Global Warming skepticism from left perspective?

[Malesori]

Is there a measure of skepticism by certain elements or individuals on the Left about Global Warming? Usually the Right seems to dominate the global warming/climate change skepticism debate so I’m curious if there is a left skeptical movement, and if so what are the primary scientific, political, and/or intellectual objections to climate change?

[Creative Destruction]

I'm pretty sure Alexander Cockburn was adamant that global warming wasn't happening, or if it was it wasn't human caused.

[The Jay]

Nobody comes to mind, but that's fine since I would be disappointed.

[CECE]

While I don't have enough information to get into any real detail, I do have a little something. I used to have a geology teacher who was one of the most interesting people I've ever met, weird mind you, but interesting. He was an experienced geologist and had been, literally, all around the world. In addition, he was somewhat renowned in his field and very much so an expert. Now, saying this, he was very much certain global warming was a myth. The support behind his point being the rock and fossil records. If you make your way into the earth, you can find out a lot about the past based on the layers of rocks and how they're formed, etc. (I'm no geologist sorry for the vagueness). One of these things being the temperature of years past. Based on these records he claimed, if I remember correctly, that we are actually coming out of a mini-ice age, and that this small increase in temperature is very natural. Not to mention the temperature on earth has been much hotter in the past.

Anyway, I thought that might be of some help.

[Red_Banner]

Well, sea levels rise and fall with or without humans.

The midwest of North America used to be covered in water.

North Africa used to be covered in water.

The Black Sea used to be connected with the Caspian and Aral seas.

Then sea levels also have been low.

There used to be a marsh between Gibraltar and North Africa.

The Bosporus used to be a land bridge.

There used to be a land bridge from Korea to Japan.

There used to be one from France to Britain.

It isn't that mankind doesn't have an effect on the enviorment, but to what extent they are.

Capitalist business and media makes people think that if you use a CFL and drive a Prius, you have said your "Hail Marys" to wash away your "sins".

But at the same time these capitalists damage the enviorment with their fracking.
They push their natural gas as if it were "green".

[Creative Destruction]

While I don't have enough information to get into any real detail, I do have a little something. I used to have a geology teacher who was one of the most interesting people I've ever met, weird mind you, but interesting. He was an experienced geologist and had been, literally, all around the world. In addition, he was somewhat renowned in his field and very much so an expert. Now, saying this, he was very much certain global warming was a myth. The support behind his point being the rock and fossil records. If you make your way into the earth, you can find out a lot about the past based on the layers of rocks and how they're formed, etc. (I'm no geologist sorry for the vagueness). One of these things being the temperature of years past. Based on these records he claimed, if I remember correctly, that we are actually coming out of a mini-ice age, and that this small increase in temperature is very natural. Not to mention the temperature on earth has been much hotter in the past.

Anyway, I thought that might be of some help.

Yeah, the problem with this is that climatologists take their measurements from a variety of geological records, other than just fossils and reconcile it with other things. This is why it is suspect to take the word of any other specialist other than a climatologist, because they're not trained to read the records in this manner and match them up with other sources -- and there are a lot of other sources. This goes the same for people who are also close or somewhat related to that field, like meteorologists. There's a few really brilliant meteorologists in the field today that just say some really dumb things about the climate. It's like a dermatologist offering up their opinion about neurology.

[Dullum]

Well I don't know about anyone in particular. And that is a good thing.

[bcbm]

Is there a measure of skepticism by certain elements or individuals on the Left about Global Warming? Usually the Right seems to dominate the global warming/climate change skepticism debate so I’m curious if there is a left skeptical movement, and if so what are the primary scientific, political, and/or intellectual objections to climate change?

climate change is scientific fact and anyone doubting this is a hack

http://www.revleft.com/vb/leading-scientists-want-t183593/index.html

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I've never heard of global warming deniers outside American cultist political groups and businesses who run coal factories.

Climate change is a scientific fact, as bcbm said, and has been continuously aggravated by the constant emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, trapping heat inside and triggering a snowball effect (e.g. carbon dioxide held in and under the planets' icecaps release when they melt). Anyone who claims that this is fantasy, and is not a large modern day problem, needs to get their heads checked.

