical means opening yourself to charges that you don't believe in, say, evolution. I'm naturally wary when pols get alarmist; I can't help it. kingfish's answer is closest to my thinking.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:22 (nineteen years ago)

Again....I am not talking about skepticism, but a cold, sharp avoidance of looking at ANY of the information. There seems to be way too many of these people.

― peepee, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

Right, and we like the idea of being a skeptic, or thinking things thru(we never actually do this or teach our kids to, but whatevs), but there is a line between being a skeptic("Well, lemme see whatcha got") and being a full-on denier("fuck you, there's no possible way this could be true, Algore is fat lol")

There's also a limit to saying, "you're fulla shit and just trying to get votes" when any politician actually brings up a legit issue that could rapidly disintegrate into crisis, e.g. all the democrat congressfolks trying to direct attention to massive problems in VA funding, or Earl Blumenauer(my rep) talking about how New Orleans needed funding levee-repair back in '02-'03 or else things were going to get fucked.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

Inhofe's contention that this is all a fraud perpetrated to literally line the pockets of (and I quote) "Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Richard Branson" is by turns insulting and innacurate, not to mention totally irrelevant when one considers the massive subsidies and record profits currently being raked in by the oil/energy industry.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

I'm amazed that we were able to do the CFC-removal thing 15 years ago to let the ozone layer repair itself.

There's a school of thought that that move, however beneficial it may be to the ozone layer, was down to DuPont's expiring CFC patents.

― onimo, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:07 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck it; at this point, i'm happy with whatever fixes the problem.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:13 (nineteen years ago)

what kingfish said a few posts up is OTM. I mean, how the fuck else did we get ourselves into Iraq? Pols long ago realized that declaring a crisis = money and microphones.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

I think we all agree that doomsday hysteria is distasteful - but you can't deny its political expediency.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

Digby sez:
"I think my favorite thing about the know-nothing wingnut argument is that Al Gore is said to be all hysterical on this silly little problem by the same people who are screeching like howler monkeys that the oceans don't protect us anymore and "they're" comin' to kill us in our beds! The fact that ridding ourselves of our dependence on oil might mitigate both of these problems escapes their notice. But then, they are incredibly stupid."

― schwantz, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:42 (nineteen years ago)

To be skeptical means opening yourself to charges that you don't believe in, say, evolution.

but this isnt a question of SKEPTICISM anymore; gore is hardly the only person talking about global warming. the evidence is on the table, and has been for 10+ years! i can't believe that people are still saying shit like "the jury is out" or "i'm skeptical of gore's claims" when a) theyre not GORE's claims specifically and b) the "debate" or the idea that one can be SKEPTICAL of this has been created ENTIRELY by the energy lobby and the politicians in their pockets. this is not a two-sided issue for scientists!

― max, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:48 (nineteen years ago)

I'm talking just normal citizens who do not work for the Hoover Institute, Exxon, etc.

people like don, for instance. the thing is - separating out hoover institute, exxon, etc. from "normal citizens" is exactly the sleight of hand that perpetuates the success of the massive investment in ~~propaganda~~ public relations ginned up by these huge stakeholders. normal people think there's "no consensus" or that "the science isn't conclusive" by a very simple process: vested interests spend tens or hundreds of millions on conferences, panels, PR events, and lobbying the government, all with the simple message that human contribution to global warming has not been scientifically established --> their views filter into newspapers and government --> "mainstream" opinion-makers repeat this PR as "part of the debate" --> it becomes conventional wisdom. enough, at least, to call the fundamental scientific consensus into question. adam curtis and bob somerby have it right. this is how women were convinced to smoke cigarettes and it's how gore became the butt of every joke. these things don't happen by accident AT ALL.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:49 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer OTM

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:50 (nineteen years ago)

It reminds me a lot of when Kunstler did his peak oil thing in Rolling Stone two years ago. FUCK YEAH was that alarmist, and dude was taking way too much pleasure in the oncoming downfall of civilization(hint: when you gleefully talk about how the only example to using shale oil was with nazis using jewish slave labor, you have a problem), but it still got the concept of "peak oil," that oil production and oil supplies were fixed, physical amounts that you could quantify and comprehend, out there to a lot of folks who either hadn't heard of the concept or of conceiving that particular system in such a way.

And that's the whole thing, innit? the fact that all these things _are_ systems. This blue marble we're all breathing on is a closed system. Shit that we put into the air doesn't go away, it either floats to the right or a little higher, but it's still up there. We dump enough shit out there and it will change things.

I like using the word "things" a lot.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

Tracer OTM, indeed. There is so much of this, that I even caught myself questioning global warming, until Reason's Ronald Bailey, free-market handjobber and industry apologist went from this to this.

― schwantz, Thursday, 22 March 2007 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

There's no investment in public relations from environmentalists then, Tracer?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

not on nearly the same level as for the energy companies

― max, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

oh yes, the powerful, uber-rich environmental lobby. wtf don.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

If you truly believe that environmental groups' investment in PR is done solely for financially selfish reasons, then you are truly a cynical person.

― schwantz, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:03 (nineteen years ago)

don't you know those Greenpeace executives drive around in SUVs, the hypocrites

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

Don you never answered my question about what percentage of scientists constitutes "consensus" for you.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:06 (nineteen years ago)

That's a stumper Shakey. You've really got me on that one.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:09 (nineteen years ago)

I think I'll go with a simple majority.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

oh donpaws

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:11 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 1218 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.