Climate Change - a poll

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

1. Global solutions are not achieved overnight, although in this case they need to be given the suffering already happening.

2. I understand what you are saying but that is not my point. As stated, almost every listed has a transition plan. if you don't believe in it, I'll ask again, tell me by whom and why. Because that info should be leading your fact-based opinion. Much like covid, we are not in an opinions arena here, you can't just say 'nah don't believe in covid mate because we always stuff things like this up and I read something in the Daily Star about it' much like you can't just say the transition is not working without direct evidence and going on a BBC article.

3. Yeh fair, personally I read it as more fuel to the fire to whip up rage against those eViL sCaRy OMG Arab people who are coming for your sport, your human rights and now your climate!!!! But, this is an opinions arena.

Yeah, I can understand the points of view here.

 

As I've also said before, while I don't have much faith in the path that we're pursuing simply because I don't reckon it will do enough in time (to focus on the bolded a moment) because it isn't producing the necessary results yet to save at least hundreds of millions if lives and at most human civilisation itself (that's pretty much the entire thing I'm using as my benchmark of scepticism tbh), I understand asking for conclusive proof at the present time is likely unreasonable and we've got to take a few things on faith - indeed, the same is true regarding projections of the consequences of not doing enough because we can't be 100% sure about those either.

 

I just hope that I'm wrong and the more optimistic appraisal you have of the situation is right, because it will mean in a few decades we'll still actually have a functional human civilisation to look back on and discuss it.

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

But, it can. Making money and saving humanity don't have to be mutually exclusive. if every big player in the game wants to lead the transition, that will drive standards higher and quicker to achieve a better result for everyone. 

Net zero targets run to 2050 at the latest and almost every listed has a transition plan, what evidence do you see for them not being met, and by whom? That is a libelous statement lol. 

Anyway, my main point is we have no idea what Abu Dhabi's negotiations are about and there is no point fueling more hatred and division via targeted media headlines. If COP ends with no end result, get angry then.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your argument here. Are you saying that we can simply rely on the market to fix climate change? Everything I’m reading on limiting the effect of climate change seems to suggest that the world is on track to +2.5c, or worse. It’s no good expecting the market to suddenly get on board and fix everything at the last moment,

 

This situation is much more similar to that of an aircraft coming in to land. We need to be on a glide path now. If not we will simply miss the target, we can’t just correct at the last moment. Of course the market will play a role, but not without sustained political action based on science.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your argument here. Are you saying that we can simply rely on the market to fix climate change? Everything I’m reading on limiting the effect of climate change seems to suggest that the world is on track to +2.5c, or worse. It’s no good expecting the market to suddenly get on board and fix everything at the last moment,

 

This situation is much more similar to that of an aircraft coming in to land. We need to be on a glide path now. If not we will simply miss the target, we can’t just correct at the last moment. Of course the market will play a role, but not without sustained political action based on science.

And to extend this analogy a little further if applicable, we're landing at Lukla Airport, and we have no go-around option.

[David Hankey]

Surely, if there is any improvement in so-called climate change to be made, we all right across the world need to sing off the same hymn sheet.

 

If I decide to do my bit, install solar panels (which I've already done), buy an electric car, (which I can't afford to do) and stop flying round the world (which I don't do) everyone else needs to do the same and you and I know that simply isn't going to happen.

 

 

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

Surely, if there is any improvement in so-called climate change to be made, we all right across the world need to sing off the same hymn sheet.

 

If I decide to do my bit, install solar panels (which I've already done), buy an electric car, (which I can't afford to do) and stop flying round the world (which I don't do) everyone else needs to do the same and you and I know that simply isn't going to happen.

 

 

It's something of a logical dilemma (don't remember which one would be the closest), but the important thing to remember is that the only thing abandoning "our" own attempts does is guarantee failure.

[Guest BlueBrett]

A Smithsonian Institution project has tried to reconstruct temperatures for the Phanerozoic Eon, or roughly the last half a billion years. Preliminary results released in 2019 showed warm temperatures dominating most of that time, with global temperatures repeatedly rising above 80°F and even 90°F—much too warm for ice sheets or perennial sea ice. About 250 million years ago, around the equator of the supercontinent Pangea, it was even too hot for peat swamps!

 

 

Literally in an ice age and people are still buying all the climate change crap. If the true underlying motivations of this movement are not brazenly obvious to you I almost despair.  There is no scientific consensus, only a politico-media consensus - just like there has been on countless other recent issues, all of which have turned out to be bullshit.

