11 ms·

The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossi

by nmridul 11y ago

The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue. There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. If pollution was the prime focus from day one, then more push would have been given to renewable. Maybe, Arnold is able to bring more people to think in this direction.

amalag 11y ago
I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  If only it were that easy. With energy use expected to rise and the Jevon's Paradox sure to annihilate any environmental benefits from increased efficiency, we will have to make some unfortunate choices about energy sources. Coal is very very dirty, beyond CO2, we're talking sulfur and mercury poisoning. Fracking is actually quite safe but notoriously under regulated. Nuclear is clean and safe but a generation raised on Homer Simpson and Chernobyl footage means they'll never accept it. Even green tech is dirty. Refining rare earths is environmentally disasterous (gotta rip those high valence electrons somehow) and battery recycling in Nigeria has created a huge spike in lead poisoning cases and deaths. Fighting climate change is the biggest conflict in the history in humanity. Our species is our enemy and our ally, and we are tasked between holding onto the plummeting biodiversity we have on this day, December 7, 2015, or complete and utter extinction. It won't be easy, and we will all have to make choices we don't like.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  "I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts have.
  - smalldataguy 11y ago
    To be fair, opposing interests (the "green" movement) have also influenced people based on economics. Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to ensure it's from renewable sources, using more expensive but more recyclable packing, and similar.
      - smalldataguy 11y ago
        According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012. [0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pdf http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...
        mikeash 11y ago
        How much of that is from "entrenched economic interests," and what's the number for fossil energy?
        smalldataguy 11y ago
        We may have to disagree at this point, but there are 100 billion worth of dollars, which is going to create some pretty strong economic interests. Are you using "entrenched" in a historical sense? I suppose I'm using it more as a substitute for "heavyweight". Anyhow, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that there are strong economic powerhouses controlling billions of dollars trying to promote the green movement. I'm not totally sure if the other side of the coin is particularly relevant, unless it's the case that politicians are all already bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests, and thus not available to be bought by newer "green" economic interests. Regardless, what were we discussing?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority. It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
    - acqq 11y ago
      In this case that you seem to support the skepticism is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_self-knowing_.28auto-epistemic.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argume... "If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true." For example, it's not that Einstein in 1905 made Newton's formulas from around 1700 unusable, quite the opposite, for a lot of purposes they are still used: it's just that for the very high speeds they need adjustment factors and more complicated math to express what's going on. The expected improvement in the science certainly won't make "everything we know wrong." Such formulations are just spammy titles. There will be only refinements. For the current state, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784
      - vlehto 11y ago
        I didn't say anything about climate change on the above comment. I only said the argument was not solid. I'm not "climate skeptic", I'm true believer. I just try to combat these authority heretics.
stcredzero 11y ago
There always will be a debate on global warming. I doubt this is true without the caveat: ...so long as the energy industry keeps funding an opposition.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I think the science will take a long time to harden beyond its present state. We can project forward estimates but this will refine over time. It's a long-term project.
- adventured 11y ago
  Putin's Russia, and Xi's China, are extremely skeptical of global warming. Russia outright considers it a fraud and conspiracy, Putin has stated exactly that. Plenty in the developing world are on board with that skepticism. Which is why China is going to keep their emission levels completely uncapped for the next 15 years at least, allowing for dramatic growth in said emissions. The best they've agreed to, is that maybe emissions will fall after 2030 (emphasis on the fact that it's an entirely empty pledge).
beerbajay 11y ago
I think you're ignoring the profit to be made in extending the time between now and when ANY kind of regulation (pollution OR climate change) kicks in. Industries have historically avoided responsibility for various kinds of pollution by using the same FUD tactics that are used in the climate change "debate".
lmm 11y ago
> There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. Bullshit. Whatever the focus was, vested interests would have funded opposition and that's what kept people divided.
- rybosome 11y ago
