Global Darkening Threat From Environmental Degradation

[TimG]

Tim, it is the vast vast vast majority of scientists including economists who are telling us to pay more attention to this issue.

You don't help you case by making up BS. The vast majority of scientists have no qualifications to express an opinion that should be given any more weight than anyone else. Economists are all over the map but many a favour carbon tax out of principle but also acknowledge that great leaps in technology are required before a carbon tax will make any difference to emissions.

It's just plain nuts.

What is plain nuts is you ascribing knowledge of economics, politics and engineering to a group of people that have no training those fields. Show me a survey of power grid engineers that says the vast majority of them believe it is possible to provide CO2 free power without nuclear and I would pay attention. Until then your "scientists" are entitled to their opinion but its just that - an unsubstantiated opinion. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I am not saying it is not a valid response. I am saying that climate scientists have no qualifications that should make us care about their opinion. They are simply speaking as a citizen which means their opinion has no more relevance than a post on an internet discussion board.

That's not right. Scientists have an obligation to inform the public and influence policy, otherwise it's just an interesting hobby and not done for the advancement of humanity.

In fact, that's the biggest criticism I have of climate science is that they've failed to reach out directly to the public and expect that pre-internet and pre-cable TV communications strategies will get their ideas to the public for fair consideration.

It's odd to me that you seem to imply that science has too much influence on policy. How many American think warming isn't happening, for example ? Is that evidence of science having a strong hold on the public consciousness ?

[eyeball]

Your ignoring reality again Tim - the chasm of credibility between 95% vs 5% - and why you think voters should too.

[eyeball]

In fact, that's the biggest criticism I have of climate science is that they've failed to reach out directly to the public and expect that pre-internet and pre-cable TV communications strategies will get their ideas to the public for fair consideration.

What are scientists supposed to do, hit us over the head? It's not their fault the media gives equal if not more coverage to the ridiculous alongside the sublime.

Maybe it's because most big media and climate changing industries are probably owned by the same people that's cultivated this state of ignorance.

[TimG]

That's not right. Scientists have an obligation to inform the public and influence policy, otherwise it's just an interesting hobby and not done for the advancement of humanity.

Scientists informing the public is saying "human emitted CO2 is causing temperatures to rise and that might cause problems in the future". Scientists are being political advocates as soon as they demand that politicians "do something" because the best response to the science may be "wait and see" once you take into account factors which are outside of the scientist's domain.

In fact, that's the biggest criticism I have of climate science is that they've failed to reach out directly to the public and expect that pre-internet and pre-cable TV communications strategies will get their ideas to the public for fair consideration.

And they absolutely no business doing that either because they are not qualified to comment on what to do about rising CO2 levels.

Of course the peanut gallery demanding that we bow down to the wisdom of scientists completely rejects scientific results when it comes to GMOs or nuclear. In those domains the same people advocate that non-scientific political concerns should dictate policy. This hypocrisy really illustrates how self serving your argument is.

Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[eyeball]

Scientists informing the public is saying "human emitted CO2 is causing temperatures to rise and that might cause problems in the future".

They've been saying we might have problems for nearly 50 years now.

Scientists are being political advocates as soon as they demand that politicians "do something" because the best response to the science may be "wait and see" once you take into account factors which are outside of the scientist's domain.

Scientists probably never imagined people would ignore this for so long so they can probably be forgiven for getting a little political after having waited and seen the response or lack thereof.

[TimG]

Scientists probably never imagined people would ignore this for so long so they can probably be forgiven for getting a little political after having waited and seen the response or lack thereof.

50 years? Give me a break. There was no evidence supporting the theory until the late 90s. Even now the lack of warming since then makes it clear that there are gaping holes in the theory. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Of course the peanut gallery demanding that we bow down to the wisdom of scientists completely rejects scientific results when it comes to GMOs or nuclear. In those domains the same people advocate that non-scientific political concerns should dictate policy. This hypocrisy really illustrates how self serving your argument is.

Even if that's true, it seems rather like ignoring every idea emanating from the realm of conservative thinkers simply because a proportion of them (a DISproportion, frankly) believe we should teach Creationism in schools, or that End Times theology is a good reason to support Israeli settlements.

