denialist

Since there has been many mentions of sides, and the pro and anti GW-theory sides are also in general the left and right wing, I think it's useful to point something out: On profiting through carbon credits, carbon credits are a right wing economics solution to GW. The left wing solution is direct regulation, or directly taxing emissions. The right wing solution (carbon credits) aims to "allow market mechanisms to drive industry in the direction of low emissions" and to avoid "government inefficiency". This solution: 1) creates a market (and profit incentive) for carbon credits trading 2) "internalized externalities" 3) more "efficient". The profit element wasn't injected by the lefty "anti-car, anti-corporate" side but was a right wing response to environmental regulations or the prospect of high emissions taxes. "...then seem that people WERE trying to monetize global warming the other direction" The profit element does make pro-GW-is-real information potentially suspect. --- If GW is fake the picture can be summarized as: Profiteers using lefty "useful idiots" to do their PR. Allowing the profiteers to get rich from the carbon credit "compromise" solution. (Compromise between direct regulations or doing nothing). --- If GW is real? The left wants to cut out the tumor. The right wants to do nothing. The left agrees to compromise: they get to cut out half the tumor but in return have to sprinkle in some bacteria (carbon credits market) while the patient is open. If the left doesn't want to keep being painted with the right's failures they need to stop accepting right wing "compromises". ,,,,,,,,, "If it turns out to be nothing much to worry about, then the worst we've done is find better fuels and made cleaner air." Not necessarily. Over simplified hypothetical: If man made CO2 caused global warming is fake, oil may have a relatively low risk and actually be safer than nuclear. Nuclear will probably be able to out compete against solar on price, so a move away from oil could end up being a larger move towards nuclear. I don't know the true risks of oil, nuclear, others. I am just making a simplified hypothetical. Basically that we may be increasing risk (to safety and livability) if we are wrong about CO2 and the safety of the replacement fuels. ,,,,,,,,, And last note I called Steven Yates "the guest" because using his name felt more personal when my issue was with arguments he made during the show not with him but I can see what you're saying, point taken.

I am completely agnostic about global warming (don't know if humans are causing it or if it is good or bad) but the guest was doing intentional spin IMO. Here are a few examples as I see them: --- instead of "the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled" rephrasing it as a "0.01% increase in CO2 as part of the atmosphere" to make it SOUND like it is negligible and can't have an effect. Should we worry if carbon falls to 0% in the atmosphere? Well it would be JUST a "0.02% decrease in C02 as part of the atmosphere". The guest helpfully pointed out zero CO2 would make earth very inhospitable for humans. I wonder if someone was about to unleash an invention that would suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere if the guest would insist on referring to that as a "0.02% decrease in CO2 as part of the atmosphere". --- Acting like Al Gore said Carbon in any amount is too much. Why not twist it more and just say, "Al Gore hates all warmth! Doesn't he realize if there was no warmth at all we would all freeze to death? Al Gore wants a temperature of 0 Kelvin!" --- "Weathermen can't predict a week in advance." Irrelevant. About GW scientists making wrong predictions, the guest should have given some examples and who made the wrong predictions so that listeners can check his specifics if they feel like it. --- "There's a lot of money in global warming." Completely agree, but why more emphasis on this money vs the money interests in the opposite direction (oil, other industries)? ,,,,,,,,,, "An open, skeptical mind is a valuable scientific tool." "...a site that provides the SKEPTIC view. There are lots of ALARMIST sites too." Labeling your beliefs as "skeptical" and the other view as "alarmist" is probably the "open minded skeptical" thing to do right? "Citing "nearly universal consensus" is another technique used to argue the point without addressing the science" What were the scientific arguments the guest made? To me it came off like he was trying to persuade by wording or emphasis, instead of with sound arguments.