I don't have much of an introduction to this one, it's a continuation of my debate with EM where I'm considering the Republican disconnect from physical facts and basic honesty. Here I'm light on the links and stick to verbal jousting.
________________________________________________________
- CC wrote: “Nonsense! The right wing media machine is saturated with people denying the fundamentals of AGW. Just need to google it, or try YouTube for hundreds of real zingers. {This deception is the first “tell” that we are dealing with a disingenuous individual.}”
- EM responded: Disingenuous? Okay, but even still, MOST (not all) rational individuals, whether they believe that we should dramatically reduce emissions or not at all, believe that the Earth is warming and that this warming can be contributed to human carbon emissions.
________________
Wrong answer. Lip service won’t do.
To be clear - all of today’s warming can be attributed to human influences. Were our natural cycles unfolding without humanity’s interference, Earth would be in a slow cooling period.
Furthermore, to be clear continued unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions will go well beyond destroying our global economy, it will destroy today’s biosphere, the one that was tailor made for humanity. Deny all you want, it’s still unavoidable physics.
__________________________________________
- EM responded: Yeah, some people tell themselves that AGW doesn’t exist, and they often have loud mouths {Yeah, like entire Republican Party power structure!}. This doesn’t mean, however, that everyone (Republicans, Libertarians, the fucking Whig party; it doesn’t really matter what label you attach), who doesn’t believe that government market intervention is the way to solve the issue is a liar, a schemer, or a societal-parasite.
________________
Why not?
Liar is as liar does.
If you must deliberately suppress important down to Earth facts, because it interferes with your immediate self-interested goals, that would make you a liar.
If you are “scheming” to hide and misrepresent the seriousness of climate science and its implications you will find yourself a social parasite soon enough. Just wait and see.
__________________________________________
- EM responded: It means they have a different opinion on how to deal with the issue.
________________
It’s got nothing to do with “difference of opinion!” - It’s about climbing into a delusional state of mind about a reality that touches all of us and our children.
How pray tell can we deal with critically important situations when half the team refuses to even acknowledge that we have a real and serious problem?
That’s not an "opinion challenge", that’s a basic honestly challenge !
__________________________________________
- EM responded: Or maybe they don’t want to address the issue, but that doesn’t make supply-side social and economic theorists “climate-deniers”.
________________
Why not!?
EM, I dare you to please explain how that logic works. Unidirectional skepticisms equals denial - lip service without any follow through is likewise ‘denial.’
__________________________________________
- CC wrote: “You say you don't want to argue about the existence of the human-contribution to climate change and then proceed to do just that in a wishy-washy way. What gives?”
- EM responded: Because it does exist. As I’ve said many times at this point. The wishy-washiness of my post can be attributed to a lack of articulation, not deception.
________________
EM, I would suggest the wishy-washiness comes from your own cognitive dissonance between, “knowing” about global warming, but conceptually being convinced that the economy is more important.
Unfortunately the truth you turn your back on is that the economy is dependent on moderate and predictable weather patterns.
Thing is, our gluttonous drive for endless economic growth and ever increasing fossil fuels burning is destroying the climate regime that was so nurturing for our flamboyant society.
The snake that eats itself, so to speak.
__________________________________________
- CC wrote: “Why do you think the scientific community has been self-serving? Please offer some examples.”
- EM responded: I never said the scientific community is self-serving or disingenuous. However, if you think that all climate lobbyists are doing what they do only in order to “save the planet”, you are being extremely naïve in your world view.
________________
Your first comment to me back in December included: “Honestly, I think both sides of the AWG debate are self-interested and self-serving.” Upon rereading seems there too you shift to the 'public debate', while I’m steadfastly about defending serious scientists and the scientific understanding they have arrived at, nothing beyond that. Plenty of ill informed people on both sides. But that is because of a deliberate one-sided effort to confuse and dump down people, spearheaded by Republicans.
I want to focus this debate on the need to collectively accept what the community of serious climate scientists has to say.
__________________________________________
- EM responded: When there is money to be made, as with any issue, it becomes highly publicized.
________________
So why are you ignoring the one’s with the most money at stake? The people who might be most interested in politicizing the issue? Namely fossil fuels interests such as Exxon.
__________________________________________
- EM responded: This is my biggest critique of the the entire AGW debate (debate in regards to response, NOT existence). It’s truly a travesty that our two-party system turned this issue into a political one instead of a humanitarian one.
________________
Political issue, … humanitarian issue?
How about calling it an education issue? Or, an honesty issue?
__________________________________________
- EM responded: Climate sciences would benefit greatly if AGW was viewed outside of the political spectrum. And here we agree: republicans/conservative and all of these AGW deniers have played a huge role in the polarization of the issue.
________________
Granted. Though you seem to forget that the halls of science conferences tend to be outside the political and media frenzy, you would do good to pay more attention to what they have to share with you.
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Report by Chapters
Click to on the link to download the chapter, graphics, authors etc.
1 Front Matter - 0.8MB
2 Summary for Policymakers - 2.3MB
3 Technical Summary - 18.1MB
Chapters
1 Introduction - 4.5MB
2 Observations: Atmosphere and Surface - 38.3MB
3 Observations: Ocean - 48.3MB
4 Observations: Cryosphere - 12.8MB
5 Information from Paleoclimate Archives - 10.8MB
6 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles - 23.8MB
7 Clouds and Aerosols - 19.2MB
8 Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing - 18.9MB
9 Evaluation of Climate Models - 24.6MB
10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional - 10.4MB
11 Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability - 14.1MB
12 Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility - 36.6MB
13 Sea Level Change - 32.9MB
14 Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change - 10.6MB
Annexes
I Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections - 44.7MB
II Climate System Scenario Tables - 1.5MB
III Glossary - 0.4MB
IV Acronyms - 0.1MB
V Contributors to the WGI Fifth Assessment Report - 0.2MB
VI Expert Reviewers of the WGI Fifth Assessment Report - 0.5MB
VII
1 Index 0.2MB
2 Errata 5.4MB (Updated 11/12/2015)
__________________________________________
- EM responded: But, so has the other-side. Both sides have chosen their “response” to AGW inside a political vacuum, with no room for negation or concessions on either-side.
________________
Why are you ignoring that one side has spent decades dedicated to deliberately misinforming people? Their mission has been misinform, confuse and politicize. When what we need is honest curiosity and a constructive learning process.
__________________________________________
- EM responded: This isn’t only problematic for science, it’s also problematic for creating any real change. If we have a progressive agenda that has no regard for the concerns (economic, not causal) of the other side like we have seen from the current administration, there should be no surprise that the agenda of the incoming administration aims to undo what they see as a slight from the other side.
________________
Now what’s all that garbage about. “progressive agenda that has no regard for the concerns (economic, not causal)” Man, that sounds like pure partisan political bitching.
Although, what I hear you saying is, “economy is more important that honesty learning about what climate scientists have to teach us.”
__________________________________________
________________________________________
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.
No comments:
Post a Comment