Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

 

The last twenty years...

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

The last twenty years...

That's quite frightening.

It'll be made worse if the big-7 global economic superpower countries don't make strong actions to try and address it; plus if the Brazilian government continue (allegedly) to burn the Amazon rainforest (regarded as the 'lungs' of the earth) to its bare bones.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

That's quite frightening.

It'll be made worse if the big-7 global economic superpower countries don't make strong actions to try and address it; plus if the Brazilian government continue (allegedly) to burn the Amazon rainforest (regarded as the 'lungs' of the earth) to its bare bones.

That's about the size of it, yeah.

 

WRT the Amazon (and coal and oil power come to that) it's not just about the greenhouse gas emissions, either - there is still big "visible" pollution caused by all of it, for all the talk of "clean" coal - it just happens in corners of the world that not many FTers reside in.

Edited 1 September 2019 by leicsmac

[Free Falling Foxes]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49541485

 

180mph!

[The Bear]

This kind of "education" is what we're up against people.... 

 

 

[WigstonWanderer]

2 minutes ago, The Bear said:

This kind of "education" is what we're up against people.... 

 

 

I despair of Americans as a culture. There are obviously countless highly intelligent people amongst them but if they haven’t worked out that having loads of guns lying around is dangerous, what chance them accepting the complexities of climate change?

[MC Prussian]

I found this really revealing - sums up my skepticism with regards to the Climate Change movement and the controversial science behind Climate Change:

Willie Soon's summary at 56:16.

Q&A starts at 01:19:50.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I found this really revealing - sums up my skepticism with regards to the Climate Change movement and the controversial science behind Climate Change:

Willie Soon's summary at 56:16.

Q&A starts at 01:19:50.

The Independent Institute, funded (among other sources) by the NRA, Mobil Oil, Arco Coal and Chevron Oil - skeptics indeed, huh?

 

However, I'll at least have a look when I have time.

[MC Prussian]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The Independent Institute, funded (among other sources) by the NRA, Mobil Oil, Arco Coal and Chevron Oil - skeptics indeed, huh?

 

However, I'll at least have a look when I have time.

That refers - from what I can tell - to donations some fifteen, twenty years ago. And the amounts cited pale in comparison to the total amount of funds the institute receives per annum.

I do recognize that the II are leaning to the right and that Willie Soon himself is a controversial character. I would, however, suggest attacking the message instead of the messenger.

 

Looking forward to your summary.

[leicsmac]

On 09/09/2019 at 01:14, MC Prussian said:

That refers - from what I can tell - to donations some fifteen, twenty years ago. And the amounts cited pale in comparison to the total amount of funds the institute receives per annum.

I do recognize that the II are leaning to the right and that Willie Soon himself is a controversial character. I would, however, suggest attacking the message instead of the messenger.

 

Looking forward to your summary.

Well now...cherry-picking data, gish galloping, the "urban island" argument, arguing overcomplexity and lack of understanding of the climate system...that lecture really did hit all the good spots, didn't it? Smoothly packaged and delivered, too.

 

However, a simple summary is that each and every one of these arguments have been addressed in detail by the scientific community before now - indeed, I believe you posted a laundry list of your own concerns that pretty much match the ones in the video in the past that I then linked to refutations of each point. With all due respect, I don't see the utility in doing so again here. I guess, as it seems to be with a lot of polticised matters (though I hate politics coming in on science) right now, that the lines in the sand are already drawn.

 

So...basically, they're convincing, but they're wrong - for reasons that have already been extensively covered.

 

NB. Even if there was a chance that they were right, the wager argument still holds water - if we do something and manmade climate change is not real, then we take a (sustainable) economic hit and probably make up some new tech that makes the world a generally better place to live in anyway. If we do nothing and manmade climate change is real, then the consequences are dire for civilisation. The odds x cost of the former is far outweighed by the odds x cost of the latter, which is why the former is the more sensible, risk-averse strategy in any case.

 

 

[leicsmac]

With respect to the above, a random internet find:

 

"This has been obvious to me for years, now. The evolution is obvious if you watch how the argument has shifted over the years:

- Climate change doesn't exist.
- We don't know enough to know if climate change exists.
- We have some data that climate change exists, but it's not conclusive. More studies.
- We have conclusive data the climate is changing, but we don't believe it's *Anthropomorphic* climate change.
- OK, it's happening, but it's early.  Technology will save us.
- It's happening, but it's too expensive to fix. We have to protect our economy.
- It's happening, but the Chinese are not fixing their contribution, so why should we bear all the costs?
- It's happening, but it's too late.