 

 

Ever noticed how there never seems to be some kind of existential threat to which the proposed solution is greater individual freedom, personal responsibility or limitations to the power/influence of States/Institutions?

 

Every single time the answer is the same - Let's centralise authority even more, attempt to control information flows in order to manipulate narratives and erode the agency/freedom/privacy of regular people, that should do it.

 

I know most people approach these issues with a benign mentality so I can't get angry but ffs guys wake up. You are being deceived and through the deception you are conscripted into the army of the Statists without even realising it. 

[nnfox]

8 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

A Smithsonian Institution project has tried to reconstruct temperatures for the Phanerozoic Eon, or roughly the last half a billion years. Preliminary results released in 2019 showed warm temperatures dominating most of that time, with global temperatures repeatedly rising above 80°F and even 90°F—much too warm for ice sheets or perennial sea ice. About 250 million years ago, around the equator of the supercontinent Pangea, it was even too hot for peat swamps!

 

 

Literally in an ice age and people are still buying all the climate change crap. If the true underlying motivations of this movement are not brazenly obvious to you I almost despair.  There is no scientific consensus, only a politico-media consensus - just like there has been on countless other recent issues, all of which have turned out to be bullshit.

 

 

Ever noticed how there never seems to be some kind of existential threat to which the proposed solution is greater individual freedom, personal responsibility or limitations to the power/influence of States/Institutions?

 

Every single time the answer is the same - Let's centralise authority even more, attempt to control information flows in order to manipulate narratives and erode the agency/freedom/privacy of regular people, that should do it.

 

I know most people approach these issues with a benign mentality so I can't get angry but ffs guys wake up. You are being deceived and through the deception you are conscripted into the army of the Statists without even realising it. 

I won't go into too much detail here, but yes, the world is currently on the 'cool' side if its history and yes, the world is naturally warming.  But there are a couple of things that are fairly unique to the current situation. 

 

One is the rate of the warming - it's amongst the fastest ever, aside from suspected asteroid/comet strikes or massive volcanic activity, and has been proven that human activity in the form of industrialisation is a huge contributing factor in the rate of change.

 

Another issue when comparing temperature on a planetary scale is that human habitation on Pangea was zero.  Time and time again, history has shown that rapid temperature change has caused extinction events throughout history.  This might be the first time that humans have faced it (although something weird happened during the Younger Dryas around 12,000 years ago).  

 

Make no mistake, planet earth will be absolutely fine.  Human civilization, or perhaps even the human species might not.

[Dunge]

13 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

A Smithsonian Institution project has tried to reconstruct temperatures for the Phanerozoic Eon, or roughly the last half a billion years. Preliminary results released in 2019 showed warm temperatures dominating most of that time, with global temperatures repeatedly rising above 80°F and even 90°F—much too warm for ice sheets or perennial sea ice. About 250 million years ago, around the equator of the supercontinent Pangea, it was even too hot for peat swamps!

 

 

Literally in an ice age and people are still buying all the climate change crap. If the true underlying motivations of this movement are not brazenly obvious to you I almost despair.  There is no scientific consensus, only a politico-media consensus - just like there has been on countless other recent issues, all of which have turned out to be bullshit.

 

 

Ever noticed how there never seems to be some kind of existential threat to which the proposed solution is greater individual freedom, personal responsibility or limitations to the power/influence of States/Institutions?

 

Every single time the answer is the same - Let's centralise authority even more, attempt to control information flows in order to manipulate narratives and erode the agency/freedom/privacy of regular people, that should do it.

 

I know most people approach these issues with a benign mentality so I can't get angry but ffs guys wake up. You are being deceived and through the deception you are conscripted into the army of the Statists without even realising it. 

For many things, I have sympathy. The basis of modern government and democracy should be to serve the people, not rule the people. So I differ from Leicsmac generally in that I naturally don’t like going down that route, that even if what people want is stupid, broadly you should allow them to be stupid.

 

But climate change is different. And unfortunately the fact that you’re citing that graph as evidence of “all is well, nothing to see here” shows only how far behind you are in these discussions. This is not some debatable social science where people desire power. This is hard science, fixable like the hole in the ozone layer, but more difficult and needing all the more coordination between states. You have to get used to this, fella, because it ain’t going to stop.

