Political YouTube Clips Thread

You can think of it as small government conservatism; I prefer the term libertarianism, but that seems to be a bad thing in the US as well

 

I think that's just another difference in the US. I found this on Wikipedia under libertarianism:

 

His analogy to a model train set in the basement is pretty accurate for the climate scientists; almost all of their predictions for the future come out of their elaborate climate models.

 

I thought it was pretty lame. It's basically the same non-argument we keep hearing from the skeptics & deniers, which basically boils down to "the only way we'll believe anything is when you have concrete proof that the all the catastrophes that you're predicting are actually going to happen - and they aren't happening yet, ergo, they will never happen". End of story. The small issue of the insanity of any changes only starting to get considered when water is pouring down your throat is, naturally, ignored. Probably with a handy argument of "well, if say the coasts DO all get flooded 10 miles in, we'll just relocate everyone there to higher ground! Duh!".

indeed.

Because the climate change deniers aren't scientists either. At least not most of them. The majority who open up various TV or video soapboxes (ala above) are usually self-promoters or simply tools in the hands of certain political options and corporations who have a vested interest in the current status quo and whose bottom line would be hurt by implementing any changes. So not really knowing much about what they're talking about, but 100% of the "evidence" not matching up completely is obviously more than grounds enough for their dismissal of - well, all of it. Because everyone knows that climatology is an exact science right? Because we're more than smart enough to be able to account for every minute possible factor ON THE ENTIRE PLANET that can affect any figure collected today or relied on from hundreds or thousands of years ago, right?

Now who's being naive, not to say gullible here? There's this bridge store I'm opening and you're all invited...

 

That is absolutely not true. There are some of course, but the same could be said the the alarmists. There are the same self-promoters and tools on both sides, and there is a TON of money in climate science these days being spent by government agencies.

No, there are a lot of people who know what they are talking about who point out the flaws and the exaggerations, and do not dismiss all of it, mostly just the tales of disaster. And how many tales of disaster have come and gone with no results? You can think up just about anything bad and find a story that such a thing "might" happen due to AGW; it is truly ludicrous.

Heh. And that's the point really.

 

Exactly. Obviously I'm not a climate scientist either, and I can't say the real climate scientists who claim AGW is real and a big problem are wrong; I can only observe what they predict and how well their predictions pan out. If their predictions pan out, then I think OK they're on to something; if they don't, then I think well it looks like they have something wrong. And they have gotten it wrong.

Then I see that the most prominent of the climate scientists are not neutral, that they are working for a cause (in their own words), and instead of admitting where they are wrong they spin.

Then I think of how scientists have worked on things in past like plate tectonics. Plate tectonics was not the consensus position and scientists who showed support for the theory suffered for their position, so some would not come forward in support. Now it is the accepted position and you're crazy if you don't accept it because it explains so much. Just because something is a consensus does not mean it is right or that there are not a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people who disagree with the position.

 

Are you seriously saying that the majority of conservative deniers that usually feature in various online videos, blogs or TV talk shows are actual scientists? Because those that I've seen certainly weren't. Most of them are promoting their political & economic philosophy which simply does not allow for something like global warming to be true because it would turn their world view upside down. Consequently, complete denial is the only solution.

Actually, from my experience, they are in the minority.

Which is a handy excuse to bury your head in the sand and do nothing until it's too late... I'm sure you can see that.

And how many actually do that?

Well yea, there's consensus and there's world-wide overwhelming consensus. Which isn't to say that I'm 100% convinced that they're right... but certainly more than convinced enough not to dismiss most of what they're saying, like some people are quite happy to do. That's just plain ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

 

No; are you seriously saying that the majority of alarmists in various online videos, blogs, TV talk shows or newspapers are actual scientists? Because they're not, and most of them have no idea what they're talking about.

OK, now those are not the people I'm talking about; I'm talking baout the people who say the alarmism is not supported.

Who's burying their head in the sand? I'm looking at predictions and seeing that they don't pan out. Why should I think their predictions futher into the future will be accurate?

Seriously? I would guess every one that you could name off the top of your head (i.e. the ones who are most publicly prominent). And you have to realize climate scientists are not a large group to begin with.

I imagine that is a false impression that has been promulgated by the media. There has been this declaration that 97% of climate scientists support the consensus. Well what was that based on? A survey of 77 scientists, 75 of whom agreed that there has been warming since 1950. Well the fact that there has been warming since 1950 is not the big thing in dispute, though some question how accurate the temperature anomalies really are since they are not based on raw readings, but are the product of various adjustments that cool the past and warm the present.

