How It All Ends: Why There Is Still Debate (Pt 2 of 2)

Part of the expansion pack accompanying the video "How It All Ends." Be sure to watch "How It All Ends: Index" and "How It All Ends: Menu" for a roadmap of where this fits in.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• global
• warming
• climate
• change
• controversy
• carbon
• debate
• risk
• management
• how
• it
• all
• ends

[facelessone86]

I like your videos, but I hate how you keep using the word skeptic.

Skeptics are people who look at the evidence and use logic to determin what is true and what is not.

Any real skeptic would acept that climate change is happening.

I think you should replace your use of the work skeptic for something more fitting.  Like crackpot or conspiracy theorist.

[wonderingmind42]

Yeah, but on contentious issues, as a matter of principle, I long ago decided to refer to each side the way they refer to themselves. Hence, I say "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion." Hence, "warmers" instead of "alarmists" and "skeptics" instead of "denialists."

[Springtime916]

Instead of citing genuine arguments against global warming [Like the fact that c02 lags behind temperature, or that higher temperatures on earth coincide with much less fatality, or that Kyoto wouldn't actually reduce world wide emissions apreciably, or that in the 90's russia removed it's temperature probes, or that the hockey stick model was dismissed by ipcc but used by gore] Instead, you NEARLY argue that the only arguments against GW are philosophy and psychology, and i disagree with that

[wonderingmind42]

*sigh* No, I mostly argue (but apparently don't do a good job of conveying this) that to avoid the insidious trap of confirmation bias that we are all (myself included) susceptible to, you should actively go out and try to find contradictions to what you believe. That's what I tried to do, which is how I discovered that all the arguments you cite have already been discreditted. If you made the same effort (i.e. look for the rebuttals to what you cited), I think you'd see the same thing.

[theangryocelot]

I'm surprised I didn't make the connections myself between Republicans more often dismissing climate change because that would mean bigger government to combat the problem. Nice one!

[SSedmak]

@TrulyEvilBob I'd suggest taking a further look at the economic collapse. It's less a matter of the free market and more a matter of the world's largest organized crime ring with paid off law enforcement and politicians. Last I checked, if you or I commit fraud, we go to jail. That's not exactly what happened to the people who committed multi-billion dollar fraud... The "savior" government freaking bailed them out and never prosecuted. These are the people you trust??? Really???

[TrulyEvilBob]

@SSedmak Libertarians don't show it. They seem to have made up their mind, stuck fingers in their ears and shouted loudly until they drown out all other voices. Now YOU may be a Libertarian an YOU may have a different point of view, but LibertarianS don't. I know, I was one up until 4 years ago, and was a very good mouthpiece for the movement. Then I saw how naive I was, watching the near riots Ron Paul's supporters were causes and the havoc on the economy deregulation caused... and more.

[SSedmak]

@theangryocelot But given the number of wars fought mostly over oil, a strong argument could be made for investing in alternative energy instead of the military on that basis alone. If the government spent even 1/5 as much on alternative energy research as it does on the military, that could make a huge difference in many regards.

The best way to curtail CO2 is to develop an even better energy technology which is economically attractive.

[SSedmak]

@theangryocelot Previous government efforts to micromanage society: Nazism, Communism, genocide, and World War 2. Those are not abstract concerns. They are VERY real, and yet I'm sure many people laugh at the murder of 50-100 million people depending on how you count it.

Many small-government proponents very much support science and reason, but the bar for proof is very, very much higher when the proposed solution is basically global government regulation of the chemical we exhale: CO2.

[SSedmak]

@TrulyEvilBob No, Libertarians see the previous government efforts to micromanage society: Nazism, Communism, genocide, and World War 2. Those are not abstract concerns. They are VERY real, and yet I'm sure many people laugh at the murder of 50-100 million people depending on how you count it.

Libertarians very much support science and reason, but the bar for proof is very, very much higher when the proposed solution is basically global government regulation of the chemical we exhale: CO2.

[TrulyEvilBob]

And the Libertarian saying "I don't need to see it!"

[KrunchyJD]

I personally believe that the weight of evidence is for climate change. The difficulty is not the science the difficulty is in getting people to do what is required. What is required is more then people think. We should drive a lot less often. This would involve re- structuring our cities to promote more local transport, and walking, and cycling. It is not something that is easily done. People are resistant to change.

[kcjenner1]

I read something recently where the author felt that most scientists have a liberal bias and that they could not understand this. He went on to urge that somehow this imbalance should be corrected. I thought a bit and the answer seemed obvious to me because I view conservatives as being close minded and that does not make for a good scientific research - the need to revise as one finds their hypothesis is faulty.

[manofoss]

No. Being an accomplice is exactly that - being an accomplice.

If you are already decided in this question I'm not really interested in debating it further. If you are not decided and have legitimate questions I'll be happy to answer. But from this question the latter seems highly unlikely.