The hard part of watching these arguments is realizing that all the old arguments continue to exist (and require work to rebut) while the new arguments keep getting piled on top, polluting the noosphere.   You spend all your energy rebutting, no energy doing anything constructive.  Information warfare is asymmetrical."

 

That's why those in favour of the status quo are winning where it matters right now (out in the world rather than just the scientific community): they know and apply that poisoning the well is considerably easier than cleaning it, given human nature.

[ozleicester]

On 23/08/2019 at 19:46, what? said:

I have a question. Are people, and I mean posters here on foxes talk not people as in the wider population, actually scared enough yet to take action? And if not, why not? I don't mean that in an accusatory way it's more genuine interest, because I think there's a big disconnect at the moment and its needs to be understood if it's going to be overcome. I feel like a lot of people have intellectually accepted the climate crisis and you hear matter-of-fact talk about the coming effects of it in the media, but on mass people seem more willing to basically ignore the problem. Has anyone made big or small changes in their lives yet because of climate change? And if not at what point could you see yourselves doing so?

Small changes...

Ride bike to work

Lots of recycling

Vegan/Vegetarian

Try to purchase most things secondhand

protest, march and support parties that recognise the issues

installed solar power and solar hot water system

Water wise taps, heads, settings etc

 

 

 

On 23/08/2019 at 20:03, Buce said:

 

There is nothing effective an individual can do. 

 

What’s required is a movement to overthrow the right-wing elites that rule the world, by any means necessary. 

As above, small things have put me on the streets... but seriously considering how to overthrow the ignorance... Extinction Rebellion has kicked off here, ive never been a joiner of groups or parties, but this might be the change, if we are going to have a planet to leave behind we are going to have to FIGHT BACK! 

 

The reason they are burning Brazil.. is money.. nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Until the completely ignorant fvckwits (particularly on the right) realise that their money will be useless when the planet dies we are just pissing in the wind

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

With respect to the above, a random internet find:

 

"This has been obvious to me for years, now. The evolution is obvious if you watch how the argument has shifted over the years:

- Climate change doesn't exist.
- We don't know enough to know if climate change exists.
- We have some data that climate change exists, but it's not conclusive. More studies.
- We have conclusive data the climate is changing, but we don't believe it's *Anthropomorphic* climate change.
- OK, it's happening, but it's early.  Technology will save us.
- It's happening, but it's too expensive to fix. We have to protect our economy.
- It's happening, but the Chinese are not fixing their contribution, so why should we bear all the costs?
- It's happening, but it's too late.

The hard part of watching these arguments is realizing that all the old arguments continue to exist (and require work to rebut) while the new arguments keep getting piled on top, polluting the noosphere.   You spend all your energy rebutting, no energy doing anything constructive.  Information warfare is asymmetrical."

 

That's why those in favour of the status quo are winning where it matters right now (out in the world rather than just the scientific community): they know and apply that poisoning the well is considerably easier than cleaning it, given human nature.

Again, Climate Change does exist. No denying there. It then boils down to how you perceive Climate Change deniers, how strong in numbers they really are and what prominence you yourself are giving them. The "Us vs. Them" mentality does nothing to further the discussion, and that's why I can't stand people who think they are in a position to tell others how to live their lives. We need a more civil public discourse.

 

There's a couple of arguments up there that sound rather reasonable to me. I just don't put much trust in the science behind Climate Change at present, I find the methods, the data and the agendas behind it part-hilarious, part-sketchy, part-reprehensible. Simplifications, omissions, faulty, incomplete results, the peer review problem in academia. Not very healthy grounds.

 

Climate Change is a much more complex issue than it is made out to be, and the controversy surrounding the influence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere grounds for interesting and vehement debates.

Arguing from an Ivory Tower perspective doesn't help, either.

 

I'd guess there are a lot of people not happy with the science and scientific methods behind it all, the lack of transparency (no matter what side), fed up with the hysteria generated by activists, the hypocrisy by movements vehemently proclaiming to be in favour of "saving the planet".

