"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[Mysturji]

I would prefer that doubts or denials of that body of science not be debated here. Sceptical or denialist debate may be made the topic of another thread anyone may create should they wish.

Because of course, there is only one kind of sceptic, isn't there?
A kaffir is a kaffir, after all.
I notice you left international potitics and psychology out of your list.
Could that perhaps be because - besides the fact that the weather has always and (for the foreseeable future) WILL always be beyond our control - if we (as a species) were able to do anything to stop it (if indeed it needs stopping: the Earth is much better at taking care of itself than we will ever be, and no-one knows what will happen) it would have to be a massive co-ordinated global effort with co-operation from all world governments (and their citizens)... but yet, in the real world, individuals and groups will always continue to act in their own selfish interests? Altruism exists, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Driving a Prius makes good economic sense, but it's not going to save the planet, even if we all drive one (and trust me: we won't. That's not just me being bloody minded about my beautiful Mazda RZ-8, it's a fact). I'm not saying that we should just give up - far from it: Pollution is a bad thing. Let's do as little of it as we can. Recycling is a good thing. Let's do as much of it as we can. I recycle. I don't litter. I try not to be wasteful, and I like cuddly, furry animals (although I do eat some of them).
Let's take care of our environment, because shitting on your kitchen table is a stupid thing to do...

But let's be realistic about what we can hope to accomplish.
If a storm is coming, you don't buy a plane and send it up to seed the clouds to try and make the rain fall somewhere else.
You buy an umbrella. You fix your roof. You improve the drainage around your house. You shore up your sea-wall defences. You think about what crops will grow better in the changing climate and start planting them.
Instead of trying to stop the unstoppable and avoid the inevitable, you prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Well I do, anyway.
[/rant]

[Fact-Man]

I would prefer that doubts or denials of that body of science not be debated here. Sceptical or denialist debate may be made the topic of another thread anyone may create should they wish.

Because of course, there is only one kind of sceptic, isn't there?

You tell me.

A kaffir is a kaffir, after all.

So?

I notice you left international potitics and psychology out of your list.

So?

Could that perhaps be because - besides the fact that the weather has always and (for the foreseeable future) WILL always be beyond our control - if we (as a species) were able to do anything to stop it (if indeed it needs stopping: the Earth is much better at taking care of itself than we will ever be, and no-one knows what will happen) it would have to be a massive co-ordinated global effort with co-operation from all world governments (and their citizens)... but yet, in the real world, individuals and groups will always continue to act in their own selfish interests? Altruism exists, but it is the exception, not the rule.

Weather is not climate; weather is chaotic, climate is dynamic.

Climate is the average weather over a minimum period of 30 years.

It's nice to have these things straight.

You seem entirely confused about them.

Driving a Prius makes good economic sense, but it's not going to save the planet,

Who said it was?

even if we all drive one (and trust me: we won't.

No kidding?

That's not just me being bloody minded about my beautiful Mazda RZ-8, it's a fact). I'm not saying that we should just give up - far from it: Pollution is a bad thing. Let's do as little of it as we can. Recycling is a good thing. Let's do as much of it as we can. I recycle. I don't litter. I try not to be wasteful, and I like cuddly, furry animals (although I do eat some of them).
Let's take care of our environment, because shitting on your kitchen table is a stupid thing to do...

But let's be realistic about what we can hope to accomplish.

Well yes, let's indeed do.

If a storm is coming, you don't buy a plane and send it up to seed the clouds to try and make the rain fall somewhere else.
You buy an umbrella. You fix your roof. You improve the drainage around your house. You shore up your sea-wall defences. You think about what crops will grow better in the changing climate and start planting them.

Instead of trying to stop the unstoppable and avoid the inevitable, you prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Well I do, anyway.
[/rant]

I don't know of anyone who has advocated any of the things you suggest have been advocated.

Your commentary is a bit unfocused and rambling and in the end says nothing relevant or cogent about the topic. Maybe try again and think things through first before posting, what say?

[macdoc]

For all those views which question the body of accepted, mainstream climate science -

This also can be used as the thread to discuss the politics of the issue and other aspects not directly to do with climate science.

For instance i think Cap and Trade is a scammers delight while a carbon tax that Norway and Sweden have had in place since 1991 is effective over the long term.

I DO think that certain industries - coal in particular need to have a cap over time but not be allowed to scam their way out of changing the fact they use the atmosphere as a free sewer.

