Major Pwnage? I think so...

So I post a note on Facebook, entitled "America Sucks." Well, I got some responses from it, and a nice opportunity to go postal on someone. Read on!

Original Post:
"In a recent poll of people from 19 different countries, among other questions people were asked how high a priority their government should place on addressing climate change, on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being the highest priority).

Americans had the lowest score of all (4.71), just below Palestinian territories (4.91) and Iraq (5.14). China came in with one of the highest scores, at 8.86.

WHAT THE FUCK, AMERICA? China has censorship in the press, and their citizens STILL have taken the limited information available to them and come to the most logical conclusion. I am disappointed, a little surprised.

Here's the poll. I welcome comments, since I can't figure out what the hell is wrong with this country."

But it really starts getting good in the comments (I've left out names).

Skeptic: "I thought it was global warming? Oh, wait it's cooler this year so it's "climate change" now. On the famous Al Gore graph, there were several points where the temp went up before the CO2. He refused to answer questions about it. I'm surprised we did that well in the poll. ; )"

Me: "Do you have an article, a video, a link to this graph so I can check out that stuff about Gore?"

Skeptic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLcvCp4DHJw

Me: "Ahh, a true skeptic. Well, after reading and studying the problem for years, I still think that this is a major problem, as does the vast majority of the scientific community. So does the latest report (www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts), a consensus of 13 government agencies.

Is it really worth not doing anything? If the scenarios that could very well happen, and have disastrous effects, are correct, won't it suck later on to know you did nothing to help stop them? Is it really so much to ask that people change their lifestyles, to change how they think about the problem? I ask: what are the benefits of skepticism?

We simply can't hinge the future of the planet on skepticism. The "hoax" label was, I believe, coined by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). His largest campaign contributors are making a hell of a lot of money on oil and gas [and coal for that matter -- see this nice little PBS article for more], so maybe that explains it. Seriously, Skeptic, give me any point of debate and I will answer anything you have to say about it.

Also, the graph you speak is ONE paleoclimate study, and is by no means the foundation of the global warming theory. Even if the study is incorrect (it looks like the methodology was suspect) other studies have found similar results: "Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920." That's from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Next question."

Skeptic: I believed it too for awhile, then I saw much evidence to the contrary (yes more than 20/20). People are seeing now that we're cooler the past couple years and only 40% or so now believe it's a problem. The world was supposed to freeze over in the 70's Didn't happen. How did the earth get pst the ice age? We weren't here for that. It's simple variation. It was snowing at the anti-tax rally in April. We just had a July in which we never hit 90 degrees. One day the highest we got was 65. It was July and I had 4 layers on at a party. Why haven't we looked at the changes of the sun? You know, that big ball of fire that comes up and makes it warm? Aren't you liberals the ones who believe in conspiracies? I'm not against helping out our environment-I pick up litter every time I take my daughter on a walk. I have the lightbulbs, to save money, but it scares me that they all contain mercury! How does that help the earth? If you break one you have to call 911. Why couldn't Al Gore have gottenreal footage of the polar bears instead of a stupid cartoon? The fottage of the ics caps melting is a computer generated scene from a Hollywood movie. He is also fat, which means he is emitting more CO2. And his house is monstrous. Total hypocrite. Forcing people to become global warming proof is just going to hurt our economy even more. The cash for clunkers only makes people who can't afford a new car go and buy one. How does that help our credit crisis? The same thing happed to the housing industry. Gotta go, [my daughter] is eating a cord."

Skeptic: "America Fuck Yeah"

Me, delivering the pwnage:
"Nice work, chalking it all up to "simple variation," as you say, without any evidence. So, if I must:

1) The "cooling" stuff from the 70's was based on a single book, Lowell Ponte's "The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun?", and there was also an article in the Nov. 1976 issue of National Geographic -- not even slightly comparable to the scientific near-consensus we have now, in peer-reviewed publications, no less.

2) It's colder than usual? You should understand that the temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change. Citing isolated weather conditions does not constitute real data.

3) The Sun? Well, yes, we get the vast majority of our heat from the sun, and it is definitely possible that variations in the sun could be a factor. However, ever since 1978, when they started sending satellites into space to measure radiation from the sun, they found NO INCREASE over the last 30 years in the sun's irradiance. Perhaps it is only coincidental that this is the same time period that we've seen record increases in both temperature and CO2 concentration, but I think not. You can peruse the report of the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos World Radiation Center, entitled "Solar Constant," if you like.

4) Lightbulbs: good work; be careful with them; they can be recycled.

5) Real footage of polar bears and glaciers melting: irrelevant to the main argument.

6) Al Gore is fat: well he's aging, and I think he was probably stressed out after the 2004 election.

7) Al Gore's house: I cannot deny it, but I think the work he does FOR the environmental movement far outweighes this, though I'd like to see this change.

The little thing about the economy? Wowzer, here we go...

8) It is pure and simple backwards thinking that leads someone to the conclusion that the economy is more important than the environment (without a habitable planet there are no economics). The idea that doing things that are good for the environment are necessarily bad for the economy, on the other hand, is a product of being woefully misinformed. Some examples:

a) A West Virginia University researcher found that “coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits" (Charleson Gazette).

b) A recent peer-reviewed paper in the journal "Science" found that areas of Brazil that cut down their rainforests to sell the wood or plant crops “do see a short-term boost in per-capita income, life expectancy, and literacy rates. But once the trees are gone, those gains disappear, leaving deforested municipalities just as poor as those that preserved their forests." Story here.

Skeptic jumps in!:

"kinda cheesy graphics.... but oh well. Both sides of the story. You love to fight don't you? grrr

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/video-refuting-al-gore-on-co2-levels-and-temperature/

Me:
"c) According to David Suzuki, a Canadian environmentalist, there was a study conducted (I think the in 1980's, but I would have to track this down) with the focus on calculating how much it would cost to replace all that nature does for us -- for free, I might add -- with purely human and technological means. This includes bees pollenating flowers, trees and plants putting oxygen back into the air and sequestering carbon, and controlling rain runoff, etc. Turns out it would cost 35 TRILLION dollars to do what nature does for us, for free. At the time of the study the combined GDP of all the countries in the world was less than $20 trillion.

I could really write a book about that one little statement. Think about it, if a stable environment goes, the economy is in the shitter no matter what. If we reinvest in clean technologies, we'll curtail the annual $450 billion we spend on imported oil, we'll create millions of new jobs, and we'll see pollution drop, and therefore, health improve."

Skeptic jumps in again!
"Whoah I just posted that and you had 6 more. hahaha fun fighting with ya. I'm gonna go fart and release some CO2."

Me:
"9) I haven't heard much about cash for clunkers, but it sounds like a good idea -- get old cars that pollute disproportionately off the road, so that those people can get newer, more fuel-efficient cars. Hmmm. Complaining about this just smacks of the bothersome right wing tendency to say "what's in it for me?" to everything. How banal.

10) You have a child. Congratulations. Maybe think a bit more about her future before making up your mind. If we do nothing, and I'm right, then we're really fucked, and so is your daughter. If we do take action, and you're right, well we still get a lot of jobs created, a lot less pollution, no more pointless wars over oil, a healthier people, etc. etc.

By the way, I wouldn't have gone on this long if it wasn't for the snarky "you liberals" thing. It's funny to see someone belittle progressive-minded people and then get pwned by one."

So I ask you, dear reader, is this pwnage? Post your answer in the comments!