These two, widely held, cherished notions don't mean that Andrew Coyne or Bernard Lewis or the late Raul Hilberg--or any number of strong conservative thinkers--should be cast aside, or even viewed with suspicion thanks to associative principles.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am not saying it is not a valid response. I am saying that climate scientists have no qualifications that should make us care about their opinion. They are simply speaking as a citizen which means their opinion has no more relevance than a post on an internet discussion board.

Yes, and worse yet, some of them have tried to parlay their opinions into well paying media careers. Not so special after all....

[waldo]

50 years? Give me a break. There was no evidence supporting the theory until the late 90s. Even now the lack of warming since then makes it clear that there are gaping holes in the theory.

no - try the early/late seventies. There is no lack of warming... there is a (presumed) reduction in the rate of surface temperature warming, albeit it's based on short-term trending. Of course, as is your way, you prefer to isolate on surface temperature while ignoring ocean warming - of course you do. Of course, your 'little paws' claims seem to be unravelling, hey? I'm surprised you haven't brought forward the latest study that has the denialsphere so in a tizzy. Look maw, no paws! (of course, standard single-study caveat applies)!

[Michael Hardner]

What are scientists supposed to do, hit us over the head? It's not their fault the media gives equal if not more coverage to the ridiculous alongside the sublime.

They have been caught napping by the new media revolution. While it's true that monied groups have certain resources to win the debate, it's also true that the other side has more grassroots support.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, and worse yet, some of them have tried to parlay their opinions into well paying media careers. Not so special after all....

There's not a single discrete thought in your head that somebody has not tried to parlay into lucrative careers of one kind or another, up to and including the most benign or cherished of human notions.

[Michael Hardner]

Scientists informing the public is saying "human emitted CO2 is causing temperatures to rise and that might cause problems in the future". Scientists are being political advocates as soon as they demand that politicians "do something" because the best response to the science may be "wait and see" once you take into account factors which are outside of the scientist's domain.

It's an academic argument, revolving around shades of meaning - therefore useless.

"Do something" might mean 'pay attention'.

Of course the peanut gallery demanding that we bow down to the wisdom of scientists completely rejects scientific results when it comes to GMOs or nuclear. ... This hypocrisy really illustrates how self serving your argument is.

That's true in general, but what group or individual specifically does this? Point them out and I will join you in pointing out the error of their ways.

[TimG]

They have been caught napping by the new media revolution. While it's true that monied groups have certain resources to win the debate, it's also true that the other side has more grassroots support.

Yes. If is was not for the grassroots support the skeptical POV would have been swamped by the massive amounts of money behind the IPCC/CO2 mitigation mafia.

The idea that climate scientists are davids battling goliaths is one of the most laughable ideas out there. The pro-mitigation side has had the full support of the establishment for years - it is the skeptics that had to depend on volunteer efforts on the part of dedicated bloggers to get the message out.

Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

"Do something" might mean 'pay attention'.

Sorry - do something does not mean 'pay attention' - it means do something - i.e. change policies. IOW - scientists are demanding policy changes when they have no expertise to allow them to determine if policy changes are the best course of action.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes. If is was not for the grassroots support the skeptical POV would have been swamped by the massive amounts of money behind the IPCC/CO2 mitigation mafia.

Agreed...this has been the 'warmies' and 'alarmists' biggest failure. They lost the media battle once "Mike's trick" and other shenanigans were exposed for what they are/were. The 'scientists' and their "sycophants" forgot what science is.

[bleeding heart]

Actually, there's some evidence--more for than against, at any rate--that the self-described sceptics are in fact losing the battle in terms of public opinion. Time will tell, of course, and I suspect it'll tell fairly soon.

[waldo]

Yes. If is was not for the grassroots support the skeptical POV would have been swamped by the massive amounts of money behind the IPCC/CO2 mitigation mafia.

The idea that climate scientists are davids battling goliaths is one of the most laughable ideas out there. The pro-mitigation side has had the full support of the establishment for years - it is the skeptics that had to depend on volunteer efforts on the part of dedicated bloggers to get the message out.

dedicated volunteer bloggers... none of whom are on the Heartland payroll, right?... none of whom have direct association with right-wing stink tanks... none of whom have direct association with denying GOP politicos... none of whom receive funding from fossil-fuel interests... none of whom are on FauxNews' speed-dial!

legitimate climate scientists keeping the poor denier man down!!! Gee, if only the fossil-fuel industry would step-up and provide a semblance of balance!

