So much for civil debate. On the bright side, this discussion made it farther than most before someone decided to ‘go there.’
Refuting anthorpogenic climate change is really not the bar. The concern is what to do about it. We now have significant rent-seeking or maybe you want to be more positive and call them “problem solvers” who have a financial interest in solving the problem as well. CA for example now has mandated solar panels for ALL new residential construction.
That said, most of us have other pressing issues on our minds right now.
This issue isn’t going to go away but, it’s on the periphery right now. Europe has a refugee crisis and youth unemployment topping 30% for people below 34 in some countries. In the US, we’re worried about immigrant children, and school shootings, and opiates, and suicide.
Let’s say you have about 50% of people who rate climate change as a high concern. That’s still much lower than the number who rate clean air and water as a high concern, as Aragorn mentioned.
In political terms, people experience issue fatigue. DOOM!!! begins to get tuned out, much like a blaring car alarm. And the enthusiasm wanes even for a lot of the committed and enthusiastic because realization of the difficulties in solving such a big global problem sets in. Some solutions like nuclear power are considered completely off the table, as has been mentioned by Gianz I think.
Your comment to Aragorn was disrespectful, and condescending. You’re insulting his intelligence.
Making lifestyle changes, even small ones, that will minimally impact the acceleration of global warming is not something we can expect individuals to do. For example, it is well known that adopting a healthy diet and exercise routine will positively impact nearly every aspect of one’s life relatively quickly, yet the vast majority of the population is not willing to do so. Most people will only take action on things that will affect them nearly immediately. Another example is retirement savings. Most people have zero saved, and this will without question negatively impact their life and yet most are choosing to get what they want now at the expense of their future.
So, my opinion is even if we could know with absolute certainty that our current lifestyle and relationship to energy will cause catastrophe in 30 years, most people would still be focused on getting what they want now.
1 Like
So how long is long enough?
MAGA!
Yet, it has accepted the reality of man made climate change.
Most of us have too little with which to occupy our minds. Thinking isn’t fun.
That would explain differences when it comes to how to deal with it, not the differences when it comes to accepting the reality of it.
He’s a big boy. If he feels insulted enough to make an issue of it, he’s more than capable of doing so himself.
Impulse control. Consider getting some.
You really ought not to take it so personally. Manufacturing doubt, impugning the integrity of scientists, and blaming ulterior financial and political motives is not at all new or restricted to climate change. It happened with CFCs, and with tobacco, and with lead additives for fuel, and so on. The instances are numerous.
The deck really is stacked, but not in the way skeptics/deniers suggest. So-called skeptics demand incontrovertible proof before action. Those who prefer the status quo need not provide proof — they need only promote controversy.
The “grant money” argument is by far the most daft of the lot, yet it continues to make the rounds. The contempt for subsidies seems noble, until you realise how heavily energy has always been subsidised. And so on…
The climate-forcing effect of CO2 has been known for over a century (if I remember correctly). The potentially catastrophic impact of fossil fuels on the environment has been known, even to the oil companies, for decades, but the same playbook that allowed cigarettes and lead to poison everyone has been used to great effect here.
Falling for the manipulation is not necessarily an indication of a lack of intelligence. A lot of money and effort has gone into it. Continuing to fall for it, and continuing to help perpetuate it, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is probably an indication of a lack of wisdom.
Simple questions: (a) what is the worst that could happen if we phase out non-carbon-neutral energy sources in the next 50 years? (b) what is the worst that could happen if we don’t?
1 Like
Not how science works?
Polemicists aren’t actually in the (science) clubhouse, so they can’t really be kicked out. The lead author:
"On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had “told Western business leaders … that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research” and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.
Michaels acknowledged on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry. According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels’ projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his “advocacy science consulting firm”, New Hope Environmental Services.
A 2005 article published by the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal."
That’s the issue, best defined from risk management perspective - you’re betting that the only planet homo sapiens sapiens currently resides on will not suffer an ecological collapse (catastrophic downside) for short term socio-political upside (the statists don’t get to spread their propaganda and grants aren’t handed out that easily to supposedly corrupt scientists).
As Nassim Taleb said, it’s picking pennies in front of a steamroller.
Jared Diamond, with whom I disagree on many things, has correctly shown that human societies are extremely lousy at managing environmental risks and the corresponding fallout - Norsemen in Greeland, inhabitants of Easter Island, not to mention more complex socities like the Mayas.
2 Likes
Indeed. You will be kicked out of the clubhouse as soon as you are discredited because rigor is king.
Why should someone claiming cold fusion works in his basement be given equal standing to someone who does and publishes real experiments in a tokamak?
You should explain that to the current crop of climate scientists. They seem to be having some real problems getting their models to accurately reflect current and historical data.
Or maybe rigor has nothing to do with it. They can run flawed modeling programs all they want and still end up wrong.
There you go, demanding unreasonable standards of proof. Meanwhile we continue forcing a massive dynamic system with incomplete knowledge of its response…
So when you can’t attack the data, you attack the author?
That’s awful Trumpy.
What can we replace fossil fuels with? You cannot melt steel or power industry with solar panels and wind mills. Battery storage is really problematic right now and far from carbon nuetral/eco friendly. I could give two shits about the science. That’s irrelevant. What are we going to use instead?
The reason this is the most important thing is: good luck telling the developing economies of the world they can’t have lights, HVAC, transit etc… the west got to use it, but it’s bad and you shouldn’t. They’ll do whatever they want. Until we come up with alternatives that make economic sense and are provably better than fossil fuels this entire global argument is nothing but angels dancing on pin heads.
1 Like
There you go not requiring any.
So, no objections from you if I were to post a link written by someone who works at Greenpeace and for whom 40% of their funding comes from Big Renewable? Sad!
One does not need a degree in game theory to know what to do in such a situation, even with incomplete information.