Of course anyone who thinks they can change the way things are going within an economic system driven by commodity exchange and production for profit is also deluding themselves.

Not to sound too doomsday-ish, but if you know anything about astronomy, you should know about Venus and Mercury. Mercury, despite being a planet much closer to the sun than Venus, has an temperature which is nearly half of venus'. The reason for this is because Venus has undergone a massive global warming event, and around 90% of its' surface air is composed of greenhouse gasses.

Finally, I know of some leftists who criticize movements that try to incorrectly combat the effects of climate change (e.g. 'greenwasher' nativists that argue that the atmosphere of a country is stuck in a country therefore more migrants to the country would mean 'more pollution for our nations' air!' i.e. unscientific tripe used by racists to get close to hippies), but skepticism of global warming? I'm afraid I couldn't answer you there.

[Creative Destruction]

Alex Cockburn, "Anthropogenic Global Warming Is A Farce": http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/24/anthropogenic_global_warming_is_a_farce.html

So, he's not a global warming skeptic in the sense that he denies warming is happening. He just doesn't believe that humans are causing it.

[Blake's Baby]

The Revolutionary Communist Party in the UK was the only group I can think of.

'The Green Agenda was invented by Margaret Thatcher to Destroy the British Mining Industry' was their position, though I'm paraphrasing slightly.

Most of them now work at Channel 4 and make shows with titles like 'Are All Environmentalists Secret Nazis?'

[Creative Destruction]

'The Green Agenda was invented by Margaret Thatcher to Destroy the British Mining Industry' was their position, though I'm paraphrasing slightly.

lmao wtf

[DasFapital]

The Revolutionary Communist Party of the UK have all basically become right libertarians though

[zoot_allures]

I can't think of any specific literature offhand, but I imagine it would be fairly easy to construct a leftist denial of anthropogenic global warming by drawing on the traditional postmodernist criticisms of science's general claims to truth and objectivity - Feyerabend, the strong programme, social constructivist accounts of knowledge, and so on.

Go far enough down that road and you can make a leftist argument for pretty much anything you like (consider Irigaray's infamous comments on E=mc², for example).

[adipocere]

Climate change is a scientific fact, as bcbm said,

And even if it isn't a scientific fact, is trying to spare the earth from a wasteful, polluting, violent species really a bad thing? If it is not fact, how the fuck do these deniers and skeptics actually justify the wanton destruction of everything that gets in the way of capital....this is really the more important question.

[Miguel Detonnaciones]

Malesori,


http://adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Adventures-In-Dialectics-entry.htm

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Crises-by-Nature/Crises-by-Nature.htm


I recommend to you a text, accessible via the links above, that critique's "Global Warmism" from a Marxian Perspective, describing it as a pro-"population-reduction", "Stealth Eugenics" ideology, crafted by the capitalist ruling class -- a.k.a. the Rockefeller, "Eugenics" Plutocracy -- as a "Green" excuse to impose a totalitarian "energy dictatorship" -- "The Dictatorship of Petroleum" -- upon humanity, and to "justify" even further reversal of the growth of the social forces of production, contraction of social reproduction, collapsing of working class living standards, and, finally, collapsing of working class population, worldwide, than that ruling class has already been able to impose by other means.


The text is entitled: "Crises by Nature: How Humanity Saved the Biosphere".



Regards,

Miguel

[bcbm]

^ like i said

[goalkeeper]

The Revolutionary Communist Party in the UK was the only group I can think of.

'The Green Agenda was invented by Margaret Thatcher to Destroy the British Mining Industry' was their position, though I'm paraphrasing slightly.

Most of them now work at Channel 4 and make shows with titles like 'Are All Environmentalists Secret Nazis?'

lol they don't all work at channel 4.

And yes, you are paraphrasing their position quite liberally.

[goalkeeper]

The Revolutionary Communist Party of the UK have all basically become right libertarians though

lazy reading of their ideology and work.

[cyu]

Better to ask the same question *after* every business related to CO2 emissions have been taken over by their employees and communities. In addition, the economy has to be restructured such that a loss in profits for such companies does not equate to any economic hardship for those involved - in other words, if they lose their job in such industries, it should not be seen as anything negative at all for them, but rather just another chance to do something different. Thus economic income cannot be tied to whether they have a job or not.

