New debate - treachery or delusion?

| 11 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
Here's a debate:  Is AGW denialism treachery or delusion?

ChasAddamsCrop.jpg


Global warming is unfolding faster than expected.
CO2 makes global warming worse, and happen sooner
Carbon fuels generate CO2; more CO2 emissions make the problem worse.
The only known way to reduce CO2 is to reduce fossil fuel combustion
All this is well known and agreed to by all -  except by denialists
These people disagree, deny and obstruct by claiming CO2 is blameless
They may be delusional, or they may be paid propagandists
Either way they are wrong.
If we work to make our world safe, and somebody purposefully gets in the way,
They are making us unsafe.  Even if they really believe otherwise.
Appeasing CO2 polluters hastens human demise
An obstructionist denier who blocks or delays information is harming everyone, even themselves.
Even if they believe it themselves, they pitch scientific falsehoods.
Denialists are not acting like flat-earth believers, or Holocaust deniers, or Elvis Spotters.
These are not silent believers, these are active obstructionists.
While they are entitled to their beliefs, they are not permitted to endanger others.
Their actions hinder our survival
CAddams.jpg
No matter what their beliefs or intentions,
Their actions amount to treachery and sabotage.
And we cannot allow them to continue. 
They are now on notice that this is very serious.
Your belief in delusional magic is yours alone. Keep it to yourself.
If you are a paid shill from a carbon fuel company, paid to believe something,
paid to promote and influence a falsehood, then your actions are treason.
You betray a human future with your allegiance to industry or money.
Your intentional obstruction is no longer acceptable.
As global warming disasters pile up and get worse,
your voice will sound shrill and crazy to those of us suffering.
You might want to hold your beliefs in silence.

If you hold contrarian denialism in your mind,
it will be hard to distinguish from professional public relations
Neither is benign.


This issue is discussed further in Climate Progress

If we fail to heed the warning of our top scientists, if we fail to adopt the low-cost strategies need to avert the incalculably high-cost consequences (widespread desertification, large and rapid sea level rise, loss of the inland glaciers, extinction of most species, fatal acidification of the ocean, and on and on), nobody is going to be writing books labeling us "the greatest generation." We will at best be "the greediest generation" and perhaps even "the first unpatriotic generation" since we were the first who would not bear any burden or pay any price to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the next generation.

But that is how future generations will label us. We haven't failed yet. Should we question the patriotism of deniers? That is a tough call, made even tougher since they question our patriotism even as we fight to save their children and their children's children from their own ignorance and indifference.

I suppose the answer is "no," we shouldn't stoop to their tactics -- readers can weigh in with other views -- but I will say that if we are going to save this great nation, progressives are going to have to fight back much harder against the despicable actions of the deniers who practice polluter appeasement. Whatever we are currently doing, it ain't enough.

The time to act is yesterday.


 

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.climatedebatedaily.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rpauli/managed-mt/mt-tb.cgi/69

11 Comments

Please leave politics and emotional blackmail out of science

I would be grateful if in defense of your theory you could address the following facts because at the moment they remain woefully unanswered by the AGW
and as a result I can not subscribe to AGW.

I like millions of others have no political bias and could be convinced of AGW if the science was addressed
but instead all we get is emotional blackmail and political posturing

1 Why, prior to the industrial revolution was the medieval warming period warmer
than today?

2 Why the vostock ice core data shows an 800 year lag between temperature/ co2
correlation...... or in other words 'warming happens first and co2 follows'

3 In the previous warming periods which occur as regular as clockwork,
incidentally the current one is right on cue,
man made emission can not have been the cause.
So why is the current interglacial any different?

4 We all agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas but it's affect is greatly diminished anything above 20ppm


awaiting a reply.hue

No.
Don't force me, force the entire planet suffer from your extra CO2. You harbor a HUGE political bias. You have no intention of ever accepting global warming. But just in case,

http://www.edf.org/documents/4418_MythsvFacts_05.pdf
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-in-case-there-are-any-doubts-about.html
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

it would be easy to stoop to your level of playround tactics
in 2 sentences you've managed 3 judgment calls and an attempt at emotional blackmail....... sadly typical of the AGW brigade but the upside is plenty of amusement,you've made my day thanks Rik.

Rik - Thanks for reading.

In this issue - the science and the political get hopelessly mixed up. I didn't ask to combine them. You can and should argue politics all you want, and you can even argue science.. but when it comes to the laws of physics, words mean very little.

OK lets leave the words lets take action.
I'm going to run with AGW for a moment............

the sky is falling what can we do?,well plenty as it turns out.
We can prohibit all none essential CO2 producing activity,
not by 2010 or 2050 but now,C'mon lets do it,lets fulfil our moral obligation not with money making scams like cap and trade but with action now.......our planet is suffocating, we need to walk the walk right now it is our moral duty, our beautiful planet and our children deserve it.
We could cut CO2 emissions now! this instant by at least 90%..
All production and use of none essential electrical items could be banned.
All none essential production of any nature could cease.
You'd have to go without lifes little luxuries like coffee and toast,tv's,newspapers,
a/c units,mobile phones,ice boxes,ice cream,vacum cleaners and computers......the list is endless
Don't tell me we can't do it,we can, 2 billion people already do,so can we

So if the sky is falling and it's a case of damage limitation why arn't we doing it right now.I'll tell you why,it's a scam it's a money making machine ......it's Al Gores 10% stake in the worlds biggest carbon trading company
Give me one legitimate excuse for not doing it?,and don't say money please it won't wash for this is an emergency that demands our 100% commitment is'nt it?
Extinction or money errr....let's see which is it?.
Please don't moralize you don't have a leg to stand on.

