A question about climate change/global warming.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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)

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

Dandy Don Weiner on Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:01 PM (10 minutes ago)

Why do you guys even respond to him? Sheesh

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

Because I am the Village Idiot.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:13 (nineteen years ago)

a) theyre not GORE's claims specifically

that's part of the thing, too. The obfuscation of the messenger with the message, and then attacking the figurehead. This is the same exact shit that happens with evolution; the vast majority of folks who know about are termed "Darwinists," as if they were as blindly, unthinkingly loyal and unquestionably obeisant(sp) of some authority figure as the fundie types are. Empiric science is rejected and you're left with two competing belief systems which are then dutifully reported by media types who either (1) don't really know what they're talking about enough to call bullshit or (2) have so internalized the bullshit claim of bias that they feel the need to listen to the disingenious.

A similar conversation happened on the email list for Bob Altermeyers book on Authoritarians, where somebody was trying to shed their follower past and wondered how this whole "listening to scientists" thing actually worked. Folks took time to explain that peer-reviewed theories are established by analysizing of empiric phenomena, that there is an objective reality that you can go out and find this stuff of for yourself.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

i just wonder when people - let alone reporters - are going to get sick of being deliberately lied to. by massive entities whose only loyalty is to their own bank accounts, particularly on an issue with stakes as high as this one has.

the convergence of this "issue" (weak laugh) with the inevitable drying out of oil and gas resources really does, as a horribly correct-sounding article i read recently put it, have the potential to make future generations turn their backs entirely on the entire concept of free market democracy. if free market democracy creates a leadership - political, economic, what have you - that is unable to deal with these twin problems - which rank right up there with the geostrategic problem of nuclear weapons as the greatest and most ominous problems humanity has ever had to face - what good is it? it was only 70 years ago - easily within living memory - that powerful western industrial nations were saying democracy was a utopian farce that couldn't deliver what people really wanted (haha is it obvious i have been watching "century of the self"?)

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

also, the transcript mentioned on this post is interesting reading

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:16 (nineteen years ago)

I know I initially brought it up as a strawman to annoy Don, but the AIDS-HIV parallel seems WAY more apropos to me than something like evolution. If you think about the history of the science behind AIDS and how it was attacked and misused politically because people didn't want to acknowledge a) its implications for global disaster (which have by and large come to pass), and b) required changes in people's personal behavior. We had this same see-saw argument about the science being innacurate, or being deliberately misrepresented for political gain, tons of misinformation, entrenched lobbies who didn't want to acknowledge it, hysteria and fear drummed up, etc. etc.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:19 (nineteen years ago)

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

haha don your naivete here is endearing but unconvincing

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

and look at what a startling success global AIDS policy turned out to be... its okay though, at least a bunch of pharmaceutical companies responded in time to make a shit ton of money, right?

hurrah capitalism.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:21 (nineteen years ago)

ok, my post ain't too coherent, but hopefully the idea comes across.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:23 (nineteen years ago)

"global warming opponents are just fattening the wallets of michael moore, the sierra club and a million 'greentrepreneurs'"

i mean if we really have a political/nformational/economic/journalistic system that allows us to revel in this kind of dumbness it's hard to think we don't deserve what's coming to us

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:24 (nineteen years ago)

never mind that Michael Moore hasn't even made a movie about global warming.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:26 (nineteen years ago)

Pols long ago realized that declaring a crisis = money and microphones.

interesting how only the lefty ones seem to do this, though. why have the wingnuts not seized this market opportunity?!

if we should ignore politicians on this ground, I suppose we should ignore newspapers too. and churches. and personal trainers. investment advisors. doctors. parents.

― gabbneb, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:28 (nineteen years ago)

"global warming opponents are just fattening the wallets of michael moore, the sierra club and a million 'greentrepreneurs'"

if so, perhaps the market is telling us something

― gabbneb, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:30 (nineteen years ago)

that was one of the things I found so sad about Inhofe's complaining = "omg someone's trying to MAKE MONEY off of this!" Um, duh, would you prefer that everyone just lose money instead? wtf, how else would you want a market to respond to a crisis. He should just admit that his issue is jsut that all this energy policy-related money is showing the potential to move from one set of pockets to another - and that he prefers the old, existing pockets. Even though they are filled with holes.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

interesting how only the lefty ones seem to do this, though. why have the wingnuts not seized this market opportunity?!

GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE THE RUIN OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
TERRORISTS WILL MARRY AND SODOMIZE YOUR PURE DAUGHTERS IF THIS BILL DOESN'T PASS

etc

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

I think gabnebb was making a (rare) display of sarcasm there.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:37 (nineteen years ago)

gabbneb always has plenty of sarcasm for me...all I have to do is show up and post my inanities. Actually, I think he's quite a bit more sarcastic that you give him credit for Shakey.

