Originally Posted by LakeSuperior
Getting to the main point, I think that many people believe we are destroying the planet with pollution and excess consumption
. Consequently, the AGW argument is a perfect excuse for legislating a green agenda regardless of the facts and uncertainties of AGW.
In other words, AGW may or may not be happening but many are going to go with it anyway in order to serve an agenda. Until the AGW theories and consensus opinions the conservationist had zero leverage to accomplish their green goals.
Well-put. You have zeroed into a very key part of the debate. I totally agree that, for better or worse, the AGW issue has become the single
proxy for just about every pollution/conservation/sustainability/eco-conscious debate going. All the eggs in this one basket.
Which is kind of sad in one way, because there are a thousand other reasons besides AGW (including economic and investment opportunity reasons!!) for doing just about all of these many small and large things to clean up our mess and reduce overconsumption. I'm quite sad that all the chips seems to rest on AGW.
As you might expect, I do have a few quibbles with some details of your summary:
- it's not 'belief', it's certain knowledge that we're making a mess and over-consuming, in many ways. There's no wiggle room with this; we're fouling the nest. Boaters know this better than most.
- AGW ... is really happening, and is measurable
. The remaining questions are only whether it's happening enough to matter, the extent to which it will disrupt or alter 'natural' climate cycles... and of course what can or should be done about it.
- as you state - the AGW is now the stand-in for every conservation vs status quo debate. And yes, you will find that just about every 'green' or conservation-minded person or group also accept the scientific findings around AGW. This isn't unusual; in general, whenever there is a stand-off around 'green', pollution, or conservation issues, the science is usually in support of the green/conservation position
, and it's the status quo defenders who most often go to economic, business or other arguments that don't counter the science, including economic doom-and-gloom predictions, etc.
The AGW/climate-change argument is running true to this form as well. In its corner, dead-center - the vast majority of the subject matter experts. Of course the green poseurs and hobby ecologists, and those with a green agenda are on-side... but at the core
of the issue - the science of it. It's not a bluff.
Who's against acknowledging AGW? Well, the single
greatest component of what's determined to be causing AGW is CO2 from fossil fuel
burning. So, who might be opposed to reducing the amount of fossil fuel
we burn, hmmm? The anti-AGW camp also attracts any who, for whatever reason, resent or don't like the message... or simply the strident, scolding, self-righteous tone of the 'greenies' as they perceive them.
So, respectfully, I would say that the majority of misdirection, bluff and pure BS is coming from the anti-AGW side. Here is where we get:
- scientists forge results!
- the last two winters were cold!
- scientists are getting millions -no, Billions! in grant money by going along
- scientists bully their colleagues into going along or else... (what, they have to go work at a Starbucks now? better hours and pay, probably)
- climate scientists are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy trying to create a socialist eco-agrarian utopia!
- scientists get it wrong alot! why, look at ...
- acknowledging AGW necessarily means cap and trade
, and spending vast money for things that may or may not work (version 2 it's just a great big eco and alternative-energy boondoggle by the vast renewables industry)
- but... China! India! We're not gonna do a thing unless they do.
- if you don't have a fully costed solution in your briefcase (and Powerpoint slides, and spreadsheets) you can't talk about the problem (right, JD?)
- anything to do with Al Gore (seriously. do you guys check under your bed
at night for Al Gore?)
In summary... when it comes to who's twisting reality to fit an agenda... it's mainly on the anti-AGW side.
For the record
, let me briefly state my own position:
- I have enough education and experience to know what science is, and how the scientific process works, and this leads me to accept that if the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are essentially in agreement about something.. it's a thing.
- I have no investment (emotional or otherwise) in a specific economic, technical or social solution. My only goal is to see everyone dealing rationally with reality, and proceeding forward with gathering knowledge and data, instead of being mired in a fruitless debate
- I have no problem with people who have genuine doubts about the extent of AGW, or the long-term predictions, or who argue against knee-jerk high-cost solutions. Lets discuss.
- I have a problem with those who deny the validity of an overwhelming scientific consensus, or spread misinformation, fabrications, junk science, and attack people and groups, out of ignorance or deliberate disregard for what science is and how it works.
[and hey I know some of you are simply trolling. Put a fat smiley in there so we don't take you seriously. Wouldn't you rather be sailing?]
I honestly think that many of us are actually closer in position than our debates would indicate. Unless you're Bill Gates, most cruisers are already practicing conservationists and ecologically aware.
. . .
[btw - great, great post, Gord M. Thanks]