If you think global warming is a hoax, are you an idiot?

[giblets]

This is not to say that some or many or even most on the denier side have any economic stake in the debate, in fact often they would be better off financially siding with the scientific consensus. Somebody's got to do the physical job of building environmentally efficient infrastructure, mostly the denier movement benefits the current batch of capitalist rulers.

Exactly. I don't complain when rioters start looting and breaking windows because the working class will benefit from the physical job of installing new windows. Mostly law and order benefits the current batch of capitalist rulers.

[Felch]

So basically you acknowledge that something is wrong but as long as it doesn't affect you directly you aren't willing to do anything about it ?

No, he's saying it's impossible to say that it's wrong. Warmer weather could be a good thing. Change isn't always bad.

[Jon Miller]

So basically you acknowledge that something is wrong but as long as it doesn't affect you directly you aren't willing to do anything about it ?

I would say that there are always costs associated with every opportunity. I don't know what the costs are associated with climate change, and I don't know what the costs are associated with various actions to limit/******/fight climate change.

I don't really think anyone does.

JM
(as an example, killing every human on the planet would definitely limit/******/fight climate change, but I think almost everyone would agree that this wouldn't be worth while... )

[Jon Miller]

It is obvious to me that something should be done, but going from environmental impact to cost isn't something I know how to do. I guess I would just do the things which provide the best environmental impact per cost and would continue to add more until we can come up with the correct point (I would personally error on the side of protecting the environment too).

JM

JM

[Lorizael]

(as an example, killing every human on the planet would definitely limit/******/fight climate change, but I think almost everyone would agree that this wouldn't be worth while... )

Almost, indeed.

[Zevico]

Not necessarily. Climate change/GW isn't like the evolution controversy, where the choices are between "teach an unpalatable scientific theory" and "teach something more palatable, but which manifestly isn't even science."

More importantly, it's a lot less straightforward. There may well be a scientific consensus on GW, but that consensus rests on an expert interpretation of a massive data set making several assumptions about the effects of this variable and that. Even the experts disagree to some extent on how much change we're facing, or how fast, or what its effects will be. Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.
Er, this is in response to the OP, in case it isn't clear.

Broadly in agreement except for this statement:

Do I trust that the expert interpretation is, on the whole, more right than wrong, and we are doing something ill-advised which screws up the climate? Yes.

Well, I don't think trusting the expert interpretation is at all necessary, at any rate, for the purpose of public policy. I don't think spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it is necessary until the case has actually been debated before the public. Not every scientist agrees with global warming. It does not do to deride those unsure or unconvinced of being "deniers" or "skeptics", shutting our eyes and ears and ignoring them. This is a scientific debate, not a religious disputation. "Deniers" are not disputing the existence of God; they are arguing that some of the data, or assumptions, or modelling, is in some way incorrect. The unconvinced may be wrong or right but their arguments must be addressed by those who accept the validity of the lgobal warming theorem. Sweeping them aside with the "denier" ad hominem does nothing to assist us in a consideration of the debate; it merely turns it into a religious disputation. If and when this occurs then can the public even begin to understand the issues, or non-issues, in the debate. Only then would I be prepared to make my judgement. (Either that or I will have to pore through the material myself, which should be a challenge--but with so much money on the line, why not?)

[Elok]

Like I said, it's beyond me to evaluate the data myself, unless I care to get a bloody PhD in climate science so I can tell which claims are bunk. Failing that, what can I do? The debate has apparently already been held, and the majority decision seems to be "yes, we are screwing up the climate to some extent." I'm inclined to go with the majority of experts, for lack of a better option.

Now, it's possible that this is a case of ulterior motives trumping sound science. I consider this possibility unlikely, since I can't think of what ulterior motive would lead people to falsify such a massive PITA. It's not like there's some shady cabal of solar panel manufacturers pulling the strings, with just about every other form of industry helpless before its hippie might. If there were a strong case for anthropogenic climate change being false, I don't see how or why it would be suppressed with coal, gas, power, auto and all the rest pulling for it. It's just hard for me to believe.

[rah]

and the majority decision seems to be "yes, we are changing the climate to some extent."

Fixed.

[PLATO]

It would be hard to deny that Climate Change is taking place. However, the impact of that change is open to a wide debate. In fact, the idea that it is overall a bad thing is also open to debate. We may see the breadbasket of Siberia or Northern Canada...huge amounts of natural resources in the arctic and antarctic being open to exploitation. The impact further south could be mitigated through various, although costly, means. It is not like these areas will be to hot to live in...they will just be different.

What we should be debating is what we want the world to look like in 100 or 500 years and then plan accordingly. It is not a given, to me, that the current climate is optimal...it may be, but it is not a given.

[dannubis]

No, he's saying it's impossible to say that it's wrong. Warmer weather could be a good thing. Change isn't always bad.

Tell that to the people whose lands will be destroyed.

[rah]

Yes, the thinking that however it is now is what it should always be is just plain silly. Especially if the plan is to spend trillions of dollars to do it.

[PLATO]

Tell that to the people whose lands will be destroyed.

Flooding argument? Could be mitigated with a system of levies and dikes. Expensive? Yep, but it is doable.

[rah]

Tell that to the people whose lands will be destroyed.

Have they proved what land will be destroyed?

[Lorizael]

Land is being destroyed.

[dannubis]

Flooding argument? Could be mitigated with a system of levies and dikes. Expensive? Yep, but it is doable.

Flooding and desertification.

And also not talking about the Netherlands but Bangladesh, Horn of Africa, Mediterranian, Archipelagos....

I can't in all honesty say that, if there is a chance that our carbon footprint is changing climate more rapidly than before, we shouldn't do anything about it, while at the same time the majority of the damages are done to people who basically don't have a carbon footprint at all.

Besides, it never hurt anybody to increase energy effeciency. In fact, I know from bitter experience that 20% of the energy costs can be avoided by taking simple no regret moves.