5 ms·

By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically One thing that the world

By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically One thing that the world really needs to do is move beyond labels like "denialist". I'm sick of depiction that the only possible positions we can possibly take are "No way, global warming is absolutely a complete myth" and "zomg we're all going to die!" The truth doesn't always sit somewhere between the two extremes on every controversial debate, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where it does. One can think that anthropogenic global warming is probably a nonzero problem without buying into every extreme-level prediction or supporting every suggested policy prescription.

ajross 17y ago
I don't believe I asked you to buy into "every" prediction or support "every" prescription. But it's a fair point: which regulation choices do you support? My experience is that the seemingly-moderate "science is incomplete" skeptics, when pressed, generally argue for no action at all. That would put them much farther on the "denialist" (I don't know what other label to use, and you didn't offer a suggestion) end of the spectrum, no?
- SamAtt 17y ago
  See, this is a straw man argument. No one, and I mean no responsible person in government has argued for no action at all in my lifetime. We've had environmental regulations since people were afraid of Global Cooling. This has always been a question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"
  - hughprime 17y ago
    question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action" Not just of degree but of kind. Assuming anthropogenic global warming really _is_ a problem of nonzero severity, there's a vast array of actions that can be taken on a governmental level. These include: carbon taxes build more nuclear power plants more funding for alternative energy research cap and trade giant mirrors in orbit to reflect sunlight more funding for clean coal research kill half the population ban electricity build artificial trees for carbon sequestration and so forth. They all have risks and rewards, costs and payoffs. We should not be entirely surprised that our elected leaders tend to prefer the ones (carbon taxes, cap and trade) which involve our elected leaders getting more money and more power.
    - ajross 17y ago
      Should I infer that you are in favor of one or more of those courses? My guess from your tone is that you oppose all of them. So how is it not correct to characterize your advocacy as being for "inaction?".
      - hughprime 17y ago
        Huh? Stop inferring things. If you really want to know, then I'd say funding alternative energy research, clean coal research, and probably building more nuclear plants are a good idea. Giant mirrors are worth consideration, just in case -- remember, we're talking about risk minimization here. We shouldn't launch them just yet, but we should figure out how to make them just in case the planet ever does get sufficiently warm to cause serious problems (in which case it won't matter whether it's anthropogenic or heliogenic anyway). Carbon taxes might be an alright idea provided that they're offset by cuts to other taxes. Cap and trade seems to me like a much worse idea for various reasons (potential for corruption, weird economic distortion, potential of very high long-term economic costs, doesn't actually do all that much anyway). The remaining solutions (kill half the population and ban electricity) aren't much good either.

ajross 17y ago

I don't believe I asked you to buy into "every" prediction or support "every" prescription. But it's a fair point: which regulation choices do you support? My experience is that the seemingly-moderate "science is incomplete" skeptics, when pressed, generally argue for no action at all. That would put them much farther on the "denialist" (I don't know what other label to use, and you didn't offer a suggestion) end of the spectrum, no?

SamAtt 17y ago
See, this is a straw man argument. No one, and I mean no responsible person in government has argued for no action at all in my lifetime. We've had environmental regulations since people were afraid of Global Cooling. This has always been a question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"
- hughprime 17y ago
  question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action" Not just of degree but of kind. Assuming anthropogenic global warming really _is_ a problem of nonzero severity, there's a vast array of actions that can be taken on a governmental level. These include: carbon taxes build more nuclear power plants more funding for alternative energy research cap and trade giant mirrors in orbit to reflect sunlight more funding for clean coal research kill half the population ban electricity build artificial trees for carbon sequestration and so forth. They all have risks and rewards, costs and payoffs. We should not be entirely surprised that our elected leaders tend to prefer the ones (carbon taxes, cap and trade) which involve our elected leaders getting more money and more power.
  - ajross 17y ago
    Should I infer that you are in favor of one or more of those courses? My guess from your tone is that you oppose all of them. So how is it not correct to characterize your advocacy as being for "inaction?".
    - hughprime 17y ago
      Huh? Stop inferring things. If you really want to know, then I'd say funding alternative energy research, clean coal research, and probably building more nuclear plants are a good idea. Giant mirrors are worth consideration, just in case -- remember, we're talking about risk minimization here. We shouldn't launch them just yet, but we should figure out how to make them just in case the planet ever does get sufficiently warm to cause serious problems (in which case it won't matter whether it's anthropogenic or heliogenic anyway). Carbon taxes might be an alright idea provided that they're offset by cuts to other taxes. Cap and trade seems to me like a much worse idea for various reasons (potential for corruption, weird economic distortion, potential of very high long-term economic costs, doesn't actually do all that much anyway). The remaining solutions (kill half the population and ban electricity) aren't much good either.