  Hear, hear. The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a financial interest in proving global warming to be true; this is in spite of the fact that the fossil-fuel industry has already been caught putting out junk science that justified poisoning humans to protect their profit.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Well-said. There's financial interests on both sides but oil industry has shown itself to go to any lengths to keep its conflict high.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    > The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. The oil industry didn't give a shit about whether or not TEL was put in gasoline. It was the auto companies who put it in there in the first place, and the auto and chemical companies who fought its removal. > It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a financial interest in proving global warming to be true; this is in spite of the fact that the fossil-fuel industry has already been caught putting out junk science that justified poisoning humans to protect their profit. It blows my mind that people judge scientific work based on its funding source over its content and merits. Not saying its irrelevant, but good science is good science and bad science is bad science, regardless of who paid for it.
mbreese 11y ago
Funny - I don't really see much of a debate...
- crpatino 11y ago
  It's called a Filibuster, i think. 99% may be in perfect consensus, but as long as the idiot (or mallevolent) 1% is allowed to keep claiming that there is insufficient information, the "debate" will keep going and going. It is remarkably similar to a DOS attack.
- gozur88 11y ago
  That's because you're reflexively dismissing people on the other side. They're still there, though.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    What "other side"?? The only people who are questioning the science are the ones who don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate the claims scientifically and who have an economic stake in continuing fossil fuel usage. No climate scientists oppose it. I have not seen a single, reliable and useful model which goes against the fundamentals of climate change. There are no alternative hypothesis that explain the climate phenomena we're experiencing now. No has dismissed anything reflexively. It is only the years and years of ludicruous, ignorant and politically motivated arguments against climate change that have solidified that position for many of us.
    - DougWebb 11y ago
      The only people who are questioning the science are the ones who don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate the claims scientifically and who have an economic stake in continuing fossil fuel usage. That's dismissive: you're claiming that the people who disagree with you are only disagreeing because they're idiots who should be ignored, and/or are being paid to disagree.
      - 11y ago
MrZongle2 11y ago
"The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue." This is why I hate environmental discussions with a passion, because at some point if one expresses less than total agreement with the AGW crowd you apparently are in the pocket of Smokey McCoalstove and enjoy smog, dead fish, and coughing babies. Martin Luther received a warmer response from the Catholic Church than some "deniers" who dare question the established dogma.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Yes, because unless you have actual, critical arguments beyond the conspiranoid baseless claims that climate scientists are all in collusion, all the science points one way, and the entire civilized world with the exception of some US politicians who are suspiciously befriended with certain economic interests oppose it.
  - MrZongle2 11y ago
    "...conspiranoid baseless claims..." "...and the entire civilized world..." "...suspiciously befriended with certain economic interests..." Sorry, are you disagreeing with or supporting my position at this point? Or perhaps both?
yongjik 11y ago
Revisionist history much? We added lead to gasoline in the 1920s and it remained legal in most countries (including the US) until 1990s. In other words, it took us seventy years to stop actively adding toxic heavy metal to gasoline so that it spreads everywhere cars can go. After all, we're talking about an industry that can spread FUD about a whole branch of science. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to other pollution problems.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  But Midgley and Kettering were from GM. And if you look at least at oil company PR these days, they're touting clean energy and taking warming quite seriously. https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmob...
hackuser 11y ago
> There always will be a debate on global warming As long as the denialists are well-funded: Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing-america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing...
- Sailfish 11y ago
  Oh, puhleaseeee! The Warmists are most well-funded funded there is, getting trillions of tax payer dollars for extremely lucrative jobs. If the guide is based on "follow the money" the Warmists will lose by orders of magnitudes.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I really hope this is a Poe. The idea that a person sincerely believes trillions of tax dollars are going to "warmists" is too much to bear.
    - Sailfish 11y ago
      Warmists and the frauds who are perpetuating it. For the ring leaders, the goal is to get billions of tax payer dollars (via carbon tax) to be funneled to the UN for their uses. This is the biggest pyramid scam since Social Security. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarmin...
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Ah yes, good ol' World Government theories.
mikeash 11y ago
If pollution is your focus but not global warming, then you'll focus more on scrubbing technologies and better combustion and the like. A lot of stuff can burn extremely cleanly now if you ignore CO2, and the only reading to look at CO2 is climate change. It's not important at all as a pollutant otherwise. I also doubt that people would be unified on pollution if not for global warming. In my experience, the people who doubt climate change also downplay pollution in general. It's largely the same people saying global warming is a liberal hoax, and complaining about how the government says they can't dump used motor oil down the storm drains, can't buy freon anymore, cars have to come with catalytic converters, and such.
- jinushaun 11y ago
