4 ms·

"Their position is, basically, the potential risks of climate change are overstated and extreme solutions are not worth the cost." Stating that the risk of cli

"Their position is, basically, the potential risks of climate change are overstated and extreme solutions are not worth the cost." Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. I don't see how you can interpret it any differently. In your own words they are denying the risk of climate change. Saying that climate change is happening, but that it is not a risk, is the same thing as saying that climate change is not happening. They're just moving goal posts and being mealy mouthed.

ThomPete 7y ago
Can you mention a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we dont know how to handle with todays technology let alone in 50 years time? I am not talking about speculated but demonstrates. Thats what they mean.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  When flat-out denial slowly morphs into "maybe it isn't a huge deal", one must question if that is actually what they mean.
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    So mind reading is your argument?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dwaltrip 7y ago
      I'm saying that the arguments are ideologically motivated and are not put forth for their own merits.
      - ThomPete 7y ago
        You are questioning their motives not actually engaging in the argument.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Of course the arguments are ideologically motivated. Look at the left wing of the climate change movement, which has incorporated all sorts of social justice and primitivism elements into climate change. (Rejecting nuclear power, rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes, emphasizing “indigenous technology,” etc.) Look how the Green New Deal is being pitched as a reincarnation of the labor movement, a jobs program, and a reshaping of capitalist systems, as opposed to being directed solely to addressing climate change. Climate change is a huge ideological point for everyone.
        ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        It's not weird that climate change solutions are left wing if the right wing is still in denial. I personally think a carbon fee is the best solution but I had to go back and retype tax as fee as that well has been so thoroughly poisoned by people that the average Republican voter think the free market solution is actually a cunning plan to introduce communism.
        triceratops 7y ago
        > Rejecting nuclear power Plenty of people reject nuclear power. It's not just "the left wing of the climate change movement". "Until 2012, no U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI."[1] > rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes Who's doing that? I've never heard of this. Is this a universally and deeply held opinion among "the left"? Most people I know are in the "let's do something if it's going to work" boat. The other side isn't even at the "let's do something" point yet. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Effect_on_nuclear_power_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Eff...
gus_massa 7y ago
> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?
- danharaj 7y ago
  That's not what they said, but also, what is your point?
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  The basic facts are: 1. The earth is warming rapidly. 2. Human CO2 emissions are a primary cause. 3. There will be very significant impacts across the world this century if we don't take serious action. The lives of hundreds of millions of people (if not more) will be radically altered. 4. We have the ability and responsibility to take action and significantly reduce and mitigate future damage. These points seem pretty non-negotiable to me.
  - pzone 7y ago
    (3) is certainly debatable. If you read the actual contents of the IPCC forecasts it doesn't seem anything close to the end of the world. We're not turning the planet into Venus and we're not going to have to abandon Manhattan. Given a realistic climate change cost assessment, the >90 trillion dollar proposals like the Green New Deal can certainly come out looking like a bad deal.
    - dwaltrip 7y ago
      By itself, a 6 foot increase in sea-level would affect hundreds of millions of people. I believe that is on the high-end of predictions for 2100 if we continue to fail to take serious action, so yes, it may not be that bad. But it's just one example. We can also look at the more modest predictions of a 2 to 3 foot sea-level increase. That would still throw the lives of dozens of millions of people into complete chaos. Not to mention the disruption to the economic systems in these coastal areas, and those that flow through those areas. And this isn't even discussing the actual temperature increases, agricultural issues, floods / droughts, and so on.

ThomPete 7y ago

Can you mention a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we dont know how to handle with todays technology let alone in 50 years time? I am not talking about speculated but demonstrates. Thats what they mean.

dwaltrip 7y ago
When flat-out denial slowly morphs into "maybe it isn't a huge deal", one must question if that is actually what they mean.
- ThomPete 7y ago
  So mind reading is your argument?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    I'm saying that the arguments are ideologically motivated and are not put forth for their own merits.
    - ThomPete 7y ago
      You are questioning their motives not actually engaging in the argument.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Of course the arguments are ideologically motivated. Look at the left wing of the climate change movement, which has incorporated all sorts of social justice and primitivism elements into climate change. (Rejecting nuclear power, rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes, emphasizing “indigenous technology,” etc.) Look how the Green New Deal is being pitched as a reincarnation of the labor movement, a jobs program, and a reshaping of capitalist systems, as opposed to being directed solely to addressing climate change. Climate change is a huge ideological point for everyone.
      - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        It's not weird that climate change solutions are left wing if the right wing is still in denial. I personally think a carbon fee is the best solution but I had to go back and retype tax as fee as that well has been so thoroughly poisoned by people that the average Republican voter think the free market solution is actually a cunning plan to introduce communism.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        > Rejecting nuclear power Plenty of people reject nuclear power. It's not just "the left wing of the climate change movement". "Until 2012, no U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI."[1] > rejecting market solutions like carbon taxes Who's doing that? I've never heard of this. Is this a universally and deeply held opinion among "the left"? Most people I know are in the "let's do something if it's going to work" boat. The other side isn't even at the "let's do something" point yet. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Effect_on_nuclear_power_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Eff...

gus_massa 7y ago

> Stating that the risk of climate change is overstated is denying the risk of climate change. So you classify any form of dissent as "denying"?

danharaj 7y ago
That's not what they said, but also, what is your point?
dwaltrip 7y ago
The basic facts are: 1. The earth is warming rapidly. 2. Human CO2 emissions are a primary cause. 3. There will be very significant impacts across the world this century if we don't take serious action. The lives of hundreds of millions of people (if not more) will be radically altered. 4. We have the ability and responsibility to take action and significantly reduce and mitigate future damage. These points seem pretty non-negotiable to me.
- pzone 7y ago
  (3) is certainly debatable. If you read the actual contents of the IPCC forecasts it doesn't seem anything close to the end of the world. We're not turning the planet into Venus and we're not going to have to abandon Manhattan. Given a realistic climate change cost assessment, the >90 trillion dollar proposals like the Green New Deal can certainly come out looking like a bad deal.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    By itself, a 6 foot increase in sea-level would affect hundreds of millions of people. I believe that is on the high-end of predictions for 2100 if we continue to fail to take serious action, so yes, it may not be that bad. But it's just one example. We can also look at the more modest predictions of a 2 to 3 foot sea-level increase. That would still throw the lives of dozens of millions of people into complete chaos. Not to mention the disruption to the economic systems in these coastal areas, and those that flow through those areas. And this isn't even discussing the actual temperature increases, agricultural issues, floods / droughts, and so on.