So, what exactly is it that you are convinced of? And what is it that has convinced you?

 

Funnily enough, I don't see "alarmists" popping up left and right around me... just an occasional article in the newspapers and clip on the TV and most of it is far removed from being "alarmist". Unlike the pretty much hysterical denial where you can literally see the deniers' veins popping out as they attempt to scream you into submission (usually with a healthy dose of propaganda, like the oh-so-subtle implication in the video that Snook has posted that non-deniers are communists).

But I'm willing to take your word for it that it's different in the US, that you're being assaulted by "alarmists" on every step.

Don't really see many of those in conservative circles... also, what exactly do you consider to be "alarmism"?

People like those in Snook's video are. I'm not talking about you. You actually make sense.

Seriously? Wow. Would be nice to have some substantiation for that claim.

Common sense. Belief in cause and effect. Understanding of actions and consequences. Observation with my own eyes. A sense of personal and social responsibility. Sun that burns me in 15 minutes today whereas 30 years ago I practically never needed sunscreen. And on top of that, everything that I've read from scientists to date. Sum total, I don't believe that man's industry is so insignificant as to not be able to affect the climate, when it quite clearly does everything else, from our environment to quality of drinking water, cancer rates, air pollution, etc. In fact, it would be a miracle of biblical proportions if climate was the only thing that man was NOT leaving a footprint in. Certainly, the Earth can self-regulate and self-clean to a point and over a certain period of time but I'm convinced that we're already on the verge of what it can take before we start seeing serious consequences.

But sadly, as with most things, it's probably going to take a lot more dead bodies before the nay-sayers (at least in the US) are overruled.

As for your claim of a "survey of 77 scientists, 75 of whom agreed that there has been warming since 1950", that's just plain false. If you care to peruse this article, you'll see that the consensus on climate change is far more specific than just "warming since 1950" and supported by far more than 77 scientists.

 

Wow. That really is fascinating because I see exactly the opposite here. Almost no news about any doubts; everything is settled science and there's no need for debate any more. Every news story about just about anything having to do with the environment, or really the Earth in general (I've seen it said global warming will be responsible for earthquakes) "could" be because of global warming and it "may" make everything worse. As I said: Ludicrous. The only skeptical point of view I get is from the websites Watts Up With That and Cliimate Audit.

Maybe I'm not clear on your argument? You keep bringing up conservatives... is that your argument? That conservatives have some ideological resistance to the AGW idea? Now, that I have seen and agree with you. Most of the unthinking agreement with skeptical arguments comes from that quarter.

Now alarmism. As mentioned above. That the warming is unprecedented and that disasters of pretty much any stripe will be coming. More frequent and powerful hurricanes, more floods, polar bears drowning due to lack of arctic ice, Manhattan under meters of water, millions of "climate refugees" in the near future (I think one of those refugee predictions' time horizon has passed even). That kind of thing.

EDIT: Yeah here it isIn 2005, the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

Which one comes to mind? Hanson? Mann? Gleick? Mandia? Schmidt? All of the alarmist bent whose spin is legendary. Not to mention their defenders in the media.

I think you misunderstand. I was talking about a specific statistic that gets bandied about everywhere (but given your other experience, maybe not in your country) that was based on this study.

From what I gather though, the "consensus" depends on what the questions are that are being asked, because nearly all scientists agree that the Earth has warmed and that Human activity is at least partially responsible for some of it. There is lots of disagreement on how large the Human component is and whether there is anything to be alarmed about.

Also, Wikipedia is really not the best source for unbiased information on climate science specifically. William Connolley is well known for his control and abuse there.

That's why I asked for specifics. The climate changes, it always has. There is no way via "common sense" or casual "observation" that one can tie changing climate to more CO2 in the atmosphere. The Earth's climate is complicated in the extreme and CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. The only way the scientists can get to alarming temperature gains is if in their models positive feedbacks outweigh negative feedbacks, yet the forcings and feedbacks are not understood well enough that the models perform well in predicting the future.

And what does that have to do with global warming or more CO2 in the atmosphere?

Heh. I doubt anyone could point to one so far, so "more" is an interesting way of putting it. And the way things have been going in recent years - and have gone in the past with "climate scares" - I would be somewhat suprised if this is an issue in the near future.

 

Well, that's certainly not the way it is here...

That, yes.

OK, but flooded Manhattan and millions of climate refugees aside, the rest IS happening. Or does that not count for some reason?

