Taxonomy of Global Warming Denial

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Where do you fit?

The taxonomy is adapted from here.


For me, the only debate is between the last two options. Should government be involved or should free markets allow technological innovation to solve the problem? Regardless, that is a political debate while all the others are scientific.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Your poll assumes too much. That's my answer. You are starting with unproven presuppositions.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Your poll assumes too much. That's my answer. You are starting with unproven presuppositions.

The taxonomy follows logically down the list.

Do you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? (Yes or No)

 

[AirPo]

Your poll assumes too much. That's my answer. You are starting with unproven presuppositions.

Such as ... ?

 

[Loudmouth]

Where do you fit?

The taxonomy is adapted from here.


For me, the only debate is between the last two options. Should government be involved or should free markets allow technological innovation to solve the problem? Regardless, that is a political debate while all the others are scientific.

The economic depression of 2008 taught us a big lesson. Free markets will choose short term profits over the long term health of the economy. They were willing to crater the housing market in order to make big bucks. I don't see why they would treat the environment any different than they treated the economy. What you need is a political body with oversight powers that can look after the long term health of the environment, even if that requires short term economic losses. The best candidate for the job is an elected government.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The economic depression of 2008 taught us a big lesson. Free markets will choose short term profits over the long term health of the economy. They were willing to crater the housing market in order to make big bucks. I don't see why they would treat the environment any different than they treated the economy. What you need is a political body with oversight powers that can look after the long term health of the environment, even if that requires short term economic losses. The best candidate for the job is an elected government.

My cynical side says that governments can be even worse and even more fickle. Instead of the investors, they try to woo the electorate every few years. Revolving doors and a seesaw electorate means that it is difficult to maintain consistent funding after every election cycle.

Private investment often takes a longer-term view than the next election cycle. Private companies want to maintain their brand for as long as possible. Companies can persist for decades (or centuries) through innovation, while governments do not. Governments rise and fall every decade or so and seemingly spend half their time (and money) campaigning.

Companies like Shell and Total are already investing in green technologies to the tune of billions of dollars and have been doing so for several years. Oil companies of today will, if they're smart, transition into the green companies of tomorrow. Nearly every major oil company today is investing huge sums in renewable energy including solar, wind, hydro, batteries, etc.



To be pragmatic: in the end the issue of global warming may be mitigated by a combination of government regulation, public investment, private investment and consumer demands. We vote in the ballot box but we also vote with the products we buy. If the public wants green tech, private businesses will fill the void. And the private businesses that don't adapt will go bankrupt.

Despite the GOP circus, the rest of the world is doing just that: mitigating global warming. It just takes a lot longer than the eco-activists had hoped to change the entire global energy system. It is happening though

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are starting with unproven presuppositions.

...such as the presupposition that climate change deniers want to be specific in what they deny?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The economic depression of 2008 taught us a big lesson. Free markets will choose short term profits over the long term health of the economy.

I agree.

The only way the free market would address the problem is if the cost is very small and the social pressure to do something was large. So if $2000 would buy a large red ball you could put on your exhaust and nullify the CO2 coming out of the car, people might install the red ball for the social prestige of everyone seeing they are doing something. But all that is just science fiction at this point.

Now if only somebody would invent a machine to turn carbon dioxide into diamonds and oxygen.

 

[Hieronymus]

The taxonomy follows logically down the list.

Do you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas? (Yes or No)

Yes, they use it in greenhouses so that the crops grow faster and bigger, because plants live off CO2.
It's the carbon that ends up as plant material.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, they use it in greenhouses so that the crops grow faster and bigger, because plants live off CO2.
It's the carbon that ends up as plant material.

CO2 is also "hot air" depending on what mouth it comes out of.

Just saying.

 

[JacksBratt]

The problem with poll is that you have limited options.
Where is the response that says:
CO2 as a greenhouse gas, has a volume and rate of increase that is too minuscule to affect the massive climate engine of the earth.
OR maybe better put this way:

Even if it is, it has no impact on the climate because there is such a small amount of it.

Now you can respond with a request for "evidence" and "peer reviewed" papers.

As Hieronymus stated, CO2 is not a pollutant but a life support for plant life. The C (or Carbon) ends up as plant matter and the O2 is expelled, which is life support for all animals.

 

[Loudmouth]

My cynical side says that governments can be even worse and even more fickle.

Then you should take a long look back at history. Your cynical side is being misled by various political movements and isn't up on the facts.

We could go back through things such as unsafe foods and drugs, immoral abuses of labor, monopolies, environmental pollution, and bribery of elected officials. If you really think we would be better off without government oversight of corporations, then I have to conclude that you ignored almost everything in your history classes.