  I disagree. Switching the conversation back to pollution will have the same end result as focusing solely on climate change. Yes, a focus on pollution will result in cleaner dirty energy, but cleaner dirty energy is better than dirty dirty energy. Clean dirty energy is probably more likely to have lower CO2 emissions. Climate change deniers may try to deny pollution, but pollution is a lot harder to explain away. Pollution happens in your face today (see China), but climate change happens 100 years away in extrapolated data models. You can explain over fishing destroying jobs instead of ecosystems. Or explain over-logging creating soil erosion that destroys homes. People understand problems that affect people today, not ecosystems tomorrow.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Coal is probably a lost cause for plain pollution, but stuff like natural gas and petroleum should be burnable pretty much arbitrarily cleanly if you put in the effort. They're already extremely clean in the context of power plants. The ideal combustion cycle with a hydrocarbon produces pure carbon dioxide and water. You'll never get all the way there, but you can approach it pretty closely. A world concerned only with pollution would likely converge on a lot of natural gas power plants and clean-burning oil-powered cars. A world concerned with climate change would converge on nuclear, solar, wind, and such. Don't underestimate people's ability to deny the effects of pollution, too. Go look at the comments in the recent thread about Beijing's smog alert. There are a ton of people in there calling into doubt the health effects of chronic high-concentration particulate pollution, even from people who have experienced it first-hand, and this is the sort of stuff that makes your eyes and nose burn with a few minutes' exposure. Lots of pollution is silent and long-term, too. Smog is very visible, but how about long-term contamination of groundwater or the oceans? All in all, I just don't see much difference in membership in the set of climate change deniers and the set of people who think pollution controls are a bad idea.
EdSharkey 11y ago
So is the conversation something like, "air/water/ground pollution" X "planet is becoming uninhabitable"? Where X differs depending on who is talking? For Schwarzenegger, X seems to be "therefore". For me, X is more like, "but not". I treat the two arguments as separate. Shocking warnings have always come with pollution. For me, those warnings have mostly born out as true. I have chronic asthma, probably from air pollution. And, I have eyes so I can observe the haze and smog over the city in the morning. I've been to China and seen and felt what happens when there are no pollution controls at all. Rivers catching fire/all the life being killed off in them by dumped waste is a real thing that happens. Acid rain, though? That one jumped the shark for me; I think acid rain was all hype. Fantastic claims need really fantastic evidence is all I'm saying. I do like pollution controls though and I am amazed at how improved the air quality is in the states over what it was in the 1970's. I have kids, and I want to continue our regime of pollution controls. Renewable energy sources are the way to go. Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however. All the computer models predicted a spiraling warming effect, but instead we're cooling off, and we're potentially heading for another mini-ice age. The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet. Why is that, especially when we can measure the sun's energy output is not a constant? Money and power is my guess. I don't see any proof - at our current rate of energy consumption and pollution - of how we are making a dent in this absolutely massive system. The scientific claims seem to predict destabilization, and I just don't see any proof of that happening. Honestly, if global warming theorists want to bolster their claims, they should keep links between pollution and warming very abstract. Trying to use health effects of pollution as a proof of atmospheric destruction weakens the argument because they're two separate effects. Arnold does a disservice to his cause here.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  I have no idea where you get the idea that the planet is cooling, but you're 100% wrong about this. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-records http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-recor... This is not "bad science." And it leads to predictable effects. The North West of England is partly underwater this week because of yet another "once a century" storm - the kind that have been rolling around every few years since 2000 or so. Increased rainfall for the UK has been predicted since the late 1980s as an effect of CO2 output. "The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet." Climate change models have allowed for solar output for decades. See e.g. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... It might be an idea to educate yourself on the real science.
gutnor 11y ago
> There always will be a debate on global warming. That seems mostly a US problem. In the rest of the first world, even in BRIC countries, there does not seem to be any debate on Global warming but on the economic repercussions and the fairness of the measures considering First World countries polluted as much as they wanted. Actually, considering the complete lack of controversy in the scientific community, the US position is rather strange. I guess it is just easier internally to sell wacky conspiracy theories than some hard truth like "it is not our economic interest and we are the world leader, so sorry guys".
jinushaun 11y ago
I've been preaching this for years! Global warming makes as much sense as eternal damnation to non-believers. It redirects the environmental conversation away from tangible short term problems such as pollution to abstract long term problems like global warming. People can relate to problems affecting people (pollution and health, over-logging and soil erosion, over-fishing and lost jobs, oil and energy dependence, etc). Global warming is a lot harder to relate to. It's so abstract that it's easy for opponents to dismiss and spread FUD. The shift in conversation towards Climate Change really hurt the environmental movement, IMO.

