Why the right can't accept the truth of manmade climate change

[Hayabusa Rider]

You know people make fun of the Bible, but there some valuable things in it.

For example, one of my favorite people is Pontius Pilate who remarked "What is Truth?"

It's a profound question, and it seems that it hasn't been found here. What is most wanted isn't the reality of the situation, but the vindication of one's beliefs about it. That may not hold in individual cases, but as a rule? It seems that most people here and beyond adhere to that principle.

That's piss poor analysis.

 

[QuantumPion]

I can't take your posts seriously because every time I see your avatar I lol.

 

[nyker96]

I don't think they can't accept it, rather they cannot afford to accept it for if they did then they'd have to go against the wishes of their big business sponsors.

 

[PokerGuy]

Time for the believers to hold a rally. Everyone to the temple! Gore is sure to divine an answer for us!

 

[QuantumPion]

I don't think they can't accept it, rather they cannot afford to accept it for if they did then they'd have to go against the wishes of their big business sponsors.

Wait, are you for or against climate change? Your statement could apply to either side (although it is more likely attributed to the pro-climate change crowd, since they are the ones receiving the trillions in government grants and profiting from carbon trading / green energy schemes).

 

[zephyrprime]

You posit that mankind is powerful enough to inadvertently destroy an entire planet's ecosystem and yet not powerful enough to survive higher temperatures? Considering that mankind lives from the hottest tropics to damned near the arctic circle, that seems a bit, um, silly.

Ridiculous. You posit that any power great enough to create a given phenomenon is automatically powerful enough to withstand that same phenomenon.

We have nuclear bombs. They are certainly capable of destroying the planet's ecosystem if used to their full extent. Do you also suppose that doing so would not be a problem since we would also naturally have the wherewithal and technological power to withstand the resultant radiation and destruction of the environment? This is obviously not the case.

This is an extreme example but even lesser forms of this argument still yield the same result. A human is easily capable of surviving shooting himself in the foot. By your logic, it's no big deal to shoot oneself in the foot since I should naturally be able to deal with the consequences.

If global warming is real, then we should apply cost benefit analysis to dealing with the situation. Any such analysis would show that prevention of global warming is far less costly and more beneficial than accepting global warming and mitigating is negative effects.

 

[bfdd]

By all indications churning out large amounts of CO2 should be harming the environment and causing climate change, but the evidence is spotty on whether it is or isn't, so we should continue doing what we're doing. I just love this line of reasoning denyers use. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, it was mentioned in this thread how it keeps being applied t other "theories." Despite what we know of what should be, without undeniable proof that it is, it must be wrong.



Thanks for identifying yourself as part of the group "independents," and by your own reasoning admitting you are a sheep and need not be listened to. I was getting tired of this back and forth.

Someone must not know what the fuck the definition of "independent" is. I didn't say I was an Independent, I said I was an independent. Not to mention a group of "independents" doesn't really make sense does it? They wouldn't really be independent at that point. Keep digging though Gonad trying to smeer me, doesn't really work when you're such a moron though.

PS, I'm not a GW/CC denier, I just think there's to many unknowns for someone to say they fucking know ESPECIALLY when they can't prove it. Like I said, there have been tons of predictions, but not a single one got it right. Close doesn't count. If that's all you're basing your argument on you're just turning it into a religion.

 

[sonnygdude]

Any such analysis would show that prevention of global warming is far less costly and more beneficial than accepting global warming and mitigating is negative effects.

I would take issue to this statement... it could only be true if you accept that the PRIMARY cause of climate change is AGW. I would suggest that based on previous climatic events in the Earth's history, it would be immensely resource intensive if not impossible to prevent climate change. How would you suggest that technology could have staved off the last ice age?

I think the problem here is that everyone seems to be an AGW zealot or a denier, or at least likes to lump each other into those categories. I find it problematic that so many people accept all the predictions about AGW as fact when they are in fact still hypotheses. Just because "a lot of scientists tend to agree" is not sufficient proof - I'm sure the exact same argument was used back when Copernicus was a Ptolemy Denier.

 

[werepossum]

"Humanity surviving," is a pretty low bar. We have refugee populations fleeing war and mass murder who are surviving, but that doesn't mean their situation is an enviable one that we should try to emulate by having everyone become climatological refugees.

Technological societies also have the most to lose. Easier to rebuild a village of grass huts than New York City. Easier to feed your population when you never relied on anything but locally grown products produced by manual labor than when you are dependent on gigantic irrigation projects, artificial fertilization, huge machinery to plant, harvest, and transport the agricultural products, and the infrastructure to support it.

Dude, imagine if the toilet paper factories were destroyed!
Zombie apocalypse I could handle. Lack of toilet paper, though?
I think I'd die just being reduced to Scott.