H.L. Mencken says it best:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and thus clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

What is the true, but unspoken agenda, of the “global warming is caused by humans and its a terrible threat to humanity” advocates? It is not to save the world; instead, it is to be used as justification for draconian governmental control of all aspects of the economy - down to the very last penny in your pocket.

Serenity now.......

I can agree with HL Mencken here. However, politics has no impact what-so-ever on science and thermodynamics. There are plenty of politically manufactured and enhanced issues to go around..... Ask the insurance industry for some real issues - they know exactly what is most dangerous and where the greatest risk lies. The solution is scientific and mechanically predictable. What humans decide to do in order to survive another few generations may have little to do with political differences between them or whether you and I want to pay taxes.

Where and what is the actual empirical, scientific evidence (NOT anecdotal), derived through experiemtation conducted under rigorous adherence to the scientific method, that proves the so called atmospheric "greenhouse effect" is anything more that theoretical? I have not seen it, because it does not exist.

This is a prime example of the age-old truth that the longer, and more frequently a lie is repeated, the more indistinguishable from the truth it becomes.

Do they pay you for each time you spout such drivel? By the blog? Or by the posting?

It is really simple. Much like seeing our flat earth which is really a globe, or like the sun which does not appear to be the center of the solar system, or plate tectonics, there is no proof to anything unless you open your eyes.

A greenhouse is well known to most people who grow anything - farmers readily understand greenhouses. You can too. But I am not sure you want to. The science is known and fairly easy to understand.

And global climate destabilization from human emission of greenhouse gasses will proceed according to fairly well know science models. The only problem for humans is the political one... and that is the real battleground - the politics. The science will unfolding according to scientific laws whether you want to understand them or not. However, I suggest you at least respect the law of gravity... or rather the theory of gravity.

Your comment is a very common campaign statement from organized fossil fuels PR campaigns. (Aren't you supposed to use your own words?) Your attitude is really a challenge of all science, and nothing I can say or show will cause you to see or understand anything. I am not sure where the real human is situated in this organized astroturf campaign. Your comment is so common and seems designed to distract completely.

But just in case you are a curious person, I refer you to some elegant videos on CO2 emissions at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

You might seek out a high school course in science. And stay away from working on those astroturf campaigns, you are not very good at it and you are an unwitting pawn in a dangerous game.

I have some news for you. ITS OVER. Nothing you can say or do is going to make the CRU e-mails go away and nothing you can say will provide the ipcc with any credibility because we know that they employed internal peer reviewed procedures and we know that many of the contributing scientists did not and do not agree with the 2007 report summary. The cat is well and truly out of the bag and is being chased by al gore with his five fingers in the air, proving just what a pathetice joke it is. ITS OVER

Indeed it is over. Nothing we can do to restore the Arctic ocean into an Arctic ice cap. Shipping companies are delighted to see the NorthWest Passage now open -- since they can go from Asia to Europe saving thousands of miles. People have been eager to find that for centuries.

So it sounds like you will now have to make your own observations about changes. I prefer to regard the work of scientists and data gatherers, but you can just look at a thermometer yourself. Maybe ask some old timers. But I would not trust oil companies to deliver science about CO2 and burning carbon. But that is just me. You will have to make up your own mind, or decide who you want to listen to.

Recent Entries

Seismic activity linked to global warming
Finally, human civilization is starting to get global warming events that it can FEEL.   Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes.  …
Should science set global warming policy ?
Science defines global warming so well, and science can tell us how to best mitigate the problem What is the…
New debate - treachery or delusion?
Here's a debate:  Is AGW denialism treachery or delusion? Global warming is unfolding faster than expected.CO2 makes global warming worse,…
New debate: Hopeful or Doomed?
The answer is both: the day breaks both to doom and a hopeful dawn. A good friend writes of his…
CO2 effects well into the year 3000
And our children’s children cannot escape it either. Even if we suddenly halted all CO2 and reverted to the pure…
Behavioral Economics Ultimatum Game
The Ultimatum Game is a deceptively simple test of human economic attitude. It goes like this:   The experimenter tells…
Humans shall persist and thrive - Pro or Con?
Crazy is doing the same thing over-and-over and expecting a different result.    Climatedebatedaily.com continues crazy postings trying to establish and…
Just up ahead...
Now we are in the midst of crafting our long term economy while adjusting to the ravages of a…
Argues with Idiots
That would be my Indian name.   Argues-with-Idiots.  I am tilting at the windmill of human denial about the danger of…
Looming Heat Storm Has No End
Humans have decided to accept the risk of certain warming in exchange for easy, cheap carbon fuels.   Of course, mass…
Understanding Ourselves - thanks Wikipedia
Wikipedia can save the world through helping us understand ourselves better Some human traits work to block progress in facing…
How bad? and When? Answer: Worse and Sooner
I try to avoid expressing my hypervigilance much  - but this may be appropriate.  Global warming is totally ignored.  Global…