by nmridul 11y ago

amalag 11y ago

I agree with this. Amazing that we need AS to give people a dose of wisdom. I have to agree with everything he said. I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming but I am 100% ok with our society pushing away from coal, gasoline and fracking.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
If only it were that easy. With energy use expected to rise and the Jevon's Paradox sure to annihilate any environmental benefits from increased efficiency, we will have to make some unfortunate choices about energy sources. Coal is very very dirty, beyond CO2, we're talking sulfur and mercury poisoning. Fracking is actually quite safe but notoriously under regulated. Nuclear is clean and safe but a generation raised on Homer Simpson and Chernobyl footage means they'll never accept it. Even green tech is dirty. Refining rare earths is environmentally disasterous (gotta rip those high valence electrons somehow) and battery recycling in Nigeria has created a huge spike in lead poisoning cases and deaths. Fighting climate change is the biggest conflict in the history in humanity. Our species is our enemy and our ally, and we are tasked between holding onto the plummeting biodiversity we have on this day, December 7, 2015, or complete and utter extinction. It won't be easy, and we will all have to make choices we don't like.
Daishiman 11y ago
"I am not convinced about CO2 causing global warming" Honestly, how convinced you are about it is only relevant because economic interests have planted a seed of doubt about it. Your position to question the science on climate change is about as good as it is on a myriad other issues which no one seems keen on questioning. If there weren't a lobby doing it, your uncertainty would be as much as what qualified experts have.
- smalldataguy 11y ago
  To be fair, opposing interests (the "green" movement) have also influenced people based on economics. Let's not look at who is on what side of the fight when making these decisions. Both sides currently have entrenched economic interests, both sides are turning it from a practical issue to one that is moral and identity politics, ruining the conversation.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    What entrenched economic interests are on the "global warming is real" side? There are a bunch of upstarts, of course, but nothing entrenched that I can think of. Given that the whole movement only took off in the last few decades I don't even see how it would be possible. Further, I frequently see companies on that side making choices that are against their own economic interests, by spending more on electricity to ensure it's from renewable sources, using more expensive but more recyclable packing, and similar.
    - smalldataguy 11y ago
      According to [0], private sector investment in clean energy in the US alone was over $100 billion in the US. In 2012. [0] http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pdf http://www.acore.org/files/pdfs/ACORE_Outlook_for_RE_2014.pd...
      - mikeash 11y ago
        How much of that is from "entrenched economic interests," and what's the number for fossil energy?
        smalldataguy 11y ago
        We may have to disagree at this point, but there are 100 billion worth of dollars, which is going to create some pretty strong economic interests. Are you using "entrenched" in a historical sense? I suppose I'm using it more as a substitute for "heavyweight". Anyhow, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that there are strong economic powerhouses controlling billions of dollars trying to promote the green movement. I'm not totally sure if the other side of the coin is particularly relevant, unless it's the case that politicians are all already bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests, and thus not available to be bought by newer "green" economic interests. Regardless, what were we discussing?
gnaritas 11y ago
If you are not convinced of something that nearly all scientists say is true, then you need to change your mind because the odds are nearly 100% that you're wrong and your belief is based on ideological footing that is blinding you. It is really quite absurd to deny something the entire scientific community says is true.
- vlehto 11y ago
  It's quite normal to deny something the entire scientific community is saying. In everywhere except math it's business as usual. Most of our current scientific knowledge was originally someone disagreeing with the majority. It's weird you are attacking someone who agrees with you in policy. Just because he does not think "correctly". Given that your argument is out of authority, it's bit alarming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - acqq 11y ago
    In this case that you seem to support the skepticism is based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_self-knowing_.28auto-epistemic.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argume... "If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true." For example, it's not that Einstein in 1905 made Newton's formulas from around 1700 unusable, quite the opposite, for a lot of purposes they are still used: it's just that for the very high speeds they need adjustment factors and more complicated math to express what's going on. The expected improvement in the science certainly won't make "everything we know wrong." Such formulations are just spammy titles. There will be only refinements. For the current state, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10693784
    - vlehto 11y ago
      I didn't say anything about climate change on the above comment. I only said the argument was not solid. I'm not "climate skeptic", I'm true believer. I just try to combat these authority heretics.

