Global Warming Debate

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't care if you say its bollocks, as long as you give a reason, which so far as I see, you haven't, only specifying precisely what kind of bollocks you mean (pathetic cop-out), and claiming that my attribution of bias and double standard to all parties is the attitude deniers feed upon (which is quite contrary to my experience, by the way). If we were to start to throw a fit everyone someone called what we said "bollocks," we wouldn't get very far!

You are right, though, I didn't intend to frame your thought in personal terms. I should have said rather that your assumption that that the employment of hypocritical double-standards is characteristic of right-wing tactics implies that left-wing tactics are quite objective and unbiased.

Blowing up abortion clinics is right-wing extremism; slogans like "God hates fags" are right-wing extremism. Climate change denial is not "extremism," it's just silly.

As regards a counter-example, I don't keep up on these ideological debates, because they are pointless. However, one example does come to mind.

When Richard Dawkins' rejection of God is criticized, on the rounds of not actually understanding the arguments rejected, he famously responds with "I don't have to understand fairyology to know there's no such thing as fairies."

Both the Creationist response of "blinded by faith" and Dawkins response of "fairies" are intended to ridicule their opponent and to render them unworthy of consideration, without bothering to actually answer their points.

[The Gaffer]

OK, thanks for that! Dawkins is good value, isn't he. A good example of what there would be a lot more of if the lefty/atheist/scientist cabal was a bit less respectful of bollocks. Although he's hardly rabid. Do you think of him as having extreme views?

I think I did give a very specific example btw: denialist idiots vs sober scientists. By responding soberly to these idiots, we only encourage their idiocy.

But this is interesting:

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

attribution of bias and double standard to all parties is the attitude deniers feed upon (which is quite contrary to my experience, by the way).

What's your experience of this?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, I don't. I wanted to use a pretty mainstream example.

I think I did give a very specific example btw: denialist idiots vs sober scientists. By responding soberly to these idiots, we only encourage their idiocy.

This is my fault for starting the "non-quoting trend," but I'm not sure what this refers to. Could you clarify?

What's your experience of this?

My experience is that they say basically the same thing as you, only inverted. You say "Climate change deniers employ biased tactics, and twist the facts to get the results they want." They say "Climate change fearmongers employ biased tactics, and twist the facts to get the results they want." The implication to both statements is "They are cheating, but we are playing fair." I think there are extremely few conflicts in human history which a simple dichotomy like that could adequately express. To my mind, a more realistic approach is based on the great postmodern insight that objectivity is impossible, which would acknowledge that really, we all cheat.

[The Gaffer]

Re: clarification, I'm not entirely sure what I'm clarifying, and have had a decent amount of some rather tasty red wine, so I will leave that for now if that's OK with you.

But re: dichotomies etc, yes, I agree, and that is the problem. The denialists appeal to that "insight". Or rather, they rely on it. Non-experts witnessing such a debate are naturally going to think "Jings, these guys are going at it about a load of complicated and scary stuff, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle."

My view is that this is a specific tactic, employed by the (right-wing) denial industry, in order to take advantage of this natural human tendency. You create the illusion of an equal-sided debate in order to shift the "centre of gravity" in that debate in your direction. It doesn't matter how much of a load of crap your argument is, you just throw it out there. All it needs is to be remotely plausible. "Hmm, what stuff can we throw at them? Hey, we are only in it for the money, so they must be too. Let's use that one. Bingo!" Not only is it hypocritical, it's really, really unimaginative.

You simply don't see that sort of tactic from the Left. Or at least I haven't. You see manifold other daftness of course, but not that one. You see it everywhere you go from the Right.

And I agree that it's postmodernism writ large. Doubly ironic (and hypocritical) then, that these same people are the ones who will rant and rave about postmodernism eroding morality in other fields.

GM: that was a grand article, thanks for the link. Already emailed it to a friend who popped in this afternoon. His wife wants to get her school to become carbon neutral and he suspects it's all a load of bollocks. So you never know, something might come out of this thread: a load of scousers walking to school instead of getting driven in 4x4s.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Re: clarification, I'm not entirely sure what I'm clarifying, and have had a decent amount of some rather tasty red wine, so I will leave that for now if that's OK with you.

If no one has yet said the words, "Red wine excuses everything," they certainly should have!

But re: dichotomies etc, yes, I agree, and that is the problem. The denialists appeal to that "insight". Or rather, they rely on it. Non-experts witnessing such a debate are naturally going to think "Jings, these guys are going at it about a load of complicated and scary stuff, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle."

Do you think so? To my mind, the mainstream media tends to paint deniers as exactly that: deniers. People cannot help being influenced by the shape under which they receive information, so the (rightly) anti-denier shape under which these things are presented tends to incline the reader to a (rightly) anti-denier position. I only know one person who doesn't believe in climate change and ISN'T a hard-core conservative, and she pretty much makes a point of doing her own thing.

