AGW Denial Flow Chart

Ipka emailed me through an interesting flow chart he has created. The denial crowd is loud, but in reality much smaller in number than it would like to admit – likewise the options that lead to their pro-business-as-usual outlook.

Most sensible options lead us to think that 2% of the global GDP is worth spending to protect developing communities, to invest in innovation and development, to increase food, water and energy security and independence, to ensure we have natural environments large enough to not only support future generations but simply is allowed to persist to continue the wonderful experiment on evolution, to help re-develop real communities full of pride and ownership in truly modern and unique ways and of course, take the obligated responsibility for treating our atmosphere as a dumping zone for far too long.

We don’t need to be experts on climate science to see that fossil hydrocarbon dependence is dumb and the fossil fuel era is increasingly outdated. It’s clear that new ways of thinking and technology scares some who noisily reject the 21st century, but let’s not allow their backwards ideologies stop this century from being the best it can be!

For more about the backwards thinking of those scared of progress, see an older post, Is Monckton working for an Amish conspiracy? How the future is more than debate over climate change.


9 thoughts on “AGW Denial Flow Chart

  1. The chart is mostly meaningless.

    Obviously Global warming and Global cooling are both real and have happened quite naturally throught history.

    The only meaningfull question is:
    Was it caused “This Time” by man made CO2?

    If yes. Do something.
    If no. Learn to adapt and get on with life.

    So far there is no good case for the Yes side so Screwing up the Global economy is not warrented.


    1. I can’t help but feel that you under-appreciate the complexity of human decision making, especially where uncertainty has been identified. We are amazing creatures who assign meaning to everything that is essential to whom we are because we crave it. Long before climate change attracted so much attention, people typically picked on the weather models behind forecasts – even though, taking into account the sheer volume of data and dynamics of the systems involved, they do a wonderful job.

      If you feel that there is still no good case for AGW, I truly encourage you to meander through the many mutually supporting peer-reviewed literature I’ve so far collected or choose any atmospheric research group of your liking and look through their media on the subject. I assure you, if you care to look for it, there is a wealth of evidence accumulated through many thousands of people hours of research at hand. Of course, if you rely on hack media, such as Nova, Laframboise, WUWT, I think I’ve found your problem.

      As for screwing up the economy – with every environmental regulation, this is the fall back argument which never seems to lose credit even though it’s been wrong on every occasion. Again, I stress for you to actually learn about the subject, rather than make such unsubstantiated claims. The obligation is not on me to inform you, as there is no guarantee that you’ll read / understand what’s on offer, but on you to provide where the wealth of research has been flawed.

      On that, I must inform you that I’ve recently changed my comment policies here. I will not entertain AGW deniers any longer as I’m just over that particular merry-go-round. It’s no real loss however as there are many wonderful troll hot-spots where such people can still get attention for themselves.

      Finally, I offer a friendly word of advice; sure the future is unknown and can seem a little frightening. However, there’s nothing to be scared of. Fossil hydrocarbons dependance will not define the societies that leave the 21st as they do those who enter it and it has nothing to do with climate, but rather availability. We could be as much as 9 billion in number and if so, how we do things will have to be very different to those we’re now hopelessly reliant on as energy infrastructure will need to be radically different from what it is today. How we do this is really up to us now – innovative new technologies are what excite me. Clinging onto fossil fuels is akin to the Amish who reject new technology beyond their given point. The sooner and more passionately we invest and entertain research and development, the wider the possibilities for future development. It’s a great time to be alive and to engage in such discussions. Nothing to be frightened of.

      I invite you to comment here in the future, if it’s constructive and meaningful and I most certainly welcome a coherent dissection of why our fundamental understanding regarding AGW and the resulting climate change is wrong, provided you have developed a publish worthy report and not simply empty hot air, such as your comment above, or paper hurling (that there is a strong note of confidence across the scientific community regarding AGW should be enough to make deniers be a little more critical of what papers they offer, yet they embarrass themselves too often and I’ll no longer entertain such nonsense any further). However, if this is a taste of the quality of your comments, I doubt it’s up to par of the quality I expect here. Thanks.


    2. No, global warming and global cooling cannot both be real, by definition.

      Was it caused “This Time” by man made CO2?

      Irrelevant if we agree it’s a bad thing.

      And even more irrelevant if there’s something we can do about it. I wasn’t asking you whether you want to do anything about it, or whether it’s going to be easy, fun or worthy. I only asked CAN IT PHYSICALLY BE DONE.

      Even if you prefer not to act, for ANY EXCUSE WHATSOEVER, I agree “Learn to adapt and get on with life.” Which is what everybody should advocate if ANY negative effects of global warming is real.

      “So far there is no good case for the Yes side so Screwing up the Global economy is not warrented.”

      Do you know what you’re looking for?


      1. By the style of his comment, it’s clear that it challenges Gary’s outlook in general. Basically all roads sensibly lead to preservation of our standard of living – ie. prepare. His reply is like rogerthesurf – hot air that comes across like sound reasoning, but is empty in genuine criticism.

        I’ve invited him to pick up his game or move on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s