stcredzero 11y ago

There always will be a debate on global warming. I doubt this is true without the caveat: ...so long as the energy industry keeps funding an opposition.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I think the science will take a long time to harden beyond its present state. We can project forward estimates but this will refine over time. It's a long-term project.
adventured 11y ago
Putin's Russia, and Xi's China, are extremely skeptical of global warming. Russia outright considers it a fraud and conspiracy, Putin has stated exactly that. Plenty in the developing world are on board with that skepticism. Which is why China is going to keep their emission levels completely uncapped for the next 15 years at least, allowing for dramatic growth in said emissions. The best they've agreed to, is that maybe emissions will fall after 2030 (emphasis on the fact that it's an entirely empty pledge).

beerbajay 11y ago

I think you're ignoring the profit to be made in extending the time between now and when ANY kind of regulation (pollution OR climate change) kicks in. Industries have historically avoided responsibility for various kinds of pollution by using the same FUD tactics that are used in the climate change "debate".

lmm 11y ago

> There always will be a debate on global warming. So keeping global warming as the prime focus of fossil fuel usage kept people divided. Bullshit. Whatever the focus was, vested interests would have funded opposition and that's what kept people divided.

rybosome 11y ago
Hear, hear. The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a financial interest in proving global warming to be true; this is in spite of the fact that the fossil-fuel industry has already been caught putting out junk science that justified poisoning humans to protect their profit.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Well-said. There's financial interests on both sides but oil industry has shown itself to go to any lengths to keep its conflict high.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > The fossil-fuel industry fought long and hard to sow doubt that ambient lead levels in the atmosphere were increasing due to the burning of leaded gasoline. Losing on that point, they then attempted to prove that low levels of lead are not harmful to humans; this has since been shown to be wildly inaccurate. The oil industry didn't give a shit about whether or not TEL was put in gasoline. It was the auto companies who put it in there in the first place, and the auto and chemical companies who fought its removal. > It blows my fucking mind that people accuse scientists of being untrustworthy due to having a financial interest in proving global warming to be true; this is in spite of the fact that the fossil-fuel industry has already been caught putting out junk science that justified poisoning humans to protect their profit. It blows my mind that people judge scientific work based on its funding source over its content and merits. Not saying its irrelevant, but good science is good science and bad science is bad science, regardless of who paid for it.

mbreese 11y ago

Funny - I don't really see much of a debate...

