Hypocrisy Regarding Climate Change

[Deuce Dropper]

Climate change naysayers are really beginning to chap my ass. Not because they are stout in their resolve and provide a challenging argument, but because they are basically hypocrites who talk out both sides of their mouth and have no problem directly contradicting themselves when a bigger issue comes along. Check this article on Fox's website (long time giver of tacit if not direct approval to climate change naysayers) and all the various factions who contribute (military figures, political figures and others who also 'naysay' climate change when it suits their best interest). It is almost like "OK lads, this shit is important, so none of that 'Global warming is BS' nonsense we normally like to spew because this shit is more important, its about war, which means security, which means making $$$ and we gotta bring the real."

let me pull a few quotes for you:

To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.

Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.

this one is my fave:

What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving ahead with strategies that assume current trends will continue.

We have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up

the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify areas of potential conflict

The Navy seems to be very on board regarding the reality of climate change and the especially large changes we are seeing in the Arctic

Tell me again about Climate Change being a farce...

And for those of you keeping score at home, when you say Climate Change is a conspiracy, a joke or a farce, you are basically laughing in the face of US servicemen, and other military personnel from the 7 other Arctic bordering nations.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/ ... latestnews

[headhonchoII]

Exactly DD. As soon as there are significant economic interests in FAVOUR of arguing the case for climate change, the political viewpoint will fall into line.

[Tigerman]

Tell me again about Climate Change being a farce...

And for those of you keeping score at home, when you say Climate Change is a conspiracy, a joke or a farce, you are basically laughing in the face of US servicemen, and other military personnel from the 7 other Arctic bordering nations.

Can't you do any better than straw men?

[finley]

Can't you do any better than straw men?

The last sentence doesn't invalidate the rest of the post. The fact is, when the people with the $ are betting on the reality of climate change in order to make more $, you can be pretty certain it's not a fabrication or a conspiracy. People with $ (even when it's the bottomless pit of taxpayer $) generally aren't that stupid.

[Super Hans]

Yes, but this is quoting from Fox news.
Didn't the USGS warn about a horrific impending economic and social disaster due to increasingly cold temperatures encroaching on northern Europe over the next 50 years, what, less than 10 years ago? And wasn't there a strategy based around this? I remember reading a damn big PDF about it, in any case.
Just goes to show, you can't trust anything you read or hear anywhere. Ever.

[Mick]

My personal view is those who look at the policies that follow an admission of global warming, are horrified. Countries like India wanting billions in aid, while at the same time promising to quadruple their own emission and would like exemption. Dubious methods of combating a problem like carbon trading schemes that is rife for abuse and with uncertainties what this will achieve and at what cost, trillions of dollars with everyone looking for a piece of the action. Even evaluating who should receive aid, under what circumstances and how much.

What will be the effect on businesses, on international competitiveness. I know, this has NOTHING to do with is global warming happening or not. But those who are in the denailist camp realize all this pivots on the certainty that global warming is happening. So they weigh up bullshitting and stretching what is uncertain, playing up any mistakes, as this stops action from taking place. I truly think for some of the more well informed deniers, they think this is the lesser of the two evils.

[finley]

Just goes to show, you can't trust anything you read or hear anywhere. Ever.

Sounds like someone's been watching X-Files re-runs again

I think there are some more prosaic examples. I heard some of the big seed companies are working on "improved" maize varieties that will cope with the expected higher temperature profile of maize-growing regions in Africa.

Countries like India wanting billions in aid, while at the same time promising to quadruple their own emission and would like exemption. Dubious methods of combating a problem like carbon trading schemes that is rife for abuse and with uncertainties what this will achieve and at what cost, trillions of dollars with everyone looking for a piece of the action. Even evaluating who should receive aid, under what circumstances and how much.

Yes, all that is a real pity, because (as I've said before) those particular countries have a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get their shit together. If they fail to grow their economies around sustainable technologies (instead of oil/coal/cars) they will be in deep trouble when those commodities become more expensive and the infrastructure that relies upon them can no longer function. The main advantage of (for example) solar power is that it is completely predicable, both in terms of costs and output, for many years into the future. Fossil-fuel prospects are completely unknown.

I can understand where the denialists are coming from on the "compensation" issue, but those arguments have little to do with the reality of climate change.

[Tigerman]

Can't you do any better than straw men?

The last sentence doesn't invalidate the rest of the post. The fact is, when the people with the $ are betting on the reality of climate change in order to make more $, you can be pretty certain it's not a fabrication or a conspiracy. People with $ (even when it's the bottomless pit of taxpayer $) generally aren't that stupid.

Who argues that climate change is a conspiracy? Not Fred Smith. Neither do I. Fred argues that the science is not as settled as many argue, and believes that man may be only a a small contributor to warming, if it is happening.

The fact that armies and companies are looking out for diferent scenarios suggests only that they are prudent. It does not suggest that anyone, such as FS, is arguing that conspiracies exist or that warming is absolutely not happening.

[finley]

The fact that armies and companies are looking out for diferent scenarios suggests only that they are prudent.

Quite so. And that's all the "believers" are suggesting too. Fred Smith wants certainty, but he's not going to get it and the reality is that we don't need it (science has always been about balance of probabilities). The consequences of being prudent are all positive. There is no downside. None. The consequences of pretending that everything's just fine and "we don't need to do anything" are pretty serious: at best, we get stuck in a technological and social cul-de-sac, with no innovation and a whole host of ongoing problems related to general environmental mismanagement. At worst, we're all scratching around in the dust eating grass.

[Mick]

The fact that armies and companies are looking out for diferent scenarios suggests only that they are prudent.

Quite so. And that's all the "believers" are suggesting too. Fred Smith wants certainty, but he's not going to get it and the reality is that we don't need it (science has always been about balance of probabilities). The consequences of being prudent are all positive. There is no downside. None. The consequences of pretending that everything's just fine and "we don't need to do anything" are pretty serious: at best, we get stuck in a technological and social cul-de-sac, with no innovation and a whole host of ongoing problems related to general environmental mismanagement. At worst, we're all scratching around in the dust eating grass.

But is it all good really? Was Kyoto all good? How about the carbon trading scheme they have going in Europe where companies are apparently able to make billions off poorly fashioned legislation. Is it fair to exempt some countries (those who will be contributing the most in CO2 emissions) while at the same time getting the more developed countries to pay trillions for their emissions and trillions more to reduce a certain amount, that is pointless in the grand scheme of things as developing countries emissions are soaring?

At worst, CO2 emissions continue to rise, minor reductions are made in the West at the cost of trillions, crippling the economy, forcing companies to close, where they might move to cheaper locations, like China and India, where they produce even more emissions from less efficient power stations.