CFC and S02 were both dealt with successfully - fossil carbon is a larger task but it is inevitable as eventually there will be shortages so better to get ahead of the curve.

In addition even without climate aspects, ocean acidification and annual deaths due to coal pollution of air and water are over due to be addressed seriously.

I for one have no interest in shivering in the dark - I want all the luxuries I have now in a carbon neutral form.
I'm part way there in home and biz ad other countries, regions, cities and companies are moving that way.

Action at the world level will of necessity be slow and ponderous and maybe unsuccessful.

No one is saying STFU - only to keep the mainstream climate science discussion separate from the political and dissent aspects.

hell even the fossil interests now clearly admit the issue -denying the reality is a bit flat earth at this point.
What to do about it and how to address the implications...even if you think we can only try an cope is a large area of discussion and what this thread is about.

It took two years to get Dawkins climate discussions settled into some sort of organization which was three threads
One Climate Science news only - no discussion - that is stickied
One Climate Science discussion which takes the mainstream climate community view as a given
One for all else regarding climate which is this one.

JREF is a mess with at time 12-18 separate but often overlapping threads many of which are redundant.
Try and damp down the shit disturbing aspect, this is a science forum after all, and keep the posts in the correct threads....it'll get chaotic enough....
The version of this thread on Dawkins was in it's twelfth iteration....

I don't give a fuck about raucous..just that's in the topic intended for it....

[macdoc]

This is NOT the topic for doubts or denials of that body of science. Rebuttal or sceptical debate is to be conducted in another thread

"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"
So all those views which question the body of accepted, mainstream science - go here
Thanks

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 32#p353332

[Mysturji]

A kaffir is a kaffir, after all.

So?

So you agree with me?

I notice you left international potitics and psychology out of your list.

So?

So you don't care about things that contradict your world-view?

Weather is not climate; weather is chaotic, climate is dynamic.

Climate is what you expect. Weather is what you get.

Climate is the average weather over a minimum period of 30 years.

"Only 10 years to save the planet" seems to ring a bell from somewhere.

It's nice to have these things straight.

You seem entirely confused about them.

Really? All I said was that we can't control the weather, and people are generally selfish. do you disagree with those points?

Driving a Prius makes good economic sense, but it's not going to save the planet,

Who said it was?

even if we all drive one (and trust me: we won't.

No kidding?

That's not just me being bloody minded about my beautiful Mazda RZ-8, it's a fact). I'm not saying that we should just give up - far from it: Pollution is a bad thing. Let's do as little of it as we can. Recycling is a good thing. Let's do as much of it as we can. I recycle. I don't litter. I try not to be wasteful, and I like cuddly, furry animals (although I do eat some of them).
Let's take care of our environment, because shitting on your kitchen table is a stupid thing to do...

But let's be realistic about what we can hope to accomplish.

Well yes, let's indeed do.

If a storm is coming, you don't buy a plane and send it up to seed the clouds to try and make the rain fall somewhere else.
You buy an umbrella. You fix your roof. You improve the drainage around your house. You shore up your sea-wall defences. You think about what crops will grow better in the changing climate and start planting them.

Instead of trying to stop the unstoppable and avoid the inevitable, you prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Well I do, anyway.
[/rant]

I don't know of anyone who has advocated any of the things you suggest have been advocated.

Your commentary is a bit unfocused and rambling and in the end says nothing relevant or cogent about the topic. Maybe try again and think things through first before posting, what say?

I exaggerated to make a point. It's the global warming/climate change/environmental lobby and the sheeple who suck up every thing the say who seem to have difficulty telling the difference between "influence" and "control".
The point is, while we are certainly influencing the Earth's climate, we have no control over it, so spending valuable time and resources trying to control it is a monumental waste. That time and those resources would be much better spent prepating for climate change, because we sure as hell aren't going to stop it.

[Mysturji]

This is NOT the topic for doubts or denials of that body of science. Rebuttal or sceptical debate is to be conducted in another thread

"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"
So all those views which question the body of accepted, mainstream science - go here
Thanks

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 32#p353332

Heed the creed or STFU?

Did I question the science?
All I said was that we can't control the weather, so let's try something else.

[macdoc]

Heed the creed or STFU?

Did I question the science?
All I said was that we can't control the weather, so let's try something else.

You clearly don't understand the science or you would not state we have no impact on the climate that we can affect with changing our approach to energy
and you confuse climate with weather - your lack of understanding is obvious.