My view is that this is a specific tactic, employed by the (right-wing) denial industry, in order to take advantage of this natural human tendency. You create the illusion of an equal-sided debate in order to shift the "centre of gravity" in that debate in your direction. It doesn't matter how much of a load of crap your argument is, you just throw it out there. All it needs is to be remotely plausible. "Hmm, what stuff can we throw at them? Hey, we are only in it for the money, so they must be too. Let's use that one. Bingo!" Not only is it hypocritical, it's really, really unimaginative.

Certainly, the attempt to discredit climate change science is unimaginative; I don't quite see the connection to the natural tendency towards moderation. How are conservatives, by presenting themselves as "not moderate," inclining people towards their position?

You simply don't see that sort of tactic from the Left. Or at least I haven't. You see manifold other daftness of course, but not that one. You see it everywhere you go from the Right.

You most definitely see the "truth is in the middle" tactic.

In the US media, liberals do not exist. That of course is hyperbole, but for some time now, there has been a strong tendency to frame debates in terms of a conservative position and a moderate position, even if there is no discernible "liberal" position. I think you're definitely right that people tend to go towards the mean; I suspect this may be particularly true of the last couple decades, though obviously I wasn't around before, so I can't say. But that portion of the media which leans leftwards has seized upon this fact in the US, at least, and framed liberal positions as "moderate." I think conservatives let them because they don't mind being divisive and grouchy, or maybe they just lack the insight to see that being "moderate" automatically grants their opponents the upper-hand.

As regards general mud-slinging, there is certainly plenty of that from the left as well. Of course, it's sometimes aimed in the right direction, but it's still there.

And I agree that it's postmodernism writ large. Doubly ironic (and hypocritical) then, that these same people are the ones who will rant and rave about postmodernism eroding morality in other fields.

The mudslinging you refer from the deniers is not post modern; people have been slinging mud at each other ever since two people both wanted the same thing.

[inked]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

For those interested in a serious discussion of the issue (i.e. not inked) there's an interesting rundown of the basic economic arguments by Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/ma...pagewanted=all

Thanks for the warning, GM. Though, since it is printed in the NYT it MUST be truthiness at least, sorta like the BBC and the UN Committee on Climate that doesn't check its data sources.

There, I feel so much better that it's in the NYT.

So, how are the glaciers holding up there in the Himalayas and the data that disappeared?

Not to mention the contrary data?

[Jonathan]

The past year, the scientific evidence against anthropogenic global warming is conspicuously absent - at least when looking into the ISI Web of Knowledge which is considered the most extensive collection of databases of peer-reviewed scientific papers.

From January 2009 to March 2010, over 8,000 articles on climate change were published according to the ISI.
SVT, the Swedish equivalent of the BBC, investigated the number of articles published during the same period, that come to the conclusion that the consensus on man-made climate change is not supported.
Link (translated by Google)

Five. That's the number of articles found with an anti-anthropogenic conclusion.
In addition, some dozen articles are published by skeptics. However in their articles they do not explicitly claim that the notion of man-made climate change is incorrect.

Cross-referencing is interesting here. For instance, there is a popular list of 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming. Apparently only 5 of these papers, i.e. 1%, provide a scientific standpoint that is clearly outspoken against anthropogenic climate change.

It's unclear how many of the 8,000 articles that draw the conclusion that the idea of current man-made climate change is sufficiently supported by evidence. I'll risk a wild guess that it's more than 5

[inked]

OOps, again ......http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010...4431272034113/

Oh, no, factor variation of 3000 (that's 3, count 'em, three, orders of magnitude folks) but there's more....http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

Which led to this thoughtful analysis... http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...E3ZjMzM2FkMzY=

Enjoy!

[Grey_Wolf]

I have of late pondered the problem of ridding or lessening the amount of carbon dioxide released in the world today.

My idea is, to put it "simply", separate the components, carbon and oxygene, in a fission of sorts. Perhaps we might even produce energy from the process.

The carbon might just be transformed into a powder in which we could make bricks for construction work.

If this is possible, it goes without saying, that the oxygene will be released and cant be stored.

What do you think? Is it possible.

[Jonathan]

I suppose this topic would fit nicely in the Global Warming Debate.

As far as I remember from the chemistry lessons, carbon dioxide consists of two oxygen atoms, each with a strong double bond to a single carbon atom. To cleave such bonds generally requires a lot of energy, unless there's some nifty enzyme one can use (which I doubt). In any case it's probably quite expensive and possibly not realistic on a larger scale.

A cheaper way would be to "bind" the carbon dioxide, to form larger molecule complexes. You know, like how plants turn CO2 into glucose. In fact, isn't the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to remove CO2 from the air, just to plant energy forests?

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In fact, isn't the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to remove CO2 from the air, just to plant energy forests?

And to use that planting of forests to reclaim a desert?

[Earniel]

Merged into the Global Warming thread.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

As far as I remember from the chemistry lessons, carbon dioxide consists of two oxygen atoms, each with a strong double bond to a single carbon atom. To cleave such bonds generally requires a lot of energy, unless there's some nifty enzyme one can use (which I doubt). In any case it's probably quite expensive and possibly not realistic on a larger scale.

This is what I remember also.