crpatino 11y ago
It's called a Filibuster, i think. 99% may be in perfect consensus, but as long as the idiot (or mallevolent) 1% is allowed to keep claiming that there is insufficient information, the "debate" will keep going and going. It is remarkably similar to a DOS attack.
gozur88 11y ago
That's because you're reflexively dismissing people on the other side. They're still there, though.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  What "other side"?? The only people who are questioning the science are the ones who don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate the claims scientifically and who have an economic stake in continuing fossil fuel usage. No climate scientists oppose it. I have not seen a single, reliable and useful model which goes against the fundamentals of climate change. There are no alternative hypothesis that explain the climate phenomena we're experiencing now. No has dismissed anything reflexively. It is only the years and years of ludicruous, ignorant and politically motivated arguments against climate change that have solidified that position for many of us.
  - DougWebb 11y ago
    The only people who are questioning the science are the ones who don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate the claims scientifically and who have an economic stake in continuing fossil fuel usage. That's dismissive: you're claiming that the people who disagree with you are only disagreeing because they're idiots who should be ignored, and/or are being paid to disagree.
    - 11y ago

MrZongle2 11y ago

"The global warming brigade hijacked the pollution issue." This is why I hate environmental discussions with a passion, because at some point if one expresses less than total agreement with the AGW crowd you apparently are in the pocket of Smokey McCoalstove and enjoy smog, dead fish, and coughing babies. Martin Luther received a warmer response from the Catholic Church than some "deniers" who dare question the established dogma.

Daishiman 11y ago
Yes, because unless you have actual, critical arguments beyond the conspiranoid baseless claims that climate scientists are all in collusion, all the science points one way, and the entire civilized world with the exception of some US politicians who are suspiciously befriended with certain economic interests oppose it.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  "...conspiranoid baseless claims..." "...and the entire civilized world..." "...suspiciously befriended with certain economic interests..." Sorry, are you disagreeing with or supporting my position at this point? Or perhaps both?

yongjik 11y ago

Revisionist history much? We added lead to gasoline in the 1920s and it remained legal in most countries (including the US) until 1990s. In other words, it took us seventy years to stop actively adding toxic heavy metal to gasoline so that it spreads everywhere cars can go. After all, we're talking about an industry that can spread FUD about a whole branch of science. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to other pollution problems.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
But Midgley and Kettering were from GM. And if you look at least at oil company PR these days, they're touting clean energy and taking warming quite seriously. https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/ http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmob...

hackuser 11y ago

> There always will be a debate on global warming As long as the denialists are well-funded: Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing-america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing...

Sailfish 11y ago
Oh, puhleaseeee! The Warmists are most well-funded funded there is, getting trillions of tax payer dollars for extremely lucrative jobs. If the guide is based on "follow the money" the Warmists will lose by orders of magnitudes.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I really hope this is a Poe. The idea that a person sincerely believes trillions of tax dollars are going to "warmists" is too much to bear.
  - Sailfish 11y ago
    Warmists and the frauds who are perpetuating it. For the ring leaders, the goal is to get billions of tax payer dollars (via carbon tax) to be funneled to the UN for their uses. This is the biggest pyramid scam since Social Security. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarmin...
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Ah yes, good ol' World Government theories.

mikeash 11y ago

If pollution is your focus but not global warming, then you'll focus more on scrubbing technologies and better combustion and the like. A lot of stuff can burn extremely cleanly now if you ignore CO2, and the only reading to look at CO2 is climate change. It's not important at all as a pollutant otherwise. I also doubt that people would be unified on pollution if not for global warming. In my experience, the people who doubt climate change also downplay pollution in general. It's largely the same people saying global warming is a liberal hoax, and complaining about how the government says they can't dump used motor oil down the storm drains, can't buy freon anymore, cars have to come with catalytic converters, and such.