Just keep it in the correct thread - is that such a monumental challenge.??..

Do you really think that putting the CFC threat on ignore and coping with aluminum covers and sunglasses for animals was a valid approach??

Or letting acid rain kill the fresh water lakes entirely...as it did with some in Ontario??

We DID change the climate as you admit

We CAN over time reduce the factors - mainly fossil fuel use that led to that situation by moving to carbon neutral and Sweden and Norway have committed to by mid century and as France is well on it's way to given their nuclear facilities.

EV and PHEV vehicles are coming in a wave.

What I resent is a lot of resources wasted on marginal renewables when the issue really boils down to coal versus nuclear...
Renewables have a role to play but nowhere near what the dug in tree huggers think can be done.

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fas ... ear-power/

Barry Brook, Hansen and others are strongly in favour of a move to nuclear away from coal as they understand the scale and the consequences....

[Mysturji]

Heed the creed or STFU?

Did I question the science?
All I said was that we can't control the weather, so let's try something else.

You clearly don't understand the science or you would not state we have no impact on the climate that we can affect with changing our approach to energy
and you confuse climate with weather - your lack of understanding is obvious.

Just keep it in the correct thread - is that such a monumental challenge.??..

Do you really think that putting the CFC threat on ignore and coping with aluminum covers and sunglasses for animals was a valid approach??

Or letting acid rain kill the fresh water lakes entirely...as it did with some in Ontario??

We DID change the climate as you admit

We CAN over time reduce the factors - mainly fossil fuel use that led to that situation by moving to carbon neutral and Sweden and Norway have committed to by mid century and as France is well on it's way to given their nuclear facilities.

EV and PHEV vehicles are coming in a wave.

What I resent is a lot of resources wasted on marginal renewables when the issue really boils down to coal versus nuclear...
Renewables have a role to play but nowhere near what the dug in tree huggers think can be done.

http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fas ... ear-power/

Barry Brook, Hansen and others are strongly in favour of a move to nuclear away from coal as they understand the scale and the consequences....

...Because of course, the faithful congregation must not be disturbed at the holy altar of AGW. This is what I mean about "only one kind of kaffir". Someone mentions any kind scepticism in the same paragraph as "global warming" or "climate change" and therefore (obviously) they are a denialist who refuses to accapt any of the science involved, saying that all climate change is natural and mankind's activities have nothing to do with it. Just like fundies who hear "atheist" or "agnostic" or "not religious", but it translates as "satanist" by the time it gets past their inner ear. Except, eco-fascists are even more so: they have some science on their side. They're like fundies with a fucking precambrian fossil rabbit.
I highlighted the portions in red above because they are intentionallty dishonest.
DON'T PUT FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I never said any of those things, nor do I think them. You are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, and your strawman is irrelevant.
Stop talking out of your arse.
If you ever want to have an HONEST discussion about anything, I might give it a go.
OK bye

[JimC]

Mysturji, we need to keep the emotional level a little more toned down in threads like this, which seem to attract flame wars like flames attract moths...

Everybody note:

Nobody has a monopoly on "truth" in a topic like this. We state our positions and opinions as clearly as we can, and make it abundantly clear where we disagree, but the old hominid emotions don't really help...

[Reverend Blair]

Well, this is certainly starting out well. Perhaps we should all have a beer and think things through.

We know that the climate is changing because the scientists tell us it is.

No, that is not argument from authority. It is simply recognition that those who do the work...the research, the measuring, you know, the science...have found certain things, and that one of those things is that we are warming the climate. The science reaches back to the 19th century and has been tested and retested. It's supported by reams of data from more scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines than most of us know exist.

We may not be experts in all of those fields...nobody is...but the reality is that the science is well-supported. To disavow ourselves of that science we would have to rewrite the textbooks on physics, biology (much of evolution) all of the atmospheric sciences, etc. I can't think of anybody capable of doing that and, since I don't believe in god, see no possibility of an entity capable of such a thing actually existing.

So how do we deal with it?

Well, cap and trade might work if it wasn't distorted. Too late for that though.

Carbon taxes will work, but the problem becomes that governments will then be dependent on them for funds. The governments will then either have to keep carbon emissions up (not a real option) or slowly reduce services as we reduce emissions. Likely not going to work either in the long run, but not a bad plan in the short term.

We could just cap emissions. If we lived in a dictatorship, that is. Not really workable.

