Could GW be both a legitimate scientific concern and the latest pretext of the Malthus/Veblen crowd?

Question

When AGW proponents insist that "it's not some big socialist conspiracy" - do they think that a socialist movement doesn't exist and that its modus operandi since the 1970s hasn't been to glom onto environmental issues, whether real or imagined, and use them as pretexts to revive in the world of the physical sciences a debate that they lost a long time ago in the worlds of economics and sociology?

AGW proponents, if you believe in the science behind your side, and you concede that there are groups with radical political agendas who have taken up your cause for reasons different from your own, what is your take on that?

Will you take support from wherever you can get it? Or do you think that maybe these folks do your cause more harm than good - e.g., via guilt by association? Maybe not distancing yourselves from UCS and Greenpeace causes some to doubt you?

Should the legitimate pro-AGW scientists have a "Sistah Greenpeace" moment?

Answer 1

Yes... Global warming is definitely a legitimate scientific concern and many Americans advocate that, even though global warming could affect billions of people[1], it should not be mitigated because it won't affect them personally.

I think that most people will not know who Thomas Malthus is. Basically, Malthus expressed views on population growth and noted the potential for populations to increase and DECREASE rapidly. His work has been used as a rationalization of the social inequities produced by the Industrial Revolution, anti-immigration movements, and the eugenics movement.

There are definitely groups on the left and the right that have their own agenda. I think that it would be best if we got our science information from the scientists instead of some polished spinster or Sunday morning news pundit. I’m always asking people to source scientific literature instead of opinion pages, web blogs and the home page of various “Think Tanks”.

Answer 2

If radical groups take up the cause of global warming, that's fine by me. When facing mass extinction on a global scale; when facing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage to the US alone; when facing worldwide famine; when facing a massive worldwide refugee crisis and the likely resulting rise of totalitarianism ---

When facing threats like these, I'll take all the help I can get, from any quarter, to avoid the problem.

All the right wing has given us George W. Bush, Iraq, a mortgage meltdown, a declining dollar, budget deficits that are killing the economy, the indefinite detention of American citizens, warrantless wiretaps, the "unitary executive" theory of Presidents Above the Law, and torture. Step by step, the neocons are turning us into the Soviet Union.

Do you have the guts to say no to that?

Answer 3

Unscrupulous people will do whatever they can to advance their agenda.  That is true as much by people on the right as people on the left.  I believe that the science of global warming should not be co-opted for any political agenda. You think the left is doing that, but it seems to me that people on the right do it just as much by claiming that the scientists are "liberals," "pinkos, " or "eco-freaks."  Some deniers on here claim it is about wealth re-distribution, and maybe there are some people that try to couch it that way, but not the scientists.  I know there are lots of people that deny the science because they're worried about what will happen if they admit the science is true.

The scientific basis of AGW is real, we need to get past that so that we can deal with it.  Pretending it's some sort of plot to instill socialism on the masses is delusional.

EDIT: The scientists I know (which includes several lead authors from the latest IPCC report) are doing the best they can to get the message out about the science in a very calm, level-headed way.  Some of them get out in public and talk about things, while others are more comfortable doing the science.  There are extremists on both sides, and I think the scientists they believe they feel they can be most effective by presenting the science in an even-handed way, and trying to stay away from personality issues in general.

Answer 4

The scientific basis for global warming is left with nothing more than CO2.  CO2 has not driven climate change in the past.  Those that suggest that it is necessarily harmful are revealing their bias.  Those that use the scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the fact that humans are emitting  it, as some proof that humans are causing the climate to change cannot pretend that science is on their side.  They love to say that they have concensus as they try to censor any opposing view.  They call them deniers to equate them with holocaust deniers.  

It is indeed that latest in a string of false doom and gloom scenarios.  There was overpopulation, eugenics, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, etc.  It seems to me that some people always see the cup as half full.  They go through life believing that the rich are stealing from the poor, that governments are better at handling problems, that humans are destroying the planet,  that American prosperity and power is one of the biggest problems in in the world.  It is a mentality driven by guilt, it seems to me, even when that guilt is unwarranted.

I clearly have political bias and one of my primary motivations for answering many questions is to point out the political motivations of the environmental movement.  When they suggest that science is on their side, I find that offensive when I see clearly that much of it is politics masquerading as science.

Answer 5

I think any extremist support hurts ones cause more than helps it. I think that some people are under the impression that the scientists have some hidden agenda that they will make a profit somehow if investments are made in clean technology (wind, solar, hybrid/electric cars, etc).  The reality is the scientists are just trying to figure out why our atmosphere has warmed up a substantial amount.  Currently their best answer is that due to greenhouse gas concentration escalating, the earths atmosphere has increased average temperature.  Maybe there will be a new theory that is more accepted but given the overwhelming evidence presented there is no other viable theory.

Now on the subject of being associated with environmental activist groups, how are scientists supposed to distance themselves from these groups?  No credible scientific organization is currently funded by Greenpeace, earth first or any other group.  They could go on TV and say, "our conclusions are not influenced by any third party" but this is a given due to scientific objectivity.  Just because a scientists makes a finding that is in favor of environmental protection doesn't automatically make them associated with green organizations.  

I do agree this has similarities to the Malthusian carrying capacity argument that has been made in the past.  I think it may be different since Malthus was living at a time when science was in its infancy and any predictions he made could be seen as fairly inconclusive.  Science has come a long way and we tend to accept what the scientists say is true these days.  Like I said, people are still research the problem and if a new theory comes out validating the fact that humans aren't to blame I will listen but up until now that study has not come out.

Also, if you assume the extremists on one side of an argument represent the who side then you make one whole group look crazy.  The majority of rational thinkers on AGW side don't think we need to stop driving cars completely, become vegetarians, or any other ridiculous ideas like this.  Most people say that we should drive less, use less energy at home, conserve a bit more, invest in new technologies and other things that anybody could do with out disrupting their lifestlye.  Stop looking at environmental groups for the argument for global warming and start listening to rational people.

EDIT:

I do think Nuclear energy would be a viable energy source, unfortunately we have no current long term storage facility that has been approved.  Currently we are putting the spent fuel in 'temporary' storage that is not made for the long term.  If we could possibly approve the use of Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility then building more nuclear power plants would be an option.  Until then, nuclear power is a huge environmental threat.