How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[Tyger]

I just want to point out that the name of this thread doesn't lend itself to any kind of debate. It basically infers that anyone who is a "climate denier" is silly. So any response from "climate deniers" will not necessarily be nice based on the fact that they are being called silly from the get-go. If you want to have a debate or non-antagonistic discussion, you don't have a thread with this title. It's doomed to be combative and pointless.

BTW, being called 'silly' is far more benign than some of the venom being thrown about by the deniers. Just saying.

Also, the 'silliness' is from the push-back on the science, which is incomprehensible to anyone who has really studied the literature. So yes, deniers sound 'silly'. But the denial has serious consequences for everyone.

I think the quote from Krugman says it all, explains it all. I'll re-post the part that really struck me: ""What makes rational action on climate so hard is something else --- a toxic mix of ideology and anti-intellectualism.

"Well, think about global warming from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously, believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesn't matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct challenge to the libertarian worldview.

"And the natural reaction is denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you'll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage of the denialists.

"The fact that climate concerns rest on scientific consensus makes things even worse, because it plays into the anti-intellectualism that has always been a powerful force in American life, mainly on the right. It's not really suprising that so many right-wing politicians and pundits quickly turned to conspiracy theories, to accusations that thousands of researchers around the world were colluding in a gigantic hoax whose real purpose was to justify a big government power grab. After all, right -wingers never liked or trusted scientists in the first place.

"So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostitilty to science. In some ways this make the task easier; we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept huge monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed." "

 

[pixelsmith]

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome,
Premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations/IPCC

 

[technomage]

Unfortunately, quoting Krugman doesn't help me as I disagree with pretty much everything he says.

 

[pixelsmith]

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

 

[pixelsmith]

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

 

[pixelsmith]

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

 

[pixelsmith]

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

 

[pixelsmith]

“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

 

[pixelsmith]

“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

- Michael E. Mann | Climategate Emails

 

[pixelsmith]

“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” – Phil Jones

 

[pixelsmith]

Tyger your own side admits lying, deceitful practices and data manipulation. Give it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[manxman]

I like this comment from tyger, the irony of his little jibes about silly etc etc, then oozing support for krugman, is proper sweet.

Any iota of critical thought has been abandoned when he presents that piece as being a defining arguement, when he oozes over the Multiple-fallacy ridden piece, one hand isnt enough to count the 'appeals' on, never mind the rest, its funny shit really, especially when you can easily sense he is the only one getting wound-up tight as a spring, he oozes frustration in his posting to you, then talks this shyte below, funny stuff.

And the 'serious consequences' for everyone is quiet good to, just doesnt say when.

But ok lets take it 'seriously', i mean very very very '''seriously''', i mean cummon,, people are dropping dead all around us from ''catastrophic climate change'', i mean how much more serious can it get.
......................

BTW, being called 'silly' is far more benign than some of the venom being thrown about by the deniers. Just saying.

Also, the 'silliness' is from the push-back on the science, which is incomprehensible to anyone who has really studied the literature. So yes, deniers sound 'silly'. But the denial has serious consequences for everyone.

I think the quote from Krugman says it all, explains it all.

 

[Burnt State]

Tyger your own side admits lying, deceitful practices and data manipulation. Give it up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As predicted, the quote bomb followed, but zero response to critcism, just simplistic insult. I go back to a previous question asked in other threads, are you actually paid by the Koch brothers, as I don't understand all the attack and your own perpetual state of denial with nothing really of your own to support a position or a wilingness to respond properly to critiques of it?

Are you a politician?

 

[pixelsmith]

I have common sense and actual data on my side. You have bought and paid for science and politics on yours.

 

[Tyger]

As predicted, the quote bomb followed, but zero response to critcism, just simplistic insult.

It explains why so many stay away from the Climate threads and why all discourse grinds to a halt. This is troll behavior. I think it's clear that the less directed in that direction the better, though the whole point is to drown out the discussion with noise, so it will never stop. Doesn't seem right but so it is.

 

[Burnt State]

I have common sense and actual data on my side. You have bought and paid for science and politics on yours.

Actually, it's the exact opposite from my persective. The only pseudo facts I've seen from you have in fact been Koch sponsored or petroleum industry funded like that weird weatherman doc you posted about the guy who speaks for the oil industry.

I am interested in politics only to the extent that I can vote for a social welfare system, free & universal health care and progressive approaches to transportation. But there are no political parties that come close to my perspectives on equity or environmentalism, or have the power to develop such policies into reality, though the Greens come the closest so far.

 

[pixelsmith]

Koch sponsors observed data?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pixelsmith]

We go by actual observed data.
You and the paid scientists use climate models.
You lose. Period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Please note that it is decentralization that is the key. The old centralized model that we currently labor under cannot continue. Can anyone wonder at the resistance to the solutions? The current 'regime' ain't keen to see the power slip from their grasp!