[Guest BlueBrett]

23 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I won't go into too much detail here, but yes, the world is currently on the 'cool' side if its history and yes, the world is naturally warming.  But there are a couple of things that are fairly unique to the current situation. 

 

One is the rate of the warming - it's amongst the fastest ever, aside from suspected asteroid/comet strikes or massive volcanic activity, and has been proven that human activity in the form of industrialisation is a huge contributing factor in the rate of change.

 

Another issue when comparing temperature on a planetary scale is that human habitation on Pangea was zero.  Time and time again, history has shown that rapid temperature change has caused extinction events throughout history.  This might be the first time that humans have faced it (although something weird happened during the Younger Dryas around 12,000 years ago).  

 

Make no mistake, planet earth will be absolutely fine.  Human civilization, or perhaps even the human species might not.

The rate of warming over brief time periods - 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000years is virtually impossible to measure for any era prior to modern times for which we have abundant data. On the graph it looks to me that each time we hit a low, the temperature rebounds pretty rapidly.

 

Agree completely with the point of the planet being fine with only human civilization at threat. It seems like the most incredible and preposterous hubris to imagine that through modifying our behaviour we have the power to reverse cosmic trends that span hundreds of millions of years. Frankly anyone who believes that needs to go look out on the Ocean or climb a mountain and remind themselves of their own insignificance and transitory nature.

 

My complaint is about all the moralising and the fact that every single one of the imagined "solutions" to this issue which is so clearly bigger than us involves regular people suffering while 'elites' consolidate yet more authority. Reversal of these trends is entirely futile and these bastards know it. They are simply opportunistic scumbags pure and simple. We have seen it time and again on "existential threat" after "existential threat" and yet somehow we keep letting them get away with it.  

Edited 28 November 2023 by BlueBrett

[Guest BlueBrett]

13 minutes ago, Dunge said:

For many things, I have sympathy. The basis of modern government and democracy should be to serve the people, not rule the people. So I differ from Leicsmac generally in that I naturally don’t like going down that route, that even if what people want is stupid, broadly you should allow them to be stupid.

 

But climate change is different. And unfortunately the fact that you’re citing that graph as evidence of “all is well, nothing to see here” shows only how far behind you are in these discussions. This is not some debatable social science where people desire power. This is hard science, fixable like the hole in the ozone layer, but more difficult and needing all the more coordination between states. You have to get used to this, fella, because it ain’t going to stop.

Wasn't at all saying "nothing to see here". You tell me how we, as humans, are going to reverse a cosmic trend as established as this? And not only are we apparently going to reverse it, but we are going to anticipate all of the consequences of doing so and all of these consequences will be benign. That is absurd. 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about it btw. We should certainly be exploring ways our civilization could survive in a significantly hotter climate. To be honest, I imagine those efforts are already underway in earnest - but that is for the elites. You, me and all the other mugs can sit around coming up with fantastical dreams about prevention while they use our taxes to fund pragmatic survival oriented projects for themselves. 

[leicsmac]

45 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

A Smithsonian Institution project has tried to reconstruct temperatures for the Phanerozoic Eon, or roughly the last half a billion years. Preliminary results released in 2019 showed warm temperatures dominating most of that time, with global temperatures repeatedly rising above 80°F and even 90°F—much too warm for ice sheets or perennial sea ice. About 250 million years ago, around the equator of the supercontinent Pangea, it was even too hot for peat swamps!

 

 

Literally in an ice age and people are still buying all the climate change crap.

This has been covered on here before. Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them.

 

48 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

  There is no scientific consensus, only a politico-media consensus - just like there has been on countless other recent issues, all of which have turned out to be bullshit.

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. From the very first page of this thread:

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966?454b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=2&c0d8a10d_page=2&454b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=3&c0d8a10d_page=2

 

"We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature."

 

There is a scientific consensus - both of data and of viewpoint. Of course, one might suggest that the entire climate science corps is corrupt and in hock to the same nefarious parties you mention here, but quite honestly it would be nice to see proof of that before libelling decent people who mostly have no political motives.

 

51 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

 

Ever noticed how there never seems to be some kind of existential threat to which the proposed solution is greater individual freedom, personal responsibility or limitations to the power/influence of States/Institutions?

 

Every single time the answer is the same - Let's centralise authority even more, attempt to control information flows in order to manipulate narratives and erode the agency/freedom/privacy of regular people, that should do it.