We could create a magical Star Trek technology and a magical Star Trek economy to go with it. I haven't taken drugs in a very long time though, so I have my doubts.

My personal feeling is that we're pretty much doomed. We'll do too little too late, suffer some pretty horrific consequences, and then go looking for a real solution.

[Mysturji]

Well, this is certainly starting out well. Perhaps we should all have a beer and think things through.

We know that the climate is changing because the scientists tell us it is.

No, that is not argument from authority. It is simply recognition that those who do the work...the research, the measuring, you know, the science...have found certain things, and that one of those things is that we are warming the climate. The science reaches back to the 19th century and has been tested and retested. It's supported by reams of data from more scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines than most of us know exist.

We may not be experts in all of those fields...nobody is...but the reality is that the science is well-supported. To disavow ourselves of that science we would have to rewrite the textbooks on physics, biology (much of evolution) all of the atmospheric sciences, etc. I can't think of anybody capable of doing that and, since I don't believe in god, see no possibility of an entity capable of such a thing actually existing.

So how do we deal with it?

Well, cap and trade might work if it wasn't distorted. Too late for that though.

Carbon taxes will work, but the problem becomes that governments will then be dependent on them for funds. The governments will then either have to keep carbon emissions up (not a real option) or slowly reduce services as we reduce emissions. Likely not going to work either in the long run, but not a bad plan in the short term.

We could just cap emissions. If we lived in a dictatorship, that is. Not really workable.

We could create a magical Star Trek technology and a magical Star Trek economy to go with it. I haven't taken drugs in a very long time though, so I have my doubts.

My personal feeling is that we're pretty much doomed. We'll do too little too late, suffer some pretty horrific consequences, and then go looking for a real solution.

Well put.
But I think that governments are probably a bigger problem than you think.
And I don't think we're doomed. I just don't think we're going to have much say in the matter.

@JimC: Agreed, but I get very angry whe someone spreads lies about me.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Fact Man & Mysturji,

I think you both got off to a bad start in this thread.

This is not RD.net. We prefer our members not to be as aggressive and derisory in the defense of their posts. There was emotion, hyperbole and offhand dismissal of the others arguments from both sides here. Please try and simmer it down a bit. Remember that neither of you were debating with ranting fundies here, but with another intelligent and knowledgeable person that just didn't share all of your views. Please treat each other in that manner.

Thanks,

XC

[Fact-Man]

Well, this is certainly starting out well. Perhaps we should all have a beer and think things through.

We know that the climate is changing because the scientists tell us it is.

No, that is not argument from authority. It is simply recognition that those who do the work...the research, the measuring, you know, the science...have found certain things, and that one of those things is that we are warming the climate. The science reaches back to the 19th century and has been tested and retested. It's supported by reams of data from more scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines than most of us know exist.

We may not be experts in all of those fields...nobody is...but the reality is that the science is well-supported. To disavow ourselves of that science we would have to rewrite the textbooks on physics, biology (much of evolution) all of the atmospheric sciences, etc. I can't think of anybody capable of doing that and, since I don't believe in god, see no possibility of an entity capable of such a thing actually existing.

So how do we deal with it?

Well, cap and trade might work if it wasn't distorted. Too late for that though.

Carbon taxes will work, but the problem becomes that governments will then be dependent on them for funds. The governments will then either have to keep carbon emissions up (not a real option) or slowly reduce services as we reduce emissions. Likely not going to work either in the long run, but not a bad plan in the short term.

We could just cap emissions. If we lived in a dictatorship, that is. Not really workable.

We could create a magical Star Trek technology and a magical Star Trek economy to go with it. I haven't taken drugs in a very long time though, so I have my doubts.

My personal feeling is that we're pretty much doomed. We'll do too little too late, suffer some pretty horrific consequences, and then go looking for a real solution.

There is, however, one additional path this could follow, and that's the path that no one has yet conceived of or thought up or set forth.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and it might well turn out that come the year 2020, when the science has much better resolution and the physical evidence has piled up even higher than it is today, leaving no room for denial, that a much clearer picture of what must be done and how it might be done will emerge and be pursued.

I don't think we can say that such a potential does not exist, especially because when the scale and intensities of those "pretty horrific consequences" come into full focus we may well be prompted to initiate some rather unique and unheard of approaches to deal with them. Need is the mother of invention and I doubt we're through inventing just yet. Anything is possible when your back's against the wall.

