Talk:Global warming denialism/Archive9

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <10>, <11>

, (new)(back)

Moderate or somewhat agnostic positions on effects of AGW?

How about this one? Just wondering, as the idea that specific effects of AGW are incredibly difficult to predict with accuracy is widespread, reasonable and moderate sounding, so not something I can write off as denialism or minimising immediately.

Also compare this piece on Geocurrents.info. Obviously, there's a lot of wiggle room in between "doom" and "(net) positive outcome" scenarios. The most extreme negative scenarios might be seen as useful to keep people from staying complacent and just hoping that things aren't gonna be that bad, but to propagate them as a certainty is not only intellectually dishonest, and could actually pose a danger in being counterproductive, resulting in all AGW warnings not being considered seriously anymore and getting written off as "alarmism". --84.151.153.31 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the paper, or just the denialist spin on it from El Reg (Unreliable, at best, on all things climate - ref [1], [2], and more) Read the paper. It's quite clear. Everyone cannot up-and-move to Siberia. Could global warming make Siberia habitable? Sure. If that were to happen, would the rest of the world be a barren wasteland? Sure. No deal! Hipocrite (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So do I understand this right, you are passing the worst-case scenario of "most of the world turns into a barren, uninhabitable wasteland (forever?)" off as a full, set-in-stone, not-open-to-questions ultimate certainty? (That's a dogma, not a prediction then.) Woah, man! Just dial the rhetoric down a bit, will you? I just don't think misrepresenting the ambiguities in the field (either exaggerating or minimising them) is helpful. --84.151.153.31 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am saying that in order for Sibera to be pleasant, the rest of the world would be uninhabitable. Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Since (as is well known) there were periods in earth history when high latitudes comparable to contemporary Siberia had a pleasantly moderate or even warm climate, and the rest of the world wasn't exactly uninhabitable (as in "barren wasteland"), I don't find your conclusion compelling, much less obvious. --84.151.184.253 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguments are not supposed to be compelling on here per se; they only have to toe the party line.

"Barren Wasteland" ref [3]

Is doubt about the proposed 'solutions' permitted?

I don't doubt that global warming is occurring, or that human consumption of fossil fuels is related to it. I don't see us persuading the human race to abandon industrial or mass agricultural economies anytime soon. I'm not sure that merely reducing carbon emissions will make a dent in what's already been done, especially considering that this has gone on since the eighteenth century industrial revolution. We're not going to achieve agreement among squabbling countries on this. Cheating is inevitable also. Is there any evidence that suggests that any of the current proposals would make a lick of difference? For better or for worse, human fossil fuel consumption is a self limiting phenomenon, even as intelligent life itself is.

What we need to do is to drastically reduce the human biomass, of course. I don't see people lining up to volunteer here either; fortunately, nature, whether viral or human, will get this done sooner or later.

Until that epidemic or world war comes, wouldn't our best bet be to prepare for what we know's coming and can't stop? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

*facepalm*

I have two suggestions. If you are really interested in what is known as "adaptation and mitigation", I suggest using the respective articles on Wikipedia as a starting point: wp:Adaptation to global warming and wp:Climate change mitigation.

And unless you have something to say about the article itself, its talk page is not a place for free-form discussion.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article does take a rather peremptory tone with 'deniers', and labels, for example, people who object to raising excise taxes on fossil fuels as selfish villains. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with a bit of a ramble here. Smerdis is a smart guy, and a friend I know as a smart guy - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Refocusing on denialism

Per Sterile's excellent suggestion, I've taken the first step in shoring up our material on global warming denialism — which, as he put it, is one of the pillars of modern science denialism — by renaming the page and shifting some of the parts more about the scientific basis of global warming to their own page. What this page needs is a rewrite to better discuss and refute the denialism half. I can start working on it myself in a little while, but I would greatly appreciate any help on this, as I am not a scientist nor especially knowledgeable in these matters. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this page covers some of the basic denialist talking points fairly well. It would probably be better to farm out some of the more complex ones to their own pages. Perhaps some material from The Great Global Warming Swindle could be recycled "inspire" material on this page as well -- I tried to rebut all the basic points there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Medieval warm period

"a warmer Medieval Warm Period would imply high climate sensitivity": I am confused. "Climate sensitivity" refers to how much the atmosphere warms in response to increased CO2. I don't think there is any claim that the medieval warm period was caused by increased CO2. Doesn't a warmer medieval warm period simply imply greater natural variability? RobFisher (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cost Effectiveness Arguments?

Some people will 'concede' that global warming is happening and that it is man-made but that it is not cost effective to do anything about it and that the money would be better spent in adapting to the changing climate. I really don't know much about this topic, but it's a question that interests me. Does anyone know anything much on this? Is it worth adding to the main page?--Barryjon (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)