I guess you get more news about that in the US... didn't really reach me here.

I scanned over the article I linked and it's well supported with quotations and links to external resources, so it's not just something that someone put together and is now selling as the truth. If you look it over, I think you'll agree - but if not, please point out any issues with it.

Oh, I agree with that, but in my view it's more a question of how much the predicted time span for anything is off, not that it's never going to happen.

Uh... thinner ozone layer? And I didn't say it was specifically due to CO2 in the atmosphere. It's just another proof how man-made pollution DOES have a drastic effect on something as gigantic as the ozone layer. And you probably know how long it took for that theory to become accepted fact and that the scientist who proposed it has been ridiculed by his peers for 15+ years for advocating it because nobody believed it.

Well, the great thing about the climate change is that it's such a wide and far-reaching concept that if somebody wants to, they can always find something else to blame it on that man's actions. Which isn't to say that other factors don't contribute, but it's just very convenient that there's no real way to substantiate which contributes to how much. So the skeptics and deniers will always be able to blame it on something else than man's actions. There's always a fall guy somewhere in nature to blame.

 

No, the rest is not happening. If you look at historical plots for floods, droughts, number of polar bears - and (going out on a limb ) I'd say any other perceived disaster due to AGW - shows no such thing. Some of the perception is likely driven by the 24-hour media cycle, the speed and spread of news and the better tools we have for detecting things like hurricanes out in the Atlantic.

I didn't want to spend much time on it, because as I've said consensus really isn't important when it comes to science, and I doubt it would change anyone's mind. That was just a warning to you (and anyone else) when looking up climate science in Wikipedia: You will certainly not get the whole picture; anything contradictory to the message will not be there. For example the consensus article will only show you positive indications of consensus, anything against it will be disallowed in the article.

Now that's something we agree on. I just disagree CO2 is either a problem or in fact is pollution at all.

That's interesting because I've seen articles some time ago that said the theory about the loss of ozone was not really due to CFC's after all, it was cosmic rays. Here's one (again just what showed up first) Now, I haven't looked much into it since the CFC ban is a done deal and has been for some time, so perhaps it's bunkum. But let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument: All those costs associated with the CFC ban were for nothing; CFCs were not harmful in any other way. The costs for reducing CO2 emissions enough to make any kind of significant change will be vastly greater and cause real, serious problems.

 

Heh, in other words, short of the world coming to an end, everything's happened before. As we all know... but honestly, if it all fit so nicely with the predictions (and we do have written records for all the civilized areas for the last few hundred years), then the climatologists would really have to be involved in a world-wide conspiracy to cover up that all the climate-related catastrophes fit in just fine with historical plots.

And just how much scientifically valid, non-biased (as in, not funded by the oil companies, big business, the GOP...) skepticism is there, by comparison? Outside the US - where there are huge lobbies constantly working the denial or skepticism angle because it furthers their own business interests - very little to my knowledge.

And just because bias usually comes up in these debates I didn't link to one of the dozens of other more biased Wikipedia articles but to one where you could easily see references for all the claims. Well, "biased"... if there is a world-wide consensus, you can't really speak about bias here any more than Creationists can speak about biased Darwinists. So while the consensus wouldn't change the minds of any deniers, it would at least serve to get accusations of bias out of the way, as obviously they're a great tool for the deniers to muddy the waters with. You know well enough how much time you could waste debating evolution with a Creationist, and you'd still be labelled as biased, so you'd basically be wasting your breath... but the fact that there's world-wide consensus on evolution gives you the ability to shrug Creationism off as a loony religious concept.

Wikipedia has a very thorough article on ozone depletion and at least from a quick scan of it I don't see it mentioned that CFC bans were for no good reason. Frankly, this is the first that I hear of it. If they really were, I'm sure it's going to become an accepted scientific fact soon enough - it's not like we've historically had any global scientific conspiracies over mistakes that scientists in the past have made. Constantly re-evaluating the existing body of scientific work is the standard modus operandi after all. And numerous accepted theories get shot down by new discoveries every decade.

As for the costs of reducing CO2 emissions and the problems that they cause, well, the point argued is that NOT reducing them would mean far more problems and much greater costs. It's not like scientists work with an agenda on how to make CO2 emitters jumps through unnecessary hoops and pay through the nose so that they can snicker and giggle under the cover of their lab coats. That kind of "scientists who make claims that hurt the corporate bottom line are the enemy" attitude is the real problem here.