In fact, isn't the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to remove CO2 from the air, just to plant energy forests?

I suppose the main problem is that we are producing more CO2 than our current ecosystem is capable of balancing, so that would mean we would have to plant more forests than we already had to deal with the surplus. Considering the frightening global deforestation rate, I doubt we even have the space left to fill with the trees needed.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, the best way to get rid of CO2 is to trap it in organic compounds and bury them underground. But that is the precise reverse of what we are currently doing.

I believe we are investigating the use of empty oil and gas reservoirs to store captured CO2.

[Earniel]

But those storages would be CO2 in gas-form, right?

At least, I haven't heard of storing CO2 underground when bound in organic matter. I would be very interested in learning more about it if they could do that.

[Jonathan]

I read up a bit on geo-sequestration of CO2 and apparently it would be injected into the ground in a supercritical form, that is something in between gas and liquid.

[Tessar]

I know nothing about the science, but somehow putting the stuff that's polluting the -air- into the -earth- doesn't strike me as being a super awesome idea....

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Tessar

I know nothing about the science, but somehow putting the stuff that's polluting the -air- into the -earth- doesn't strike me as being a super awesome idea....

That's where it's coming from in the first place...coal and oil, fossil fuels and all that.

Plus, as various brain-damaged Republican politicians will inform you, CO2 is perfectly natural.


Unfortunately they fail to notice that other things that are perfectly natural- water, wind- can become problems when there's too much of them.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I read up a bit on geo-sequestration of CO2 and apparently it would be injected into the ground in a supercritical form, that is something in between gas and liquid.

Oh, that sounds rather interesting. Clearly, I have a bit to read up upon.

Originally Posted by Tessar

I know nothing about the science, but somehow putting the stuff that's polluting the -air- into the -earth- doesn't strike me as being a super awesome idea....

CO2 is a greenhouse-gas rather than an actual pollutant. And after all it plays an important part in both plant-life and animal (including human) respiratory systems. But as the basic rule of toxicology will tell you: everything is poisonous, depending on the dose.

In it's ordinary form, I suppose CO2 can at best affect the soil's acidity to a certain extent. The fact that they usually consider only deep strata for this process, should probably mean this will have no effect of surface soil. But the supercritical form that Jonathan mentioned may have other effects, I can't say.

The most danger is perhaps in picking the right place for storage, and choosing a secure method of pumping the CO2 underground. The chosen layers have to be perfectly stable and preferably isolated or else one wrong move can easily trigger terrible oil leaks like BP's 'little gulf accident', or like the still-ongoing mud volcano in Indonesia (four years going and counting). One messes with geology only at everybody's peril, which is why a good deal of people don't think geo-sequestration is such a super awesome idea anyway. A bit like choosing between the plague and cholera, if English has the same expression.

[Ingwe]

I just think that it shouldn't be so much of an issue of right and left, conservative and liberal, and how much money is up for grabs. Either way, there's a lot of propaganda. It's more about acceptance: there's certainly something going on. Most of us don't know what it is because most of us aren't scientists. All we can tell is what we read about on the net or the newspapers or see on TV or listen to on the radio. But we can see the effects of it. Early springs hit certain areas of the world, and there are noticeable changes every year for some people. I accept that there's an Earth-bound and Solar-bound cause to the recent warming, but that there's also a man-made cause to it as well. Whatever some politician is saying isn't about trying to save the planet, it's usually more about money...isn't that a surprise?

Methane goes up in the atmosphere from industry as well. It is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. It is one of the elements that caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. If you'll remember, that killed some 92 to 95% of the life on this planet. As long ago as that may have been, we're sort of over-due for an extinction event. Many think it'll be an asteroid. Some think a gamma ray burst will do it. And still, there are others on the opposite side who think that global warming will wipe us all out very quickly. No...it's a slow-killer. The world 100 years from now will be much different than the one we currently live in - no matter how the deck is played. It might be different in a good way, should the world accept that global warming is actually happening and do something to at least lessen it...or it could be in very much a bad way - where half or more of the Earth's life has slowly (for human standards) but quickly (in geological standards) disappeared. Some areas will be sweltering jungles that were once temperate areas. Great Britain may have climates similar to that of the Mediterranean by just 20 or 30 years from now. I'm not going to be a doom-sayer and state that this is truly what will happen, but it's a lot more likely than the 2012 or 2063 doomsday predictions. Cities will flood over, though. That part is probably true.

We just all have to do our own part in reducing the effects. Industry is necessary today, but it needs to be slowly converted over to clean and safe industry. I hope the people overall will make the right choices, but the year 2110 will definitely be somewhere between 100% totally screwed and a 100% utopia. I'm guessing it will be close to somewhere around...25 or 50% totally screwed, though. And that is not good.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Ingwe

I just think that it shouldn't be so much of an issue of right and left.

That just goes to show how successful the denialist brigade have been in shifting the terms of the debate.

Although to an extent, they are just doing what comes naturally and you can't really blame them. The media are more at fault, for not being able to tell the difference between cynical manipulation and science. They should know better.