a reply to the analysis-deniers on "climate denial"

My reply to a response to the OP of ACO invoking WWII to describe how we should address "climate change"...

The likelihood of the relatively imminent death of life on our planet requires such language to get through to climate change deniers.

• Like
•  · Reply
•  · 7h
•  · Edited

• 

  Eric Schansberg Would you define likelihood and imminent (at least a bit)?
  
  Ignoring the charged rhetoric of "denier", which necessarily makes speakers seem like they're more into rhetoric than reality, the problems for those in the know to some extent: 
  
  1.) The folks who have made such predictions in the past have a lousy record in this realm. So there's a "boy cry wolf" aspect that must be acknowledged (rarely done) and addressed (never? done). This takes us back to the Atlantic article on the Phillips/CovCath episode. If people repent of past mistakes, they are impressive people who become more weighty. 
  
  2.) The four parts of this question are: a.) extent of GW; b.) extent to which its anthropogenic; c.) the costs and benefits of AGW; d.) the costs and benefits of policy proposals to deal with AGW. Those (supposedly) concerned with AGW rarely deal with more than the first two (if that)-- and if they range into the last two, it's to trumpet the costs of c and the benefits of d, ignoring the benefits of c and the costs of d. Again, this is simply not credible, for people who know much of anything. When folks pursue these angles-- even if they're right-- they're begging people to disbelieve their assertions.

  • Like
  •  · Reply
  •  · 3m

Here's a test that reveals if you're in decent shape on this issue in terms of science and public policy: Can you name a benefit of AGW or a cost of trying to mitigate it? 

I'll give an example of each. GW would mean higher ag yields and thus, less resource use. And if we spend/regulate $X billion on GW, that's $X will we can't use to mitigate disease and water problems in Africa. Good people could want us to use more natural resources to produce food-- or to sacrifice Africans to work on GW-- but it's at least a debatable question.