 

There's a lot of grey area in between, and sadly the media do their best to focus on extremes (mostly, but not exclusively, on one side of the spectrum).

 

As long as we don't have a common global agenda and as long as a handful of major developed countries (China and India in particular), as well as a particular set of countries in Africa and Asia, don't give a fudge, we will continue to have this discussion ad infinitum. Meanwhile, we can continue to examine the climate and see whether the trend of warmer temperatures continues on the whole and why nobody is talking about the increase in the global population and its effect on our resources and - as a consequence - on our climate.

 

As far as Europe is concerned, we are already doing pretty well, now it's also up to others to follow suit. Ship the savvy activists to places such as Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or China (by foot, bicycle or train at the most - think of the ecological footprint) and see how they fare over there. After all, conviction breeds success, doesn't it.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Again, Climate Change does exist. No denying there. It then boils down to how you perceive Climate Change deniers, how strong in numbers they really are and what prominence you yourself are giving them. The "Us vs. Them" mentality does nothing to further the discussion, and that's why I can't stand people who think they are in a position to tell others how to live their lives. We need a more civil public discourse.

 

There's a couple of arguments up there that sound rather reasonable to me. I just don't put much trust in the science behind Climate Change at present, I find the methods, the data and the agendas behind it part-hilarious, part-sketchy, part-reprehensible. Simplifications, omissions, faulty, incomplete results, the peer review problem in academia. Not very healthy grounds.

 

Climate Change is a much more complex issue than it is made out to be, and the controversy surrounding the influence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere grounds for interesting and vehement debates.

Arguing from an Ivory Tower perspective doesn't help, either.

 

I'd guess there are a lot of people not happy with the science and scientific methods behind it all, the lack of transparency (no matter what side), fed up with the hysteria generated by activists, the hypocrisy by movements vehemently proclaiming to be in favour of "saving the planet".

 

There's a lot of grey area in between, and sadly the media do their best to focus on extremes (mostly, but not exclusively, on one side of the spectrum).

 

As long as we don't have a common global agenda and as long as a handful of major developed countries (China and India in particular), as well as a particular set of countries in Africa and Asia, don't give a fudge, we will continue to have this discussion ad infinitum. Meanwhile, we can continue to examine the climate and see whether the trend of warmer temperatures continues on the whole and why nobody is talking about the increase in the global population and its effect on our resources and - as a consequence - on our climate.

 

As far as Europe is concerned, we are already doing pretty well, now it's also up to others to follow suit. Ship the savvy activists to places such as Egypt, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or China (by foot, bicycle or train at the most - think of the ecological footprint) and see how they fare over there. After all, conviction breeds success, doesn't it.

Fair enough, I do try to stay away from dichotomies as a rule but only when it's involving matters with humans against other humans - this is not like that, this is a problem that can (and will) end up involving most everyone on Earth. If you're annoyed at the tone, you have the right, but again it comes down to how one views how far individual freedom of choice truly extends - does it really go far enough to mess up other peoples lives now and one's own life later (perhaps) with zero consequence?

 

Those arguments show the evolution of thought more than anything but I reckon you're aware of that. A lot of it sounds like people annoyed that they're having to take something on faith, that while the numbers are solid the truly convincing evidence of climate change won't show its hand until it's too late. And more on the tone - the way in which the warnings are delivered have zero relevance to the truth behind the warnings themselves.

 

Having said all that, I'll refer back to my argument above ("Even if there was a chance that [climate change ignorers] were right, the wager argument still holds water - if we do something and manmade climate change is not real, then we take a (sustainable) economic hit and probably make up some new tech that makes the world a generally better place to live in anyway. If we do nothing and manmade climate change is real, then the consequences are dire for civilisation. The odds x cost of the former is far outweighed by the odds x cost of the latter, which is why the former is the more sensible, risk-averse strategy in any case") - why gamble with the future when the relative cost is so much lower than what must be paid if wrong?

 

When it comes to population, quite frankly too many people use the Malthusian line - which probably would cause as many problems as it solves anyway - as an excuse for race-based policy. They don't want fewer kids all round, they want fewer non-white kids. Not saying that's your line, of course, but I view that argument with a lot of skepticism of my own for exactly those reasons. It's a problem of logistics and emissions in various areas, not overall emissions based on population.

