But, consider the points made by Peace. Even when you remove the points by Peace that are not absolute nonsense, such as his claim that the
But regarding the points that Peace raised that have some element of truth, why would they be a big deal unless abundant renewable energy from the Sun or some other unlimited source would be a bad thing. The truth is that denialists only want to scare us into thinking that stopping AGW would be bad.
edit
The "greenie" quoted by Sagebrush is also of the sort of person who thinks in terms of a zero-sum-game. While Sagebrush is wrong to make such a generalization, he does bring up the point that denialists are not the only zero-sum-thinkers.
It is not the 'denialists' who are angry and want everyone else to change their lives to please us.
Here is a quote from a typical greenie: Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.
That has all the characteristics of an angry person. You should take an honest look at yourself and your fellow greenies before you point the finger. Ha! Ha! You stepped into that one, didn't you?
Chem: With all due respects, you must look at the opening statement. It is apparent that you cannot fully comprehend you own presentations. Later in the presentation the commentator discusses the advantages of anger. You can't see the forest for the trees.
What is AGW?
What I've noticed among conservatives is that they think of RIGHTS as some physical thing, where, if groups of people are granted their rights, it takes the rights AWAY from "straight, Christian, White males."
Clearly, rights are NOT a zero-sum game; where MY getting rights takes rights from other people. After all, oppressing ME isn't YOUR RIGHT in the first place.
As for rejection of climate science, the people who profit from fossil fuels (and have their eyes on the mineral resources under the polar ice) hire liars; then lots of morons believe the liars.
Of course, the idea that the Bible is science is just bizarre. Real pre-Enlightenment thinking. "Building a bridge to the 14th century."
There is much science to show that man doesn't have any effect on the climate as well. Why do you deny these scientists? But you can put this matter to rest. Tell us if it will be warmer or colder in 5 years, and show us how you came to your conclusion. If you're right, then who can argue with you?
Canadian grain is exported through the port of Churchill. The rail lines leading to Churchill are built on permafrost. The permafrost is melting and the trains are derailing. Global warming is interfering with food distribution. Its not zero sum when people starve.
It's interesting that you claim "rejection of science" is:
> Thinking if it gets ALMOST as warm as the period ALL CLIMATOLOGISTS call the "climate optimum," that might not wipe-out the ecosystem and could actually be a good thing.(1)
> Thinking cause probably doesn't FOLLOW effect.(2)
> Suspecting the validity of "measuring change" by examining a "before" data vs a DIFFERENT "after" data.(3)
> Thinking making CORRECT predictions means you probably have a better handle on reality than someone whose predictions DO NOT pan-out.(4)
But most of all:
> Looking at the IPCC's claim that to solve a problem caused by too much MAN-MADE CO2, we have to dramatically escalate man's CO2 production (and that IS their actual claim) and thin king there cold be a flaw in that thinking.(5)
Now in all seriousness, if EVEN ONE of the above "objections" is something YOU find reasonable, then YOU ARE a "denier" according to the IPCC.
(1) The IPCC says the worst case scenario is still cooler than it was about 1000 years ago
(2) The IPCC's data shows rising CO2, on average BEGINS about 200 years AFTER each warming cycle
(3) NO ONE has found "global warming" by measuring THE SAME THING for both past and present data-sets.
(4) Consider "we" have been debating this for decades now; that the IPCC itself says the IPCC has been wrong about EVERY ASPECT of its forecasts for the present-day and claims THAT proves their model is correct; that the "deniers" NAILED present-day conditions years and years ago.
(5) Yes, the IPCC says if its plans WERE IMPLEMENTED the result would be DRAMATIC escalation of pollution generally and of CO2 in particular.
The problem you raise in your question is easily solved.
All you need to do is provide the benefits first.
Competition for Ted?:
I watched a Ted talk the other day from David Brin, noted science fiction author ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow ). A lot of it was about how we *are* capable of doing some pretty awesome things, as a species, and how things like zero-sum-game thinking (the idea that I can win only if you lose, and vice versa) can hinder progress.
So, how much do you think denialist rejection of science is because they can't conceive of a future where they get back more than they give up in the process of, for example, converting from coal to renewable power? Because they fear that change will leave them worse off instead of better off? Because they see their political opponents as enemies to vanquish instead of fellow citizens to negotiate with? And so on. And, any general thoughts about this concept?