 

I know most people approach these issues with a benign mentality so I can't get angry but ffs guys wake up. You are being deceived and through the deception you are conscripted into the army of the Statists without even realising it. 

Fearing State power is a good idea, given the excesses it's gone to in the past.

 

However, acts of nature - like this one - can and do cause more death, misery and suffering than all of the "Statists" wet dreams put together and multiplied by an order of magnitude. For example, a single virus (H1N1 flu) killed between three and five times as many people as World War I, in a quarter of the time, at the same time. Another (malaria) has been responsible for more deaths in the 20th Century than all wars and acts of oppression put together in the same time. The recent events of flooding and drought brought on by our changing climate have already killed thousands, and that is barely scratching the surface of what could be coming.

 

I get your worry, and it's legit - but perhaps you might want to think about worrying more about the bigger threat of what nature can do to humans, than what humans can do to each other.

 

 

13 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

 

Agree completely with the point of the planet being fine with only human civilization at threat. It seems like the most incredible and preposterous hubris to imagine that through modifying our behaviour we have the power to reverse cosmic trends that span hundreds of millions of years. Frankly anyone who believes that needs to go look out on the Ocean or climb a mountain and remind themselves of their own insignificance and transitory nature.

 

My complaint is about all the moralising and the fact that every single one of the imagined "solutions" to this issue which is so clearly bigger than us involves regular people suffering while 'elites' consolidate yet more authority. Reversal of these trends is entirely futile and these bastards know it. They are simply opportunistic scumbags pure and simple. We have seen it time and again on "existential threat" after "existential threat" and yet somehow we keep letting them get away with it.  

We have a clear and actionable influence on the current warming cycle that is making it act in a way not seen before in recorded history. Therefore, we also have the capacity to influence that trend in a better way and at least slow it down to buy more time. Yes, the Earth and its consequences are huge - but that doesn't mean those consequences can't be brought about by human activity.

 

And were it just the "elites" going on about this, I would agree with the last paragraph, but it isn't - again, as per above, the scientific consensus on this matter does exist and is obvious.

[Dunge]

53 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Wasn't at all saying "nothing to see here". You tell me how we, as humans, are going to reverse a cosmic trend as established as this? And not only are we apparently going to reverse it, but we are going to anticipate all of the consequences of doing so and all of these consequences will be benign. That is absurd. 

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about it btw. We should certainly be exploring ways our civilization could survive in a significantly hotter climate. To be honest, I imagine those efforts are already underway in earnest - but that is for the elites. You, me and all the other mugs can sit around coming up with fantastical dreams about prevention while they use our taxes to fund pragmatic survival oriented projects for themselves. 

This cosmic trend you speak of happens over millions of years. The reasons for them happening is studied, so we get an idea of how nature got set on a particular course by release of CO2 into the atmosphere, or it being removed, either by plants, volcanic activity, or even something like an asteroid strike. What we have now isn’t any of those things. The land itself has changed massively over the last couple of hundred years through human expansion. We know that we’re releasing different gases into the air than we used to five hundred years ago, and on massive scales. In a way, yes - it’s no different to before, in that there was a cause that made the temperature of the planet go up or down. The difference is that it’s happened over two hundred (not even two hundred thousand, which would be very quick from the past, but two hundred years) and our activities are the clear cause. And if our activities are the clear cause, then it’s also clear that our activities can change things with the right will and technology.

 

As I say, I broadly agree that we don’t want people controlling our lives, that we don’t want to live in a Russia or a China. And yes, people shout “crisis” too willingly these days. But this issue is different. This is a genuine crisis, and yes - we can do something about it. We have scientific papers saying what we can do about it, which I’m sure Leicsmac will gladly point you towards because I’m convinced he keeps a store of them in a spreadsheet. 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

ffs guys wake up. 

Never ceases to amuse that those that insist on trotting out this tiresome trope tend to be the ones that slept through science classes. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Dunge said:

This cosmic trend you speak of happens over millions of years. The reasons for them happening is studied, so we get an idea of how nature got set on a particular course by release of CO2 into the atmosphere, or it being removed, either by plants, volcanic activity, or even something like an asteroid strike. What we have now isn’t any of those things. The land itself has changed massively over the last couple of hundred years through human expansion. We know that we’re releasing different gases into the air than we used to five hundred years ago, and on massive scales. In a way, yes - it’s no different to before, in that there was a cause that made the temperature of the planet go up or down. The difference is that it’s happened over two hundred (not even two hundred thousand, which would be very quick from the past, but two hundred years) and our activities are the clear cause. And if our activities are the clear cause, then it’s also clear that our activities can change things with the right will and technology.