 

WRT the final paragraph, you know as well as I that climate activists lobbying foreign governments would have next to no impact, so I've no idea why you'd suggest it beyond facetiousness. What they can (and are) doing is lobby their own or other Western governments to put pressure on the countries you mention to clean up their act - government to government is the only real way this works. How effective that is, however, is up for debate. The bit about not having a global agenda on this is absolutely right - and we need one, soon.

 

NB. In your list of countries that don't give a stuff you missed the second largest emitter and major developed nation whose administration certainly fits that criteria. Just a reminder.

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49675283

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49679883

 

This is fine.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49676757

 

Something more interesting than dire here, though - probably the second interstellar object to show up in our solar system that humans have found.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49689018

 

No need to panic, because...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49714987

 

Hey, look what happens when governments actually listen to scientists and take unified action that they then stick to, who knew?

[Tommo220]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49689018

 

No need to panic, because...

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49714987

 

Hey, look what happens when governments actually listen to scientists and take unified action that they then stick to, who knew?

i'm convinced that if the CFC/Ozone link was discovered now, in the age of social media etc. that there would be a mass movement by CFC producers denying the link and kicking the can further down the line.

 

 

lets hope that there is a watershed moment for climate change, as there was with the Montreal protocol

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Tommo220 said:

i'm convinced that if the CFC/Ozone link was discovered now, in the age of social media etc. that there would be a mass movement by CFC producers denying the link and kicking the can further down the line.

 

 

lets hope that there is a watershed moment for climate change, as there was with the Montreal protocol

 

 

Sadly I think you might be right, thankfully that discussion remains entirely theoretical.

 

I'm afraid that the watershed moment for climate change will come when half a billion refugees start upping sticks and worse extremes in weather cause people in more affluent countries to actually start dying and losing property in larger measures, by which time of course the onus will be strictly damage and casualty limitation as opposed to preparation.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Tommo220 said:

i'm convinced that if the CFC/Ozone link was discovered now, in the age of social media etc. that there would be a mass movement by CFC producers denying the link and kicking the can further down the line.

 

 

lets hope that there is a watershed moment for climate change, as there was with the Montreal protocol

 

 

And still no-one would take into account russia and america exploding 50 megaton thermo nuclear bombs slap bang in the middle of the ozone layer.

[leicsmac]

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/461846-climate-activist-greta-thunberg-submits-global-warming-report-to

 

"Please save your praise, we don’t want it. Don’t invite us here to tell us how inspiring we are without doing anything about it. It doesn’t lead to anything."

 

A message there, for those who believe Miss Thunberg has delusions of grandeur. She knows, quite clearly, that she and those who think the same can only do so much and that while they raise awareness, the tangible work has to be started and carried out by the political process.

[ozleicester]

In the mid 90s through to the mid 00's Climate change was acknowledged and was being treated seriously, then the fossil fuel industry saw the coming financial disater for them, they simply took the tobacco lobby's play book and adjusted it for climate change.

 

They didnt outright deny (well most) ... they just created "doubt" about the science. They paid millions to dodgy organisations and "scientists" to produce papers that cast doubt and that was it. Game over!

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

 

We have a climate strike this Friday in Oz... im tipping this will be HUGE!

 

The young are leading and the old will have to listen

[OzFox]

On 18/09/2019 at 13:24, ozleicester said:

In the mid 90s through to the mid 00's Climate change was acknowledged and was being treated seriously, then the fossil fuel industry saw the coming financial disater for them, they simply took the tobacco lobby's play book and adjusted it for climate change.

 

They didnt outright deny (well most) ... they just created "doubt" about the science. They paid millions to dodgy organisations and "scientists" to produce papers that cast doubt and that was it. Game over!

 

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

 

We have a climate strike this Friday in Oz... im tipping this will be HUGE!

 

The young are leading and the old will have to listen

  Didn't we just have the "climate change election" where people said it was really, really important and then voted for tax cuts and negative gearing?

[ozleicester]

2 minutes ago, OzFox said:

  Didn't we just have the "climate change election" where people said it was really, really important and then voted for tax cuts and negative gearing?

[OzFox]

8 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Sorry...forgive my cynicism  

[ozleicester]

42 minutes ago, OzFox said:

Sorry...forgive my cynicism  

my only hope is in the young... they will shake this entitled, lazy country up