DiCaprio: In a Few Decades, Renewable Energy Could Supply 100% of Our World's Needs
LINK: DiCaprio: In a Few Decades, Renewable Energy Could Supply 100% of Our World's Needs | Thom Hartmann

TEXT Posted: 11/03/2014 10:10 am EST Updated: 11/03/2014 11:59 am EST: "Green World Rising, one episode of a four-part documentary series produced in collaboration with Leonardo DiCaprio, is a clarion call to save our species.

"U.N. delegates and the world's leading scientists are meeting in Copenhagen this week before releasing another frightening report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report will warn governments around the world that persistent burning of greenhouse gasses is, "increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems."

"This is just the latest in a string of climate reports by intergovernmental bodies, universities, and research teams trying to pin down what planet Earth will look like if it continues its trajectory toward a two to three degree Celsius increase in global temperatures and beyond. The picture is grim, but there still is hope to saving our species and world from the most devastating effects of rapid climate change.

"It begins by recognizing the problem. As Leonardo DiCaprio states right off the top in the documentary, "Climate change is happening now and is caused by human activity." That means we must fundamentally change human activity: from how we generate energy to how we transport goods and ourselves from place to place to how we grow our food.

"In Green World Rising, we're introduced to new solar, wind, and geothermal industries on the cutting edge of a green world. Like Mosaic, Inc., which is "banking on the sun" by deploying solar panels on residential rooftops giving individuals energy freedom from dirty coal fired power plants as well as a financial kick-back when that excess solar energy is spread around the grid to others.

"This form of "decentralization" is crucial in the development of alternative energies. To beat back the worst effects of climate change, we have to replace our 19th and 20th century modes of energy and food production and transportation.

"No longer tethered to centralized fossil fuel depots, electric cars and trains and eventually planes will be able to move us around the planet in a clean, efficient manner while also reducing our global carbon emission by one-third.

"And the giant centralized factory farms that have come to dominate the food industry with their pesticides and disregard for the soil, can be replaced by small, organic, bio-diverse farms focused on local food production.

"The threat of climate change is real. But, as DiCaprio states, "We have the solutions. Human ingenuity working alongside Earth's natural systems is building a new world that is sustainable and self-reliant."

"This can be done within our lifetimes. Green World Rising shows us how. It's an important film that's part of a crucially important film series that comes at a time when our place on this planet is in peril."

TEXT: "Published on Oct 30, 2014 Green World Rising is the 3rd film in the Green World Rising series. The film shows how we can be 100% off fossil fuels in a few decades. Narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio, presented by Thom Hartmann, directed by Leila Conners and produced by George DiCaprio, Mathew Schmid, Earl Katz and Roee Sharon Peled. Created by Tree Media with the support of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation."

 

[Tyger]

IPCC Advises “Almost Entirely” Eliminating Unrestricted Use of Fossil Fuels By 2100
November 3, 2014 | by Lisa Winter
LINK: IPCC Advises “Almost Entirely” Eliminating Unrestricted Use of Fossil Fuels By 2100 | IFLScience

TEXT: "A synthesis report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published on November 1 in Copenhagen highlights the dire nature of an increasingly-warming planet. The panel reiterated the role humans have played in creating the problem through industrialization and pollution. The report warns that if the majority of energy sources are not low-carbon by 2050, there could be serious consequences. Additionally, they recommend that unrestricted use of fossil fuels be “almost entirely” eliminated by the end of the century. The IPCC report calls for some big changes, but claims they are feasible as long as everyone is willing to work together for the greater good.

" “We have the means to limit climate change,” stated IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri in a press release. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge and an understanding of the science of climate change.”

"One of the biggest complaints against moving toward renewable and sustainable sources of energy is the cost. Implementing new ideas will require money, whereas the means of acquiring and using fossil fuels are already in place. However, this short-term thinking will end up costing more in the end, beyond what can just be measured in monetary terms.

"Acidification of oceans threatens marine life including hard-shelled animals, coral reefs, and will impact sharks’ hunting abilities. Melting glaciers will result in rising sea levels that displace millions around the globe and destroy infrastructure. Weather will become more erratic as certain areas experience flooding while others deal with droughts. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are the highest they’ve been in 800,000 years, threatening future global food supplies. These are expected to reach unstoppable tipping points if drastic changes to reduce greenhouse emissions are not made soon.

"While these changes will affect people living on every continent, those who have the most to lose are the ones who aren’t among the most industrialized (meaning they aren’t contributing to the problem) and depend on local resources to survive. Thus, global initiatives must be done to protect those vulnerable populations.

"The report also found that overall, making aggressive changes toward mitigating the effects of climate change and adopting clean energy sources would have limited changes to consumption and growth. The report estimates that these changes could affect growth by about 4% compared to what is currently predicted to occur by 2100. The reduction in pollution would also lead to better heath, reducing lost productivity and hospitalizations, which is not currently tabulated into that figure.

" “It is technically feasible to transition to a low-carbon economy,” explained Youba Sokona, co-chair of Working Group III. “But what is lacking are appropriate policies and institutions. The longer we wait to take action, the more it will cost to adapt and mitigate climate change.” "