Until that happens, there will always be a conflict of interest in what people want others to believe about the greenhouse effect.

[La Comédie Noire]

There are, but most of them are similar variations of the same theme "Environmentalists want to use the state to control our lives and massacre people of the third world."

This user Chimx was talking about war with North Korea when he said this, but I think the sentiment applies to this situation.

"I understand you want to play communist very bad right now, but a lot of people are in danger."

[Sea]

Anyone have evidence of the ZOG from a left perspective?
I'm pretty sure Alexander Cockburn was adamant that global warming wasn't happening, or if it was it wasn't human caused.
Which one? These are two completely different arguments. One states that global warming isn't happening, the other states that it is. That's about as far apart as you can get. I think it's rather telling if someone flips between those two -- it shows they don't have an understanding that's grounded in material reality. If it were, you wouldn't end up with such a wild either/or scenario.

[Creative Destruction]

Anyone have evidence of the ZOG from a left perspective?
Which one? These are two completely different arguments. One states that global warming isn't happening, the other states that it is. That's about as far apart as you can get. I think it's rather telling if someone flips between those two -- it shows they don't have an understanding that's grounded in material reality. If it were, you wouldn't end up with such a wild either/or scenario.

lol. You should stop jumping to conclusions. I simply couldn't remember which stance he had taken, and it doesn't make much difference to me what the difference is between those two positions because they're both extremely wrong. Effectively, they're the same position.

In any case, if you had read on the thread, you would've seen that I posted a link to an article where he claims the latter: global warming is happening, but it's not happening because of humans. Still just as ridiculous, though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've never heard of global warming deniers outside American cultist political groups and businesses who run coal factories.

Climate change is a scientific fact, as bcbm said, and has been continuously aggravated by the constant emission of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, trapping heat inside and triggering a snowball effect (e.g. carbon dioxide held in and under the planets' icecaps release when they melt). Anyone who claims that this is fantasy, and is not a large modern day problem, needs to get their heads checked.

We have certain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Bre nchley) people (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/mar/04/ukip-energy-climate-policies) here in dear old Blighty whose actions betray unwarranted skepticism of climate change, so unfortunately it's not a failing that's limited to the US.


Of course anyone who thinks they can change the way things are going within an economic system driven by commodity exchange and production for profit is also deluding themselves.

Sure, but there are a lot of things the ruling classes can do to weather the coming storm (so to speak). They certainly don't want civilisation as it stands to disappear, and there are segments of them with a vested interest in a world where extreme weather isn't happening with increasing frequency. Even if they completely stop all insurance coverage for meteorological disasters, the damage to infrastructure and the resulting injuries to productivity threatens to accumulate to a point where their very survival is threatened, even if they somehow manage to indefinitely subdue the workers, who will be among those getting the shittier end of the stick.

Unless of course things get to a point where capitalism in it's current form can no longer be sustained, in which case it's kind of a "socialism or barbarism". Although if you're one of those who reckons that socialism needs an abundance of easily extractable energy reserves that aren't nuclear in nature, then it's just barbarism, capitalist barbarism or nuclear-powered "socialist" barbarism either way.


Not to sound too doomsday-ish, but if you know anything about astronomy, you should know about Venus and Mercury. Mercury, despite being a planet much closer to the sun than Venus, has an temperature which is nearly half of venus'. The reason for this is because Venus has undergone a massive global warming event, and around 90% of its' surface air is composed of greenhouse gasses.

The atmosphere of Venus is also 93 times as dense as the Earth's. This isn't to say that the catastrophic threat to our relatively cozy circumstances that climate change represents at this point is not reason enough to act, but really that's kind of a red herring

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I admit than even despite selling green energy alternatives, I know next to nothing about global warming. I am skeptical in that idk about this "warming," part, like at one point it's global cooling, now it's warming, I think perhaps it's just climate change as in something is definitely somewhat irregular and to what extent humans legitimately have some involvement in, I am not sure.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Having read the literature for a 3rd year module last year, I am convinced of the scientific basis of man-made global warming, which will result in climate change, human-caused, by the end of this century.