Again, I fundamentally disagree. Look at any highly traumatic event - say, the recent tsunami. Which population survives better, the one sitting fat, dumb and happy in grass huts, or the one which receives some warning through phones, television, radio? When a drought or anomalous cold spell hits, which population survives better - the one raising the same crops around the huts for hundreds of years, with little or no access to alternate crops? Or the one with extensive knowledge of which crops grow best in different conditions, engineered crop variants for specific conditions, the ability to extensively fertilize, irrigate and/or protect crops as required, and the ability to transport large quantities very quickly from the haves to the have-nots?

Look at the effect of the Medieval Warm Period on England versus its affect on, say, Scotland. England, with a much better transportation network, much more widespread trading network, much more knowledge of (and access to) a variety of crops and other products, and a higher level of technology overall, prospered greatly from the warmer weather. Scotland prospered only slightly better than in the colder, more normal weather before. The whole point of technology is to develop security, prosperity, and above all else control over one's environment.

 

[shira]

Someone must not know what the fuck the definition of "independent" is. I didn't say I was an Independent, I said I was an independent. Not to mention a group of "independents" doesn't really make sense does it? They wouldn't really be independent at that point. Keep digging though Gonad trying to smeer me, doesn't really work when you're such a moron though.

PS, I'm not a GW/CC denier, I just think there's to many unknowns for someone to say they fucking know ESPECIALLY when they can't prove it. Like I said, there have been tons of predictions, but not a single one got it right. Close doesn't count. If that's all you're basing your argument on you're just turning it into a religion.

People such as you act as though "doing nothing" is somehow free. You're seemingly unable to understand that if you're wrong, "doing nothing" will result in a far, far greater cost down the road than the cost of "doing something" now will entail. Yet you pretend that "doing something" now is irresponsible and wasteful.

Ever heard of an insurance policy?

 

[BoberFett]

I should start up a global warming church. These nutters are more religious than any Christian I've ever met.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yep.

If people will listen conservatives are happy to tell why they unwilling to accept MMGW. There is no need to try and 'make up' their reasons.

The basic question is are we ready to pay trillions and trillions of $'s we don't have and change our way of life to avoid these predicted catastrophic consequences of excess CO2?

I think to answer 'yes' to that question several things need to be confirmed, there are several things to be sure about:

1. Are we sure that we're causing it? If so, then

2. Are we sure that the proposed measures will be effectice at alleviating our contribution to this problem? If so, then

3. Are we sure that the consequences of not investing in the proposed solution(s) are truly catastrophic?

Given the enormous costs, if any of the above questions cannot be answered with a very high degree of certainty I do not think it wise to proceed. These costs cannot be measured in merely money and discomfort, it will costs lives too. How we can bear this additional costs without sacrificing other costs? Do AIDS programs by the West save lives? Do other charitable causes/donations save lives in poor countries etc? What about medical or scientific research, can we maintain that too? How about our health care costs? Where do we cut? Folks, the 'money well' ain't bottomless.

What if we blow our resources but find out we missed the target, what then?

As it stands now I think people are advocating a massive investment based on incomplete data. I cannot support that.

Fern

I think this requires some clarification. We aren't even on to addressing your questions 2 and 3 yet, because most of the political right remains stuck on question 1. Accordingly, bringing up questions 2 and 3 is pure FUD to make the right look more rational here than it actually is. Frankly, those who believe that MMGW is a reality would be more than happy to discuss and debate your questions 2 and 3, but we aren't there yet. And the question the OP's article raises is: why? Why indeed, when there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

So why is it? Because there are a handful of scientists who remain skeptical? There are a handful of "dissenting" opinions in every area of science. The only reason lay people pay any attention to this particular group of dissenters is because we have full blown politically motivated denial of science going on here. This is no different than creationists disputing evolution because this or that Ph.D. says the evidence for evolution is shaky.

I will say it again: if you on the right want to disagree with policies that involve regulations and/or taxes, if you think the cost-benefit isn't favorable for these policies, if you want to suggest policies less radical or intrusive, then fine, let's have that discussion. But first you have to stop denying what the scientific community is telling us and stop spinning moronic conspiracy theories to explain it away.

- wolf

 

[EXman]

Thanks for coming in and reinforcing my point man.

LoL I like the way you sidestep anything you cannot answer.
proving my arguement to a T


This is why it is not worth talking to a know it all. They think they are smart ass hell but they couldn't fill a shot glass with the wisdom they do not have and escapes most libs.

 

[shira]

LoL I like the way you sidestep anything you cannot answer.
proving my arguement to a T


This is why it is not worth talking to a know it all. They think they are smart ass hell but they couldn't fill a shot glass with the wisdom they do not have and escapes most libs.

There's a possibility you haven't considered. I myself considered responding to your first post. But I soon realized you're a lost cause: You think Reagan is responsible for defeating communism. You think Reaganomics was responsible for the recovery. You think WMDs - as those weapons were framed by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq - were found. You think there's a conspiracy to suppress climate-change dissenters.

In short, everything you believe is untrue. And I know from experience that any knowledge I try to impart will only sink into a your bottomless well of bullshit. Why would I waste my time?