 

As I say, I broadly agree that we don’t want people controlling our lives, that we don’t want to live in a Russia or a China. And yes, people shout “crisis” too willingly these days. But this issue is different. This is a genuine crisis, and yes - we can do something about it. We have scientific papers saying what we can do about it, which I’m sure Leicsmac will gladly point you towards because I’m convinced he keeps a store of them in a spreadsheet. 

Fvcking right I do.

[Guest BlueBrett]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

This has been covered on here before. Yes, the Earth was significantly hotter in the past, yes, life still flourished there - the difference here is in the degree of change, the speed at which it is happening, and our own ability to adapt (or not) to it. Contrary to the post above, we do in fact have a pretty good idea of the speed of such trends in the past, and this one is far faster than any of them.

This just isn't true. As far as I'm aware, the most 'accurate method involves studying ice cores. Scientists use isotopic ratios to come up with estimates of historical temperatures. The reliability/precision of these estimates is widely debated.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but this is simply false. From the very first page of this thread:

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966?454b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=2&c0d8a10d_page=2&454b5589_page=2&70ef0ed6_page=3&c0d8a10d_page=2

 

"We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature."

 

There is a scientific consensus - both of data and of viewpoint. Of course, one might suggest that the entire climate science corps is corrupt and in hock to the same nefarious parties you mention here, but quite honestly it would be nice to see proof of that before libelling decent people who mostly have no political motives.

Do you understand how the peer review system works? Let me summarise for you - "you say what you like because they like what you say". Journals push narratives and articles are selected/rejected for publication according to the whims of the editor. Counter-narrative studies are routinely excluded across virtually all academic domains. Again, this is common knowledge but I know you like your links to random websites so here is one article discussing this widespread phenomenon:https://www.science.org/content/article/you-ve-spotted-flaw-top-journal-s-paper-good-luck-getting-your-critique-published

 

I work in academia and without going into specifics I can tell you that I have experienced this first hand in my own research and I have innumerable colleagues who could tell you the same. The idea that one sided coverage within the closeted, incestuous world of academic journals represents consensus is just ridiculous. Ask anyone who actually understands how the system works. The Academic and Cultural institutions are the first to be co-opted by the Statists. It is straight out of the Gramscian playbook. This is a huge issue in and of itself so I don't want to get into it now but I hope you can at least accept that academia is clearly not the impartial, free-thinking, free speaking force in society that it purports to be.

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

We have a clear and actionable influence on the current warming cycle that is making it act in a way not seen before in recorded history. Therefore, we also have the capacity to influence that trend in a better way and at least slow it down to buy more time. Yes, the Earth and its consequences are huge - but that doesn't mean those consequences can't be brought about by human activity.

 

And were it just the "elites" going on about this, I would agree with the last paragraph, but it isn't - again, as per above, the scientific consensus on this matter does exist and is obvious.

I suppose this kind of gets to the crux of what I'm trying to say...EVEN IF I accept the dubious data and claims that the current rate of temperature change is higher than in the past, I still contend that none of the proposed solutions or policies make sense.

 

Looking back at the graph that charts the average temperature over the last 500 million years...If we know the temperature is going in a certain direction, warming, then to what extend does the rate of change even matter? If it is inevitable that the planet is going to get significantly hotter whatever we do, then is it really worth it to impose all of these anti-human, anti-freedom measures on people just to attempt to maybe slow things down? (By how much? A few percent? A fraction of a percent? Even a significant percentage which seems unrealistic?) Surely it would make more sense to prepare for the inevitable rather than **** around picking up pennies in front of a steamroller? 

Edited 28 November 2023 by BlueBrett

[Guest BlueBrett]

28 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Never ceases to amuse that those that insist on trotting out this tiresome trope tend to be the ones that slept through science classes. 

Classic NPC contribution 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

This just isn't true. As far as I'm aware, the most 'accurate method involves studying ice cores. Scientists use isotopic ratios to come up with estimates of historical temperatures. The reliability/precision of these estimates is widely debated.

 

You're right - ice cores for up to a few million years, isotopes for older. However, is there any concrete reason to suggest that the isotopic method is really that flawed? If so, why use it at all?