I never intimated that declaring a crisis was an exclusively leftist tactic...how else the fuck did we get ourselves into Iraq (or any number of other misadventures)? I'm not saying it's a reason to ignore politicians, I'm pointing out (as I did in the beginning of this thread) that the end result is that declaring a crisis typically polarizes the issue.

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

being pointyheaded typically polarizes the issue too

― gabbneb, Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:01 (nineteen years ago)

things that motivate one group of people are usually polarizing to another. this is kinda a truism of politics.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

And Americans typically(and humans generally) don't do shit 'til the dramatic happens, like we actually lose a city or something

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

does that mean that compromise can only come through submission?

― Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

does that mean that compromise can only come through submission?

what are you talking about. It means that our really comfortable society has great difficulty in addressing a problem in advance, or even admitting that it is a problem that might require energy or a change in ways.

At any rate, here's http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032207.shtml about both Inhofe and what happened when FoxNews had the Dutch Statistician from that NYT hit piece on H&C last night

Inhofe informed Gore that scientists are "radically at odds with your claims." Displaying a photograph of icicles in Buffalo, Inhofe demanded: "How come you guys never seem to notice it when it gets cold?”

and, about the foot vs 20ft change in sea levels that gets talked about a lot:

Of course, as we’ve noted, Gore was talking about what will happen if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets break away. By contrast, the UN report was predicting future sea levels if the ice sheets don’t break off. (For the record, the UN report said that sea levels may rise by as much as 23 inches if the ice sheets remain intact.) Lomborg’s presentation is baldly deceptive—a bald-faced scam on the American public. And no, it really doesn’t make sense to think Lomborg doesn’t know this.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

OK, this really bothers me:

I think it's way too early to do anything like that, but I think research should continue. What's fascinating though is how much environmentalists hate the idea. Why? Well I think part of the answer is that what they like about global warming alarmism is that it encourages us to change behaviors and undermines the legitimacy of capitalism. I think it's analogous to the hatred some on the left have for SDI/Star Wars. They wanted the threat of nuclear war to scare us out of our supposedly warlike worldview. They wanted that fear to make us abandon the Cold War etc. Any talk of actually protecting ourselves from nuclear weapons was the wrong path (this isn't to say that there weren't or aren't good substantive objections offered by many, but this philosophical objection definitely played a role too).

Does Goldberg really mean that changing "behavior" means undermining "the legitimacy of capitalism"? Isn't financial wherewithal supporting intellectual endeavor one of the great virtues of capitalism?

And why use Al Gore as a strawman for supporters of the 1980's-era nuclear freeze? What's the connection? My own skepticism rests largely on Gore's inability to make a convincing case, but it's got fuck-all to with the science.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 22 March 2007 19:49 (nineteen years ago)

Notice how Goldberg discusses the issue in purely ideological terms. That is the problem with this class of people.

His diagnosis makes no sense.

I think it's analogous to the hatred some on the left have for SDI/Star Wars. They wanted the threat of nuclear war to scare us out of our supposedly warlike worldview. They wanted that fear to make us abandon the Cold War etc.

WTF? Are you kidding me?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:19 (nineteen years ago)

I think that Goldberg's bit, like with most of the deniers, is that we've gotten to where we are thru rugged individualism and free markets and yadda yadda yadda, i.e. the way we got our money is moral and thus the way we do things this year is moral and just and good. ANY attempt to change how we do things is "interfering with the market" i.e. disrupting the invisible hand and going against Nature, which is bad and to be avoided. Market idolatry is a good name for it.

Like i mentioned before, almost _every_ conversation comes down to the point where changing anything we do or trying to enforce environmental standards will cost too much money => interfere with the "market" => is bad/evil. It's like these guys believe their own press, that the way we do things now is the way they should be done and those who don't like that are jealous failures, angry at their lack of success. Which is more corporatist than capitalist, but these guys don't tend to make these kinds of distinction.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:19 (nineteen years ago)

the fact is the market itself disproves that argument: the $$$ to be made combatting global warming > $$$ to be lost if we continue business as usual.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:21 (nineteen years ago)

I mean look at the demand for "green" technologies and products - its through the roof!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:22 (nineteen years ago)

And the thing about SDI is that he SERIOUSLY has no idea what he's talking about. Like, no fucking clue, and clueless enough to make you wander about a system where pundits are continuously employed due to their idealogical purity versus, y'know, ever actually being fucking right for once.

