4 ms·

Exactly right. The fervent nature of global warming denial-ism drives people to go to great lengths to undermine the real science and delay action.

ErrantX 17y ago
The fervent nature of global warming believers makes it hard to separate political posturing from useful action. Lets get the data sorted out; not so that we know what to do (that is easy, and almost irrelevant to GW issues - just no one is really bothering....) but so that the politicians can't abuse the figures for their own end.
- lacrossegm 17y ago
  To each their own. I have looked it from both sides. The real-climate science camp seems genuinely concerned about causes and consequence of global warming. The other camp, call them deniers, skeptics, or whatever are more concerned about money. They believe that the cost to combat global warming is too high. It also seems divided along political lines. It is flawed logic but some people do think they can use it for political gain, on both sides of the aisle.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    The way I see it is: going green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts. I just don't see any actual committed progress to being "green" (I could name you 10 policy ideas right now that would have a massive impact). The climate work, IMO, is about talking a very very close look at how much of an impact we are having - and assessing if our response is enough or if more is required. But all I see, especially recently, is corruption, money and political manoeuvring on both sides. EDIT: I disagree with your appraisal of the 2 camps though (I'm guessing you fall into the believers camp). As someone sat in the middle, in frustration, both camps are as bad as the other.
    - lacrossegm 17y ago
      "green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts." I totally agree with this position. There are numerous benefits to developing better clean air/water standards. The climate "work" has been on going for decades. The science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming is sound. Their may be some "believers" when it comes to global warming that just take at face value. I'm more of an accepting skeptic. I was skeptical at first that we could 1) Change our climate 2) Predict climate change with any amount of reasonable certainty. Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        > Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true. Sorry, this is my hang up. I understand the science - but the data and methodologies that we know about dont quite follow through for me (sometimes anyway)
- vannevar 17y ago
  "Lets get the data sorted out" The data HAS been sorted out, by people who have spent the better part of their lives studying climatology. And among the group that has spent the most time studying Earth's climate, there is broad consensus that a) Earth's climate is warming and b) increased CO2 levels from human activities is the primary cause. The great thing about this debate, if you're a lobbyist for industrial groups opposing any action to limit CO2 on financial grounds, is that you don't have to prove all those people wrong. You just have to cloud the issue enough to create the illusion of debate over points a and b. It's the PR equivalent of 'reasonable doubt'.

ErrantX 17y ago

The fervent nature of global warming believers makes it hard to separate political posturing from useful action. Lets get the data sorted out; not so that we know what to do (that is easy, and almost irrelevant to GW issues - just no one is really bothering....) but so that the politicians can't abuse the figures for their own end.

lacrossegm 17y ago
To each their own. I have looked it from both sides. The real-climate science camp seems genuinely concerned about causes and consequence of global warming. The other camp, call them deniers, skeptics, or whatever are more concerned about money. They believe that the cost to combat global warming is too high. It also seems divided along political lines. It is flawed logic but some people do think they can use it for political gain, on both sides of the aisle.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  The way I see it is: going green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts. I just don't see any actual committed progress to being "green" (I could name you 10 policy ideas right now that would have a massive impact). The climate work, IMO, is about talking a very very close look at how much of an impact we are having - and assessing if our response is enough or if more is required. But all I see, especially recently, is corruption, money and political manoeuvring on both sides. EDIT: I disagree with your appraisal of the 2 camps though (I'm guessing you fall into the believers camp). As someone sat in the middle, in frustration, both camps are as bad as the other.
  - lacrossegm 17y ago
    "green is just sensible irrespective of the actual facts." I totally agree with this position. There are numerous benefits to developing better clean air/water standards. The climate "work" has been on going for decades. The science supporting the theory of anthropogenic global warming is sound. Their may be some "believers" when it comes to global warming that just take at face value. I'm more of an accepting skeptic. I was skeptical at first that we could 1) Change our climate 2) Predict climate change with any amount of reasonable certainty. Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > Once you understand the science you can see why its obviously true. Sorry, this is my hang up. I understand the science - but the data and methodologies that we know about dont quite follow through for me (sometimes anyway)
vannevar 17y ago
"Lets get the data sorted out" The data HAS been sorted out, by people who have spent the better part of their lives studying climatology. And among the group that has spent the most time studying Earth's climate, there is broad consensus that a) Earth's climate is warming and b) increased CO2 levels from human activities is the primary cause. The great thing about this debate, if you're a lobbyist for industrial groups opposing any action to limit CO2 on financial grounds, is that you don't have to prove all those people wrong. You just have to cloud the issue enough to create the illusion of debate over points a and b. It's the PR equivalent of 'reasonable doubt'.