 

24 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

This just isn't true. As far as I'm aware, the most 'accurate method involves studying ice cores. Scientists use isotopic ratios to come up with estimates of historical temperatures. The reliability/precision of these estimates is widely debated.

 

Do you understand how the peer review system works? Let me summarise for you - "you say what you like because they like what you say". Journals push narratives and articles are selected/rejected for publication according to the whims of the editor. Counter-narrative studies are routinely excluded across virtually all academic domains. Again, this is common knowledge but I know you like your links to random websites so here is one article discussing this widespread phenomenon:https://www.science.org/content/article/you-ve-spotted-flaw-top-journal-s-paper-good-luck-getting-your-critique-published

 

I work in academia and without going into specifics I can tell you that I have experienced this first hand in my own research and I have innumerable colleagues who could tell you the same. The idea that one sided coverage within the closeted, incestuous world of academic journals represents consensus is just ridiculous. Ask anyone who actually understands how the system works. The Academic and Cultural institutions are the first to be co-opted by the Statists. It is straight out of the Gramscian playbook. This is a huge issue in and of itself so I don't want to get into it now but I hope you can at least accept that academia is clearly not the impartial, free-thinking, free speaking force in society that it purports to be.

 

 

I am well aware of the peer-review system and academia, yes.

 

So the conclusion here is that the entire climate science corps (and by extension the entire peer review process) is fundamentally corrupt and simply telling other people what they want to hear, then? Well, I think without proof that that's grotesque libel against decent people in of itself (a opinion piece talking about the lack of critique of scientific papers post-publication in some cases does not a fundamentally corrupt system prove), but let's assume for a moment that it is in fact the case (and that's a mad-sized if).

 

That means that, due to that corruption that would be seemingly inescapable, the very notion of scientific fact that same process seeks to uncover is dead, as is public perception of it, as is any policy that might be crafted as a result of it, because there would be no single point of truth or fact, no way of deriving it, that we as a species could use to make our decisions.

 

....is that really the pathway we want to go down? Because if it is, all I see down that way isn't a 1984-style dystopia, it's a collapse into a Mad Max-style future, followed swiftly (on a geological timescale) by oblivion. That world, where decision-making cannot be based on empirical observation of the world around us (and consensus on same) but rather on how people perceive something (rather than what it actually is) is a place far worse than any "Statist" nightmare you might even dream of.

 

36 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Looking back at the graph that charts the average temperature over the last 500 million years...If we know the temperature is going in a certain direction, warming, then to what extend does the rate of change even matter? If it is inevitable that the planet is going to get significantly hotter whatever we do, then is it really worth it to impose all of these anti-human, anti-freedom measures on people just to attempt to maybe slow things down? (By how much? A few percent? A fraction of a percent? Even a significant percentage which seems unrealistic?) Surely it would make more sense to prepare for the inevitable rather than **** around picking up pennies in front of a steamroller? 

The rate of change buys us time to adapt, and yes, that is critical. Time means money, and human lives.

 

[Guest BlueBrett]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I am well aware of the peer-review system and academia, yes.

 

So the conclusion here is that the entire climate science corps (and by extension the entire peer review process) is fundamentally corrupt and simply telling other people what they want to hear, then? Well, I think without proof that that's grotesque libel against decent people in of itself (a opinion piece talking about the lack of critique of scientific papers post-publication in some cases does not a fundamentally corrupt system prove), but let's assume for a moment that it is in fact the case (and that's a mad-sized if).

 

That means that, due to that corruption that would be seemingly inescapable, the very notion of scientific fact that same process seeks to uncover is dead, as is public perception of it, as is any policy that might be crafted as a result of it, because there would be no single point of truth or fact, no way of deriving it, that we as a species could use to make our decisions.

 

....is that really the pathway we want to go down? Because if it is, all I see down that way isn't a 1984-style dystopia, it's a collapse into a Mad Max-style future, followed swiftly (on a geological timescale) by oblivion. That world, where decision-making cannot be based on empirical observation of the world around us (and consensus on same) but rather on how people perceive something (rather than what it actually is) is a place far worse than any "Statist" nightmare you might even dream of.