The one thing that put me off was the Stern Report. It's probably the most famous 'scientific' piece on climate change to come out of the UK this century, but tbh I found its projections way out, its modelling used extreme and unlikely scenarios, and it was clearly a very political piece of work, used to support global integration and EU-wide carbon pricing strategies, which were something Blair/Brown were pushing for heavily - carbon pricing meaning carbon markets meaning profits.

However, regardless of the exaggerated nature of some modelling such as from Stern, I would hesitate to call them alarmist for the simple fact that even a 2 degree celsius increase in climate change over the next 100-150 years will be in some respects catastrophic for our planet. Whether or not one report or the other models a 2, 3, 4 or more degree celsius increase is largely irrelevant. It looks to me from having read a variety of literature on the subject that by 2100, average global temperatures will rise by at least around 2 degrees. At least.

This will probably destroy much wildlife, a huge swathe of the amazon rainforest, cause more freak weather, mess with food production, leave some sea-level land underwater and un-inhabitable etc.

Even if some aspects of climate change have become a bit politicised and pseudo-scientific, it is overall a very serious problem, and I don't think there is any evidence to oppose that it is at least in some respects man-made.

[Creative Destruction]

I admit than even despite selling green energy alternatives, I know next to nothing about global warming. I am skeptical in that idk about this "warming," part, like at one point it's global cooling, now it's warming, I think perhaps it's just climate change as in something is definitely somewhat irregular and to what extent humans legitimately have some involvement in, I am not sure.

There has been no consistent "global cooling" trend. Two way climate skeptics grab onto this myth is to say:

A.) Global temperatures have been dropping since 1998 or something like that. Relative to that short time window, there has been a slight drop in global temperature averages; however, when taken with the rest of the data that we have, it's clear that the temperature is still, on average, rising. You can take many random 5 year windows and see a slight decline in temperature, but the average is always going up.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_cJMM6T3_PBx_aZE1R83KA8XlJKkt_51qFOaucCXhLuugylxne tb7_2Nc5kk_Cyrpyn6AlZobEJU2AKHtTMKxePeXnGLqdc6X42E _d5nNqSm7qw4oPEavQQE0g

B.) Time Magazine did some story back in the 70s or 80s saying that there was global cooling. In fact, it was blown out of proportion. Only a minority of climatologists actually believed that back then. Nowadays, I can't think of one climatologist that would claim there was or is a long-trend global cooling since industrialism started.

The IPCC recently came out with their newest report, wherein they stated that global warming is happening. There is no uncertainty about that. They also figure a 95% chance that more than half of the warming that has happened is caused by humans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I admit than even despite selling green energy alternatives, I know next to nothing about global warming. I am skeptical in that idk about this "warming," part, like at one point it's global cooling, now it's warming, I think perhaps it's just climate change as in something is definitely somewhat irregular and to what extent humans legitimately have some involvement in, I am not sure.

The thing is that "global warming" means (or should mean) just that, global. Average temperatures in certain sub-sections of the globe can still go down due to local conditions. For example, due to changes in the gulf stream, the UK is actually getting colder (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html), but it's still getting hotter in other parts of the world (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-vulnerable-in-a-warming-planet-leaked-ipcc-report-finds-20131014-2vhz0.html).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/weitzman/files/review_of_stern_review_jel.45.3.pdf

The above is a really, really good review of the Stern Report on climate change. It both deals with the extreme nature of the Stern Report.

He points out that the Stern Report highlights scenarios which are both very unlikely, but extremely frightening. He diverges from mainstream economists in that he views the latter part (that the consequences are extremely frightening) as more important than the likelihood, i.e. uncertainty is more important than risk.

He basically says that Stern is right to err on the side of caution in his public policy recommendations (i.e. act now), but for the wrong (i.e. political) reasons. A fair assessment, I think.

The paper is an economics one, so it's a bit of a tough read, but it's very well written and the economics isn't too hard really.