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. If is was not for the grassroots support the skeptical POV would have been swamped by the massive amounts of money behind the IPCC/CO2 mitigation mafia.

The business set has their own network and media to push bad science. The fact that mainstream science is supported by institutions is not proof of anything.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry - do something does not mean 'pay attention' - it means do something - i.e. change policies. IOW - scientists are demanding policy changes when they have no expertise to allow them to determine if policy changes are the best course of action.

It's an academic argument, especially considering that the powers that be haven't even been able to frame a popular debate.

[TimG]

Actually, there's some evidence--more for than against, at any rate--that the self-described sceptics are in fact losing the battle in terms of public opinion. Time will tell, of course, and I suspect it'll tell fairly soon.

Australians voted in a party that vowed to reverse the carbon tax. There is no sign that the US congress will change its mind - Obama is reduced to issuing executive orders. Climate change is a dead issue - the alarmists have lost and are losing more as the true cost of their misguided policies is becoming clear to voters in places from Germany to Japan. Push polls don't change the reality of policies that are being watered down or rescinded around the world. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

The business set has their own network and media to push bad science.

And the pro-CO2 mitigation has its own junk science network funded by Greenpeace, WWF and other NGOs which always get a sympathetic ear from the media. The amount of money spent by lobby groups like Greenpeace in support of CO2 mitigation far out-strips the money spent by industry opposing it. In fact, unlike the oil companies the IPCC often seeks the advice if Greenpeace when it is writing its reports - which goes to show where the IPCC bias lies. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And the pro-CO2 mitigation has its own junk science network funded by Greenpeace, WWF and other NGOs which always get a sympathetic ear from the media.

There is no Greenpeace WWF TV network that has any ratings to speak of.

The amount of money spent by lobby groups like Greenpeace in support of CO2 mitigation far out-strips the money spent by industry opposing it.

Really ? I haven't thought about lobbying on this much, do you have a source for this one ?

[TimG]

There is no Greenpeace WWF TV network that has any ratings to speak of.

MSNBC, CBC, BBC all act as a mouth pieces for propaganda from Greenpeace et. al. But I was not talking about TV networks - I was talking about networks in a broader sense of the term.

Really ? I haven't thought about lobbying on this much, do you have a source for this one ?

Greenpeace allow has a yearly budget of $500 million which is spent entirely on lobbying for environmental causes. A large portion goes to climate change lobbying. In 2008 Al Gore got $300 million for pro-CO2 mitigation lobbying (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/31/algore.uselections08.climate). Plus all of the money spent by various rent seekers looking to cash in on climate change policies (farmers and bio-fuels, solar/wind subsidies, etc). It adds up. Edited November 24, 2013 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Australians voted in a party that vowed to reverse the carbon tax. There is no sign that the US congress will change its mind - Obama is reduced to issuing executive orders. Climate change is a dead issue - the alarmists have lost and are losing more as the true cost of their misguided policies is becoming clear to voters in places from Germany to Japan. Push polls don't change the reality of policies that are being watered down or rescinded around the world.

Are you saying the Australian vote was a single-issue matter of the carbon tax? Do you have any evidence for this?

As for the rest, it might be that you're too ensconced in an echo chamber. (Maybe not, I'm just wondering).

I'll take your point on polls, for the sake of argument--but I'd also wonder why--unlike every other major contentious issue you could name, probably without exception--we haven't seen any polls going demonstrably and clearly the other way. As you surely agree, it's not above some people who share your views to commission push polls...so where are they?

But more to the point, do you have any evidence at all for your claim...and I'm of course only asking for arguable evidence (as that's all we've got on any stance here). The electoral politics don't mean much...when you say "from [Australia to] Germany to Japan...do you mean ONLY Australia, Germany and Japan?

And even there, as I said, what were the other electoral issues? The only "single issue" wins we see with any regularity are economic issues...and that in itself is never a "single issue," making the point moot, I think.