Not claiming that all scientists are corrupt or anything remotely like that. Simply stating (not suggesting) that the findings of certain studies are amplified, while others are suppressed and many never even see the light of day. I believe the mechanism behind this is not impartial and has, to a large extent, been ideologically captured. I have first hand experience of this but to be honest I think it should be fairly obvious even to those who don't. Once a significant volume of research on a given topic has been published, there are many people with a vested interest in sustaining the narrative. The world of grants and funding is also extremely murky and politically charged.  Remember, we live in a world where 'critical theory' programmes are genuinely 'taught' at H.E. institutions all over the UK and North America. This fact alone kills any notion of academic integrity, meritocracy within academia, or the efficacy of the peer review system stone dead.

 

So yes, I do think the peer review system is not fit for purpose and should be replaced. There have been many alternatives put forward over the years but surprise surprise the status quo invariably circle the wagons and shut them down. In this day an age there is absolutely ZERO reason why we can't have a decentralised review system that would immediately mitigate many of the tendencies toward bias, reinforcing the status quo, undisclosed funding sources, suppressing unconventional or innovative ideas, interdisciplinary blindspots, undue political influence and straight up intellectual fraud that plague the current system.

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

The rate of change buys us time to adapt, and yes, that is critical. Time means money, and human lives.

So the question really comes down to how much we can slow the temperature increases by and whether doing so would make a material difference to the extent we are able to adapt. Does this additional adaptation time justify the human suffering it will cost to buy? Do we need the extra time or could we just focus on developing whatever infrastructure we will need to survive right now rather than devoting so much effort to what is essentially an exercise in futility attempting to slow the trend? Will the amount of suffering reduced in the long-term by increasing our adaptation time outweigh the immediate suffering caused by the implementation of these policies? I'm not convinced the maths on this comes out as favourable to environmental activists but who knows. I wish the trade-offs were discussed more openly. 

Edited 28 November 2023 by BlueBrett

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, BlueBrett said:

Classic NPC contribution 

You're welcome to read my others on this thread - because you seem particularly confused about the timescale of climate change and the mechanisms involved. Hope that helps. 

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Not claiming that all scientists are corrupt or anything remotely like that.

 

I'm sorry, but what other conclusion can be inferred by the following statement that the peer review system which all scientists rely on is fundamentally flawed and that the science corps involved know this?

 

31 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

Simply stating (not suggesting) that the findings of certain studies are amplified, while others are suppressed and many never even see the light of day. I believe the mechanism behind this is not impartial and has, to a large extent, been ideologically captured. I have first hand experience of this but to be honest I think it should be fairly obvious even to those who don't. Once a significant volume of research on a given topic has been published, there are many people with a vested interest in sustaining the narrative. The world of grants and funding is also extremely murky and politically charged.  Remember, we live in a world where 'critical theory' programmes are genuinely 'taught' at H.E. institutions all over the UK and North America. This fact alone kills any notion of academic integrity, meritocracy within academia, or the efficacy of the peer review system stone dead.

 

 

I have no doubt that politics and powerplays form part of such processes - the people involved are human, after all. However, my own take is that the system itself is robust enough to weed out such corruption and the "factual" data wins out in the end, as has happened with numerous examples throughout history - Darwin and the theory of evolution being one. There was certainly such "ideological capture" going around in his time, too; but in the end it didn't matter.

 

 

35 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

So yes, I do think the peer review system is not fit for purpose and should be replaced. There have been many alternatives put forward over the years but surprise surprise the status quo invariably circle the wagons and shut them down. In this day an age there is absolutely ZERO reason why we can't have a decentralised review system that would immediately mitigate many of the tendencies toward bias, reinforcing the status quo, undisclosed funding sources, suppressing unconventional or innovative ideas, interdisciplinary blindspots, undue political influence and straight up intellectual fraud that plague the current system.

 

I'm curious as to what such a "decentralised" review system would consist of and whether or not the people involved in it would themselves be scientists. And if they are, how it would differ from the current system.

 

37 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

So the question really comes down to how much we can slow the temperature increases by and whether doing so would make a material difference to the extent we are able to adapt. Does this additional adaptation time justify the human suffering it will cost to buy? Do we need the extra time or could we just focus on developing whatever infrastructure we will need to survive right now rather than devoting so much effort to what is essentially an exercise in futility attempting to slow the trend? Will the amount of suffering reduced in the long-term by increasing our adaptation time outweigh the immediate suffering caused by the implementation of these policies? I'm not convinced the maths on this comes out as favourable to environmental activists but who knows. I wish the trade-offs were discussed more openly. 