Instead of the investors, they try to woo the electorate every few years. Revolving doors and a seesaw electorate means that it is difficult to maintain consistent funding after every election cycle.

Officials who are held accountable to the people instead of profits for a few . . . where is the drawback again?

Private investment often takes a longer-term view than the next election cycle.

That was proven false in the 2008 economic collapse.

Companies like Shell and Total are already investing in green technologies to the tune of billions of dollars and have been doing so for several years.

All the while, they have been funding political action committees that spread lies about global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, they use it in greenhouses so that the crops grow faster and bigger, because plants live off CO2.
It's the carbon that ends up as plant material.

Plants also live off of water, which means we could flood major cities with 10 feet of water and there wouldn't be any problems, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem with poll is that you have limited options.
Where is the response that says:
CO2 as a greenhouse gas, has a volume and rate of increase that is too minuscule to affect the massive climate engine of the earth.

Has anyone ever backed this up with a single piece of science?

 

[BrianJK]

Has anyone ever backed this up with a single piece of science?

Enter Fox News lead scientific consultant Jerry Falwell

 

[Hieronymus]

CO2 is also "hot air" depending on what mouth it comes out of.

Just saying.

Sure, but plants like this warmth too, like in a greenhouse.
Deforestation may be more of a problem than CO2 production.

But who knows, right?
"They" would have us believe all sorts of things to push their agendas.
"They" even have Christians believe in evolution.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The problem with poll is that you have limited options.
Where is the response that says:
CO2 as a greenhouse gas, has a volume and rate of increase that is too minuscule to affect the massive climate engine of the earth.
OR maybe better put this way:

Even if it is, it has no impact on the climate because there is such a small amount of it.

That would be option three.


Glad to finally know where you sit in the taxonomy.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes, they use it in greenhouses so that the crops grow faster and bigger, because plants live off CO2.
It's the carbon that ends up as plant material.

Even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, do you believe it is increasing in atmospheric concentration?

 

[Hieronymus]

Even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, do you believe it is increasing in atmospheric concentration?

Probably, due to population increase, combustible fuel usage increase (per person) and deforestation.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Then you should take a long look back at history. Your cynical side is being misled by various political movements and isn't up on the facts.

We could go back through things such as unsafe foods and drugs, immoral abuses of labor, monopolies, environmental pollution, and bribery of elected officials. If you really think we would be better off without government oversight of corporations, then I have to conclude that you ignored almost everything in your history classes.

Certainly government oversight and regulation is necessary, I never said that it wasn't. But I don't know if massive public investment in green technology is necessary.

For example, when governments regulated safer foods for consumers, they didn't do so by investing in safe fertilizer companies and hoping those companies succeeded. No, they imposed laws and regulations on current manufacturers. Manufacturers which were innovative succeeded.

When governments regulated labour laws, they didn't do so by investing in companies with good labor practices. They imposed laws and regulations on the labour market. Businesses which were innovative succeeded.

Etc.

Today we are seeing governments around the world pouring massive investment dollars into unproven green startups. It is foolish.

Governments need to regulate the energy industry rather than invest in green energy. If a government made a law which forced energy companies to have 20% of energy production from green sources in 5 years it would force the private industry to put the investment dollars into making it happen rather than using taxpayers dollars to make it happen. It would force private industry to be innovative and progress. The companies which couldn't innovate and adapt would fail.

Officials who are held accountable to the people instead of profits for a few . . . where is the drawback again?

Businesses are held accountable to the people as well.

That was proven false in the 2008 economic collapse.

That's a specific anecdotal example from one particular industry.

I can provide other examples of companies and industries which are taking a long view. Shell for example has been around for over a century and has adapted well to changing circumstances, changing technologies and changing governments.

All the while, they have been funding political action committees that spread lies about global warming.

Can you find any evidence that Shell or Total have funded the Heartland Institute? Here is some info on how Shell and Total haven't funded anti-climate change think tanks. Also, here is some info on how Shell and BP have partnered with the Sierra Club and the Partnership for Climate Action. Here is a link from the big-bad Alberta oil sands giant Suncor on their investments in carbon-capture technologies.

Right back at you: Your cynical side is being misled by various political movements and isn't up on the facts.

Oil companies are not pure demons from the underworld nor are they a monolithic entity. Some do a lot of good and many are very innovative and forward thinking. They also happen to be realistic: the global energy system is currently dependent on carbon-based products. Things cannot turn around overnight. They need to keep the wells and refineries running while investing in the future. Even if electric cars and solar energy really take off, we will still need these companies to produce oil because there is no reasonable material which has all the properties and malleability of plastic.

Here is a list of Heartland Institute donors. Care to count how many are oil or coal companies?