jinushaun 11y ago
I disagree. Switching the conversation back to pollution will have the same end result as focusing solely on climate change. Yes, a focus on pollution will result in cleaner dirty energy, but cleaner dirty energy is better than dirty dirty energy. Clean dirty energy is probably more likely to have lower CO2 emissions. Climate change deniers may try to deny pollution, but pollution is a lot harder to explain away. Pollution happens in your face today (see China), but climate change happens 100 years away in extrapolated data models. You can explain over fishing destroying jobs instead of ecosystems. Or explain over-logging creating soil erosion that destroys homes. People understand problems that affect people today, not ecosystems tomorrow.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Coal is probably a lost cause for plain pollution, but stuff like natural gas and petroleum should be burnable pretty much arbitrarily cleanly if you put in the effort. They're already extremely clean in the context of power plants. The ideal combustion cycle with a hydrocarbon produces pure carbon dioxide and water. You'll never get all the way there, but you can approach it pretty closely. A world concerned only with pollution would likely converge on a lot of natural gas power plants and clean-burning oil-powered cars. A world concerned with climate change would converge on nuclear, solar, wind, and such. Don't underestimate people's ability to deny the effects of pollution, too. Go look at the comments in the recent thread about Beijing's smog alert. There are a ton of people in there calling into doubt the health effects of chronic high-concentration particulate pollution, even from people who have experienced it first-hand, and this is the sort of stuff that makes your eyes and nose burn with a few minutes' exposure. Lots of pollution is silent and long-term, too. Smog is very visible, but how about long-term contamination of groundwater or the oceans? All in all, I just don't see much difference in membership in the set of climate change deniers and the set of people who think pollution controls are a bad idea.

EdSharkey 11y ago

So is the conversation something like, "air/water/ground pollution" X "planet is becoming uninhabitable"? Where X differs depending on who is talking? For Schwarzenegger, X seems to be "therefore". For me, X is more like, "but not". I treat the two arguments as separate. Shocking warnings have always come with pollution. For me, those warnings have mostly born out as true. I have chronic asthma, probably from air pollution. And, I have eyes so I can observe the haze and smog over the city in the morning. I've been to China and seen and felt what happens when there are no pollution controls at all. Rivers catching fire/all the life being killed off in them by dumped waste is a real thing that happens. Acid rain, though? That one jumped the shark for me; I think acid rain was all hype. Fantastic claims need really fantastic evidence is all I'm saying. I do like pollution controls though and I am amazed at how improved the air quality is in the states over what it was in the 1970's. I have kids, and I want to continue our regime of pollution controls. Renewable energy sources are the way to go. Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however. All the computer models predicted a spiraling warming effect, but instead we're cooling off, and we're potentially heading for another mini-ice age. The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet. Why is that, especially when we can measure the sun's energy output is not a constant? Money and power is my guess. I don't see any proof - at our current rate of energy consumption and pollution - of how we are making a dent in this absolutely massive system. The scientific claims seem to predict destabilization, and I just don't see any proof of that happening. Honestly, if global warming theorists want to bolster their claims, they should keep links between pollution and warming very abstract. Trying to use health effects of pollution as a proof of atmospheric destruction weakens the argument because they're two separate effects. Arnold does a disservice to his cause here.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I have no idea where you get the idea that the planet is cooling, but you're 100% wrong about this. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-records http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-recor... This is not "bad science." And it leads to predictable effects. The North West of England is partly underwater this week because of yet another "once a century" storm - the kind that have been rolling around every few years since 2000 or so. Increased rainfall for the UK has been predicted since the late 1980s as an effect of CO2 output. "The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet." Climate change models have allowed for solar output for decades. See e.g. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... It might be an idea to educate yourself on the real science.

gutnor 11y ago

> There always will be a debate on global warming. That seems mostly a US problem. In the rest of the first world, even in BRIC countries, there does not seem to be any debate on Global warming but on the economic repercussions and the fairness of the measures considering First World countries polluted as much as they wanted. Actually, considering the complete lack of controversy in the scientific community, the US position is rather strange. I guess it is just easier internally to sell wacky conspiracy theories than some hard truth like "it is not our economic interest and we are the world leader, so sorry guys".

jinushaun 11y ago

I've been preaching this for years! Global warming makes as much sense as eternal damnation to non-believers. It redirects the environmental conversation away from tangible short term problems such as pollution to abstract long term problems like global warming. People can relate to problems affecting people (pollution and health, over-logging and soil erosion, over-fishing and lost jobs, oil and energy dependence, etc). Global warming is a lot harder to relate to. It's so abstract that it's easy for opponents to dismiss and spread FUD. The shift in conversation towards Climate Change really hurt the environmental movement, IMO.