Ostrich effect…
1 Like
I don’t disagree. My point however is that we have no idea what the future will look like. It makes perfect sense to preserve the environment, to lessen our impact, to clean things up, to study it, to innovate. But I do believe that concrete predictions of imminent doom are misplaced given that humans have shown the ability to innovate and adapt. That’s not saying we should accept these consequences and push off any attempted solutions by ignoring what we can do. It’s only saying that predictions of doom almost never take into account the progress from human ingenuity. But I think you knew what I was getting at.
Another outstanding post. This however, to me, is easy to understand… Public figures feel compelled to appear as if they have solutions for everything. This may be either due to ego or vote grabbing, or a combination, but they cannot just simply say I don’t know like a scientist would. They make something up to stir the pot or get votes, or in the case with some of them… Because they can’t accept the idea they’re not the smartest person in the room lol
I like your way of presenting and thinking. I have mentioned why I do not like alarmism on the topic. The changes on my day to day life are significant. I may be forced to buy a new car for example and I am paying more and more everyday for gas and electricity. I have enough of this, because I think these are not reasonable solutions. All I can see as an effect is me paying more money. My streets are still dirty and the air pollution is still significant.
Anyway I have read the executive summary of the CCPI report. It has 2 major points it fails to take into account.
- It measure only the last 120 years when the industrialization happened. The change of temperature is 1 degree by Celsius. Which I agree is a lot, 1 degree is the difference between liquid water and ice.
However it does not measure the 120 years before that. Was the climate getting hot by itself before that? How about bigger measurements? We are post a mini ice age. In history how the climate has changed post mini ice ages? How our interaction with nature has deviated the temperature. It does not give us any answers. It assumes the 1 degree by Celsius is only us and the temperature has been always the same in nature before that. I see a massive failure in presenting the problem right here. Does it even exists, I am starting to ask myself? What if the climate for 120 years before the 120 years the CCPI report is measuring was increasing by 2 degrees by Celsius? Then is there a problem at all or this is how nature works?
- It assumes CO2 is “toxic”. Where I come from CO2 is food for plants. I am not sure how it became toxic. I still do not get it. Yet one of the good solutions I have heard for tackling climate change was to plant more trees. I agree with it, I planted 4 trees in the back of my apartment. But we want to limit the food for these trees? It is like making babies, but letting them die hungry. Forgive me if I am that simple, but I do not see how the food for plants became toxic.
2 Likes
Another important issue hijacked by vermin politicians
1 Like
C02 creates a layer in the atmosphere which causes the greenhouse effect.
Too little and we freeze, which is bad. Too much and we get too hot, which melts the glaciers, which causes water levels to rise, which potentially causes floods if existing infrastructure can’t handle it. If it gets even worse, coastal areas will go underwater.
Current industrial emissions already exceed the amount released by any natural occurrences such as volcanic eruptions, which could have been responsible for past rises in temperatures. Our increased consumption adds to it. Add in things like deforestation and we have a potentially huge problem.
It is always possible, like the economy, there are cycles of peaks and troughs. However, if we have a major peak in this case, i.e, temperature levels, the consequences will be far more devastating and any major corrections will be just as bad. If we look at the charts, we will see multiple mini-cycles, with the 1 degree increase being an average while the trajectory remains upwards at the moment.
This is my uneducated understanding of the situation.
I’m half in agreement with your previous posts. I don’t think you’re a climate change denier and I don’t trust governments have the ability to come up with proactive solutions without fucking things up either.
However, I do think reduction of carbon emissions are required and that should be what’s focused on at the moment. This should be done at an industrial level such as compelling major corporations which produce such pollution to cut that shit down, which would require reactive actions from governments.
I could be wrong, but I’m not sure that our normal activities contribute that much but I do try to reduce my carbon footprint whenever I can.
EDIT:
I’ll put it this way. A layer of ozone in the atmosphere blocks out UV-C rays so we don’t get skin cancer or literally burn alive. So it’s good. No one disputes this. But it’s a pollutant at our level because we can’t handle breathing it in in large amounts. Try sitting in a small room right after you’ve disinfected it with an ozone producing 100W UV-C lamp and see how shitty you feel lol.
You can’t use certain “logic” to come to certain conclusions like with your CO2 example. This shit’s a lot more complicated that that.
What does this even mean? This is one of the problems with the internet and social media; you have people who take the time to develop expertise in a field and they are on the same level, or lower, than internet celebrities with no experience in the field. Why even ask Peterson a question on climate change in the first place? Why would he be arrogant enough to answer it?
Philosophers can be experts, on philosophy, and Peterson is not a philosopher anyway.
It’s the same thinking we have with regard to the national debt. I’m sure that will work out as well.
1 Like
We may also have enough idiots to counter all the actions of the smart ones.
In the tech world, we’ve seen massive innovations. Which have been great. But we’re also facing major ransomware problems, crypto scams, algorithmic trading that can temporarily crash a market in seconds with one minor bug, widespread government surveillance (in certain countries), data collection and monitoring at levels we could never fathom was possible just 20 years ago etc.
To top it off, idiots go batshit at things like 5g and dumbasses from the 1st World start believing dumb shit like the earth is flat.
While I’m NOT saying it’s not a net good, it’s not going to be as rosy as what Peterson makes it out to be.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with neophytes grabbing more exposure than actual experts, to our loss. But some things seem to have been made more difficult, just because.