[bcbm]

The thing is that "global warming" means (or should mean) just that, global. Average temperatures in certain sub-sections of the globe can still go down due to local conditions. For example, due to changes in the gulf stream, the UK is actually getting colder (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html), but it's still getting hotter in other parts of the world (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-vulnerable-in-a-warming-planet-leaked-ipcc-report-finds-20131014-2vhz0.html).

the average global temperatures are going up, hence global warming. but yeah, this is a very dynamic system we have here so a temperature rise one place can mean a cooling somewhere else, which doesn't change the overall trend. i do think 'climate change' is a more sensible term though so people can't use examples like this to try to disprove it (not that im saying you are)


Having read the literature for a 3rd year module last year, I am convinced of the scientific basis of man-made global warming, which will result in climate change, human-caused, by the end of this century.

by the end of the century? it is happening now and has been happening.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the average global temperatures are going up, hence global warming. but yeah, this is a very dynamic system we have here so a temperature rise one place can mean a cooling somewhere else, which doesn't change the overall trend. i do think 'climate change' is a more sensible term though so people can't use examples like this to try to disprove it (not that im saying you are)

The dynamic and interrelated nature of climatic systems means that they can chaotically shift from one equilibrium to another. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the pendulum could swing so far towards warming, before any number of meteorological/ecological feedback systems kick in, resulting in a big reverse swing back towards cooling. This would not necessarily be a good thing, and may in fact be an even worse situation for humanity than plain old accelerated warming.

For one thing, the Earth has had multiple ice ages in its history, unlike the Venusian hothouse nightmare scenario. Some of them were bad enough to cover the Earth in ice all the way to the equatorial regions, which would fuck us over much worse than warming and rising sea levels, especially if global civilisation has already been weakened by a period of warming.

Which is why I get a little confused by climate skeptics who propose global cooling scenarios, as if they were somehow a preferable alternative. I think it would actually be worse, and worth just as much if not more effort as would be needed for dealing with rising global average temperatures.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

by the end of the century? it is happening now and has been happening.

yeh I know. I'm thinking though in terms of scientifically modelled results. And it helps to have a time frame of say 1 century, because any change in public policy now will take at least 2-3 decades to bear fruit, so we need to set a realistic timeline.

[bcbm]

The dynamic and interrelated nature of climatic systems means that they can chaotically shift from one equilibrium to another. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that the pendulum could swing so far towards warming, before any number of meteorological/ecological feedback systems kick in, resulting in a big reverse swing back towards cooling. This would not necessarily be a good thing, and may in fact be an even worse situation for humanity than plain old accelerated warming.

as far as i know, no one is proposing this. the short term prognosis is rapid warming with dire results as a byproduct. if we stop all carbon emissions now, we are still past some thresholds and will see changes. and of course that isnt likey so


For one thing, the Earth has had multiple ice ages in its history, unlike the Venusian hothouse nightmare scenario. Some of them were bad enough to cover the Earth in ice all the way to the equatorial regions, which would fuck us over much worse than warming and rising sea levels, especially if global civilisation has already been weakened by a period of warming.

the general pattern for some time (millions of years) has been a gradual cooling with ice ages. our brief time of human civilization has fallen in a relatively warm trough of these cycles and long term, yeah, its probably gonna get cold again. but our heating via carbon emissions has already, seemingly, disrupted this cycle so we are entering into some uncharted territory right now.

the predictions are certainly troubling for the short term.


Which is why I get a little confused by climate skeptics who propose global cooling scenarios, as if they were somehow a preferable alternative. I think it would actually be worse, and worth just as much if not more effort as would be needed for dealing with rising global average temperatures.

well ideally one would off set the other but we dont know near enough or have that much control. our only future is in space at this point.


yeh I know. I'm thinking though in terms of scientifically modelled results. And it helps to have a time frame of say 1 century, because any change in public policy now will take at least 2-3 decades to bear fruit, so we need to set a realistic timeline.

what we are doing now will play out about 50ish years in the future. so any change is looking at that long to see an effect. given this, we've already passed a few significant milestones and i think the future of our planet in a climate sense (and therefore generally for our human purposes) is increasingly grim

[Skyhilist]

A good question. Other good questions include:

What revolutionaries are skeptical of the theory of gravity?

What revolutionaries are skeptical of evolution?

What revolutionaries are skeptical of the existence of cats?