I mean, like David Brooks clueless, to the point where dude appears to have never actually read any complaints that "the left"(or, like, anybody not as much as a blind follower as he) has ever made.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:24 (nineteen years ago)

And Goldberg actually believes global warming is a real threat!

As far as the SDI analogy....I mean, wow. It doesn't even occur to him to wonder whether Star Wars opponents questioned a system of steadily escalating armaments leading to the ultimate annihilation of one or both superpowers (not nto mention everyone else). Fuck, even his beloved Reagan believed this!

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:29 (nineteen years ago)

xp

This is what i mean by the corporatist vs. capitalist thing, except that the distinction is blurred and the latter is almost always used to excuse the fuckups of the former. Changing the institutional inertia of bureaucracy is something that not many want to do.

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 20:43 (nineteen years ago)

ignoring potential 20% reduction in growth vs. admitting algore might be right

― gabbneb, Thursday, 22 March 2007 21:25 (nineteen years ago)

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Shelton_C20070321.jpg

― kingfish, Thursday, 22 March 2007 21:37 (nineteen years ago)

http://jewishworldreview.com/strips/pc/pc032307.jpg

HAW HAW HAW SCIENCE CHANGED IN 37 YEARS WE CANT TRUST ANY OF IT

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/MFT20070322.jpg

― kingfish, Friday, 23 March 2007 00:18 (nineteen years ago)

this won't cost anything btw

― gabbneb, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Shelton_C20070321.jpg

^ this is kinda of genius!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 18:45 (nineteen years ago)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/GoodnightVCover.jpg

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 18:48 (nineteen years ago)

And nothing helps consensus or the judging of empirical evidence like an entire infrastructure of clueless apparatchiks fucking up several years worth of work.

― kingfish, Thursday, 29 March 2007 21:47 (nineteen years ago)

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/04/11/nyc_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20070411090030&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000

With 2.7 percent of the country's population — 8.2 million of 300 million — the average New York City resident contributes less than a third of the emissions generated by a typical American. This is largely due to the popularity of the city's mass transit system, which cuts down on car emissions, officials said.

MOMUS?

― JW, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

― admrl, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

Saying we can prevent climate change is like saying we can prevent tides, tectonic drift, or rain. And no one would say any movement to stop rain is "reasonable."

― kingfish, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 20:07 (nineteen years ago)

Moreover, Adler might have heard that Crichton and two full-fledged scientists recently beat some leading global warming scientists in a debate.

hahaha, they won in an ONLINE POLL

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

barely

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

I hate that people treat science like some fucking democracy, ie if you have the most people believing in a certain side than that must be the right side.

Last night on Coast to Coast, there was a 'scientist' (he had a PhD anyway) saying there was going to be an ice age w/in the next 20 years. I mean, I hope people with the most absolutely ridiculous anti-global warming views get the most publicity. It'll make 'em all look like Fred Phelps, credibility-wise.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 20:28 (nineteen years ago)

as with the I.D./young earth creationism thing, opinion is being deliberately conflated with actual fact.

The "science not a democracy" thing I came upon a little earlier too, in this op-ed written by three members of the science faculty at SMU, who were loudly rejecting the Discovery Institute going down there to stage a "debate."

In science, progress depends on experimentation and observation using the scientific method. The evidence and reports are usually heatedly debated and discussed, sometimes for years and even decades. Consensus is reached in a nondemocratic way. If the hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, it is rejected.

[...]
We are, however, vehemently opposed to the deliberate deception of presenting politically motivated religious viewpoints as science. It is destructive and antithetical to the usefulness of science, and history has shown that similar politicizations of science have been incredibly destructive to our moral, ethical and material progress...

― kingfish, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 20:46 (nineteen years ago)

Paging Al Gore... paging Al Gore: someone has discovered what's going on!

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/151/hotnewszh2.jpg

― StanM, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

Spinal Tap Reunites for Live Earth To Fight Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxSvF8iNEPg

― latebloomer, Saturday, 28 April 2007 01:36 (nineteen years ago)

Glenn Beck explains it all:

"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government." He continued: "You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming." Beck added: "Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."

― kingfish, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:03 (nineteen years ago)

seven months pass...

Can someone redirect me to the thread about the Bali climate talks, if it exists?

So the talks yielded an agreement on a framework to work on updating the existing framework on climate change in two years. For the next two years, there will be no binding restraints on carbon emissions in the U.S. and China, among others.

In other words, a complete failure.

The talks were notable for the loud booing and hissing directed at the United States delegates during the last day for its "refusal to agree to language requiring rich countries to provide measurable technical assistance and money to poorer countries that take meaningful steps." (link) Props to the delegate in Papua New Guinea who said “We seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way.”

― Z S, Saturday, 15 December 2007 18:26 (eighteen 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.