National debt? Countries aren’t any different than individuals. There is a finite timeline to failure, for spending more than you make AND compound interest cuts both directions.
Too much greenhouse gas.? The greatest contributor is burning coal. China has 3x more than #2 with tons more in construction and on the drawing board. Yet the world can’t get enough of their second rate junk.
3 Likes
For whatever reason attacking science and intelligence just seems more in than ever. Maybe it’s just my imagination.
I’ve never had a problem deferring to scientists or people who were clearly more educated than me on a subject. Especially if a large majority of those people agree on the big points of anything. I happen to think I know a decent amount about weights and I don’t read a CT article and assume I know more than him.
1 Like
I have a problem here. The greenhouse effect is noticed mainly above bigger cities. It is not really a global problem. I am not sure how it melts glaciers. It is a local problem requiring local solution. I still have not seen local solutions. For example governments doing an actual governing and working on greener infrastructure - more parks, more trees and etc. Instead we keep on building towers and other stuff.
Are we sure about this? Last time a volcano erupted in Europe we had the continent still for a couple of months? No flights, some disasters happening.
Lets assume that CO2 is the evil. I agree here, but not on the cost of energy. I will give Germany as example. Above 40 % of their emissions are from the power sector. Germany is the “greenest” energy country in Europe. Yet they are producing the majority of CO2 in Europe. So can we please cut that bullshit with the energy sector. There are plenty of discussions that green does not mean green at all, but it means more expensive energy.
I do not think so either. Transportation in Germany, the biggest polluting country in Europe is at about 19 % of their emissions. Building is at 17%. But as I said if governments actually sat down and though about solutions they may though of some easy fixes such as work from home (to reduce transportation) and city infrastructure (to reduce emission from building). We can’t expand cities and talk about green policies and greenhouse effect. It needs to stop and it needs to be done by proper governing. Just look at the political idiocity of Joe Biden. He cut one of the largest pipeline in US due to “green policy” now fuel needs transporting by trucks. Meanwhile he lifts sanctions on Nord Stream so Germany “the greenest” country in Europe can use pipelines and hold monopoly with Russia in Western Europe.
It is not your imagination. People start realizing that our so called experts and scientists have finished useless universities that teach your more race theory. They are unprepared and not well educated. If anything COVID proved we know nothing about medicine. Our doctors recommended ancient techniques such as social distancing and masks. Even these were controversial and perhaps still have no medical consensus. It exposed we have no actual experts. All of us are some kind of experts by the age of 30-40 in a field. And we realize we are experts, just because we practice the named profession and sell our services.
Lastly there is nothing wrong to question. We need discussion. Especially if the questions are regarding the money I make with a hard work. I am not letting some “expert” steal my money, because he is screaming that the world is ending and their presentation of the problem is lame as fuck. Just read the executive summary of the CCPI report for evidence. It is lame as fuck. I am not letting some “experts” limit my freedoms and lock me down, because their field of expertise retreats to ancient techniques such as social distancing and lockdowns. Are these our experts? Its funny you question me that I rise questions on such experts.
Any time man tries to fix things…they completely fuck it up
Nature will correct itself
1 Like
That’s not a very Progressive way of looking at things. You’re supposed to say, “Next time, we’ll get it right!”
Those people don’t go into the sciences.
1 Like
Well, you rely on experts whenever you drive your car or fly in a plane. You rely on them when crossing a bridge or entering a building. You will rely on them, god forbid, should you need life saving medical care.
1 Like
I didn’t say throw it out. I just mean to treat it with the same skepticism you do anything else, especially when science converges with politics and mountains of cash.
Like Big Green Energy, same as Big Oil.
Fortunately peak oil seems to have been another failed scientific prediction of decades past. It is a good thing we didn’t upend the economy at the behest of narrow experts making flawed predictions that were being loudly trumpeted by the politicians of that time.
And they have room temp IQ cheerleaders like Lebron. Clown world. China and india are egregious polluters.
3 Likes
Yep.
As far as Peterson goes though, I thought the answer was delivered in a cheeky way but he’s partially correct - the measurement uncertainties magnify as you go out in projected time and it is very difficult to get good measurements. And it is a highly divisive issue.
In total agreement. We like to shoot ourselves in the foot a lot.
I think we’ve talked about this before, but I agree. We all have access to insane amounts of information. Not all of it is good/reliable.
What we face today is NOT the challenge of lack of information, it’s the challenge of filtering and interpreting tons of information. THIS is what makes an expert.
This is what makes the difference between expert and neophyte. Anyone can access information and memorize facts (whether or not these facts are actually facts is another story, and one topic research usually focuses on). But it is entirely another level to both be able to filter facts - finding the actual signal in the noise - and then also understand context of these facts and the relationships between facts.
And then developing new relationships between bits of information and creating new information is the final step.
The problem with media/internet/fill-in-the-blank personalities is that they can’t do any of the above.
1 Like
You are not referring to the greenhouse effect here. You are referring to the heat island effect. The greenhouse effect is different from the “heat island” effect.
This can be true, but is not necessarily true. It is possible to both be green and more expensive. In any case, this would go under the “power grab” category.
This is absolutely not true as it regards science. Anyone who believes this is a moron.
1 Like