[Fact-Man]

Fact Man & Mysturji,

I think you both got off to a bad start in this thread.

This is not RD.net. We prefer our members not to be as aggressive and derisory in the defense of their posts. There was emotion, hyperbole and offhand dismissal of the others arguments from both sides here. Please try and simmer it down a bit. Remember that neither of you were debating with ranting fundies here, but with another intelligent and knowledgeable person that just didn't share all of your views. Please treat each other in that manner.

Thanks,

XC

Well, my apologies if I violated either letter or the spirit of the rules here.

I tried to make clear what the purpose of the thread was and Mysturji's post cut right across them right out of the box, as though he hadn't even read the OP. He was being antagonistic. That was bothersome enough and then he proceeded with a rather rambling rant that added nothing and was much less than cogent (IMHO). I merely responded to that and did so in a gentlemanly manner, or at least what I consider to be a gentlemanly manner.

I cannot share your view that I was "debating with another intelligent and knowledgeable person that just didn't share all of" my views. That wasn't the case at all ... because I had not set forth any views that Mysturji may have either shared or not shared. All I had done was write an OP and set some groundrules for the thread. From that, he leaped to a lot of erroneous assumptions and made a lot of irrelevant claims in what amounted to an incoherent rant.

He even admitted it was a rant by including [/rant] at the end of his post.

It is not my intention here to either violate the rules of the house nor to engage in flame wars. But when I encounter a spade I'll call it a spade and do so forthrightly and with some vigor where necessary.

Cheers (anyway)!

[Reverend Blair]

There is, however, one additional path this could follow, and that's the path that no one has yet conceived of or thought up or set forth.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and it might well turn out that come the year 2020, when the science has much better resolution and the physical evidence has piled up even higher than it is today, leaving no room for denial, that a much clearer picture of what must be done and how it might be done will emerge and be pursued.

I don't think we can say that such a potential does not exist, especially because when the scale and intensities of those "pretty horrific consequences" come into full focus we may well be prompted to initiate some rather unique and unheard of approaches to deal with them. Need is the mother of invention and I doubt we're through inventing just yet. Anything is possible when your back's against the wall.

Actually, Frank Zappa was the Mother of Invention. Need was just some local punk band...albeit a fairly talented one. (Er...sorry, or maybe not )

2020 is a long way off scientifically and technologically because we are advancing at such a high rate, but it's just around the corner politically and economically because we are mired in systems that haven't changed much for at least a couple of centuries. The vested interests don't want us advancing.

I believe the potential for political change is there, and I have no doubt that both the science and resulting technology will advance by leaps and bounds. More than that, as you know, I keep on pushing for political and economic change. I've been banging my head against that particular wall since before I was old enough to get a fake ID though, and I don't hold out much hope for us doing what's necessary in time.

Lets say, just for argument sake, and no I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory I'm about to use as an example, that tomorrow I wandered out into my garage, finally got around to cleaning out the crap under the workbench, and found Tesla's secret, magic plans for sucking free electricity out of the earth with an iron stick. Our emissions would cut massively immediately. Or would they?

First I'd have to prove it was safe and everybody from Manitoba Hydro (pretty clean hydro energy) to the monster of big coal and oil would be lining up to slow things down. Building codes would have to be re-written and tradesmen would have to be trained in the installation of Tesla's Magic Stick.

Then I'd need to develop some kind of cash backing, since it's unlikely trading in the empties in my porch would produce the necessary capital. That means convincing rich guys, many of them heavily vested in the current system, to back me. Complicating that is that the market for Tesla's Magic Stick is pretty finite...you can sell everybody one once. There are no continuing revenues from accessories or fuel.

It would also be pretty easy to copy, and who, if anyone, owned the copyright would be contested. Knock-offs would abound, Again, all that limits revenues and makes start-up revenue tough to get.

Then there would be a public outcry. What happens to all the coal miners and linesmen and guys who get paid to hang out wearing hard hats? Somebody has to find something for them out of this. Government is going to have to slow me down, or they'll get de-elected.

Once it goes on the market, it's going to take a while to become pervasive in the marketplace. People will cling to the old technology for as long as they can because that's what people do.

So, even assuming I don't have to go through the whole R&D process, we're looking at a decade to get it onto the market in any meaningful way.

And that's the problem, I think. My guess is that warming is going to happen sooner rather than later. We've already pretty much written off the north because the massive changes have already advanced so far. We simply don't have enough time.