To answer these in turn:

 

- If we can slow down (or even limit) the temperature increases, it would have a massive effect on the consequences and thus the measures needed to adapt to them, as well as the time we have.

- It is absolutely worth it, unless the "cost to buy" is at least hundreds of millions of dead, suffering and displaced people and at most civilisational collapse, because those are the costs should we not get this done in time

- We do need the extra time, because there simply isn't enough time to develop infrastructure so robust that it saves "everyone". Again, time is lives - and more lives than the cost.

- Same as above, unless the suffering now is at least hundreds of millions of dead, suffering and displaced people and at most civilisational collapse, then yes, it is worth it, because those are the consequences that lie in wait.

 

These trade-offs have been discussed in the scientific community, and there's been no little agonising about the cost of dealing with this problem. But by every metric we have, the consequences of not addressing it in the way it needs to be addressing are far, far worse.

[Guest BlueBrett]

20 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I'm curious as to what such a "decentralised" review system would consist of and whether or not the people involved in it would themselves be scientists. And if they are, how it would differ from the current system.

I actually need to do some work for once today so I may not have time to respond to your post in full but if you are really interested in alternatives to the current peer review system some of the ideas put forward include Open Peer Review which involves a sort of open source process where comments are all public. Post publication review has also been suggested to mitigate gatekeeping and again allow for open critiques and evaluations. Open pre-print discussion platforms have also been proposed.

 

The decentralised aspect will come from leveraging the blockchain for greater transparency, accountability and authenticity. The management of journals themselves can be decentralised - as is done already with 'liquid journals' and of course the DAO model. Web3 integration can facilitate broader, more collaborative research and reviewing, again increasing transparency amongst other obvious benefits. We can also have a decentralised rating system that allows participants to either feedback on or assess the quality of reviews and reviewers. 

 

I'm far from an expert on this stuff but there have been a bunch of other proposals too. Essentially the idea is to leverage the blockchain, decentralization principles and collaborative technologies to create a far more transparent, accountable, incorrigible and inclusive system -  but of course the establishment don't want that.

 

 

Edited 29 November 2023 by BlueBrett

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, BlueBrett said:

I actually need to do some work for once today so I may not have time to respond to your post in full but if you are really interested in alternatives to the current peer review system some of the ideas put forward include Open Peer Review which involves a sort of open source process where comments are all public. Post publication review has also been suggested to mitigate gatekeeping and again allow for open critiques and evaluations. Open pre-print discussion platforms have also been proposed.

 

The decentralised aspect will come from leveraging the blockchain for greater transparency, accountability and authenticity. The management of journals themselves can be decentralised - as is done already with 'liquid journals'. Web3 integration can facilitate broader, more collaborative research and reviewing, again increasing transparency amongst other obvious benefits. We can also have a decentralised rating system that allows participants to either feedback on or assess the quality of reviews and reviewers. 

 

I'm far from an expert on this stuff but there have been a bunch of other proposals too. Essentially the idea is to leverage the blockchain, decentralization principles and collaborative technologies to create a far more transparent, accountable, incorrigible and inclusive system -  but of course the establishment don't want that.

 

 

I'll have more of a look at this, thank you.

 

One thing I will say right away is that the results and critique of the peer review process, as well as those who carry it out and evaluations of their conduct, should absolutely be in the public domain. However, the people themselves doing the critique and reviewing that is then made public must have credentials that prove they actually know what they're talking about when it comes to the topic they're reviewing, or the entire process would be reduced to a populist joke where the paper that tells people what they want to hear most gets the best reviews, rather than one that actually tells the truth.

 

If some folks think that is "gatekeeping" then so be it, but it is vital that the "peers" in the peer review process are experts with proven expertise.

[Daggers]

It’s essential that Barry the cabbie from Stoke is allowed his input into climate science. Shut it, scientists, with your blinkered peer review process. We need bitcoin blockchain open access bollocks so I can post the findings from my research I just made up.

 

My hat goes off to those of you engaging with these ****ing morons.

[Dunge]

@BlueBrett - Science is not a democracy and nor should it be. I’d agree that a good scientist should always be willing and ready to hear alternative theories, arguments and indeed plans, but when it’s the same thing being regurgitated and just phrased differently then I can understand why they would disregard someone quickly.

 

If you have a compelling argument about climate change that hasn’t been heard and discussed already then by all means write it up and publish it for peer review. Then you can complain if it gets ignored.

[Zear0]

This hurts my eyes