haters and lovers of climate change Unite!
Climate change might be human made or natural made and we can do two things: Act on our business model or not. The worst case scenario is for the climate change to be human made and we do nothing about it. Sooooo is there a logical course of action here? Whadaya think?
2 Likes
Climate change is a political issue because it is a massive vehicle to push or deflect an agenda.
Right wing folks desperately want to deny climate change because a pile of their special interests are the cause of the problem. To make matters worse, right wing folks tend to have a very hard time dealing with tragedy of the commons style problems. If the answer is âno bro, the government really needs to step inâ, it causes them heartache. To make matters worse, any climate change solution is going to have to be global in nature, so it is not just government action, but mass world wide government action and multilateral hand holding. The American right might eventually come around, but it will be kicking and screaming. They also have a rational fear of the left ramming through an unrelated agendaâŚ
âŚwhich brings us to the left. Climate change is a battering ram that can be used to bring about other agendas. It is a broad environmental concern, so it helps pump up environmental organizations. Most of the more dull solutions involve greener technology and the stripping of money and protection from traditional polluters like coal and oil. Anti-capitalist organizations like climate change because the standard set of solutions involve stripping money from traditional capitalist power houses and generally have an element of reduced consumption. Probably most of all, all of the solutions involve government action on a mass scale, which the left is naturally a lot more comfortable with than the right.
Personally, I think you should trust the science and be very skeptical of the people offering solutions. The right gets a hard on for nukes because they like nukes, not because they want to stop climate change. Their denial is rooted in a world view that doesnât handle the need for collective government action to fix a massive problem caused by market economies. The left freaks the fuck out when someone proposes geoengineering as a solution because it single handedly voids every singe boon the left stands to get politically out of fighting to reduce climate change and means that the market can carry on its merry way unmolested. Scientist pushing solutions should be looked at with some hard skepticism too. It is one thing to say that you can change the climate for better or for worse by doing something or not doing something. That is well within the realm of a climate change scientist. If they start saying that you should do something, you get to smack them across the head and point out that last time you checked, they didnât have economics degree that can weigh economic and social the cost of action or inaction.
Sadly, there is no solution to the politicization of climate change short of magical technology that voids the question cheaply. Too many people and organizations have something to gain or lose, and even if they didnât, the prediction science is fuzzy enough and complex enough that it will never convince someone who doesnât want to be convinced.
11 Likes
Rand if an iconoclast. A world without those that can not imagine HER WORDS are less fortunate.
Reality has a well known ironic bias.
1 Like
Here is a bunch of info on this sort of stuff, from non-forum posters, if youâd like to get educated. Go!
https://class.coursera.org/climatechange-001/auth/auth_redirector?type=login&subtype=normal
Clearly the possibility that global warming is upheld purely through dogma within science is far more dangerous than the possibility of external influence, because there would be no interest beyond the public good in questioning it, none at all.
Clearly. Let us all ignore the massive distortion of science that is definitely happening here, and have yet another rehash of why peer-reviewed science is untrustworthy no matter what evidence, and pretty much the only thing you would consider so.
2 Likes
Hey all you progressive champions of science, ruthlessly committed to smiting down lies and inaccuracy in your ever-vigilant quest for truth:
This article is pretty devastatingly debunked, by someone who actually took the time to read the study, over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
âHow A Talking Point is Born: $1 Billion Against Action on Climate Changeâ
lllll AJ
1 Like
Even the study author himself is calling BS on this Guardian article, so one hopes uncritical BB will correct the record, too:
âYou may have seen the Guardian article on my paper: I have written to the newspaper complaining about this headline. I believe it is misleading. I have been very clear all along that my research addresses the total funding that these organizations have, not what they spent on climate activities. There is a quote in my paper that speaks directly to this: âSince the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.â It is fair to say these organizations had a billion dollars at their disposal. But they do a lot of other things besides climate change activities, and so saying that they spent $1 Billion on climate change issues is just not true. I did not attempt to analyze the internal spending of these organizations, and so I can say nothing about the total amount spent on climate change activities. I hope that this clarifies the findings of my research. Best Bob Brulleâ
The full paper is here: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx
3 Likes
Yes. In an unrelated, but similar issue: Forest fires have been occurring naturally for millions of years - as long as there have been forests on Earth, basically. It is, therefore, completely absurd to assume that a forest fire could ever be started by arson.
The issue isnât so much that youâre not a scientist, but that youâre a fucking nutjob.
10 Likes
Just a friendly reminder: ⢠Opinions that move the debate forward. Disagree with what we or another commenter has to say? Letâs hear it! But please be respectful and to Stay on topic
3 Likes
That is, actually, provably wrong. I have no interest in taking that money, broke as I am. There are many others who are not taking that money and will not. We wouldnât take the whole billion and we wonât take a single dollar. Go on, offer me some money to change my opinions, see where it gets you.
5 Likes
We know this about the Sun: if it were not there, the temperature on Earth would be around â450 F. So, yeah, it is the major factor contributing to climate here, because without it there would be no climate, just frozen rocks of mostly nitrogen.
Look at it this way: assume that youâre in a part of the world where the temperature is a cool 40 F. If you sat outside in your tee-shirt, youâd be cold. If I built a fire next to you, youâd warm up. Are you now hot because of the (man-made) fire? You wouldnât be wrong if you said that you were, and everyone would think you were eccentric at best if you insisted that the Sun was the only reason you were warm.
4 Likes
Is that so? In the country were I live (and in most other western european countries) there is not one politician who values his career who would voice that global warning is a sham. He would be laughed off the political stage.
The epicenter of of climate change denial seems to be located in the US. You even had a president voicing such ideas. There is a whole political anti-science movement in the US it seems: anti-vaccine, anti-global warming, anti-evolution etc.
4 Likes
The thing is, the earth doesnât care what you believe. Without data to back it up, a belief is just superstition.
Iâll do it. How much we talking?
1 Like
if you read scientific journal articles on a regular basis, youâll soon realize that this is a standard practice.
articles and journals are expensive. some are open access, which transfers the costs (usually known as page fees) to the author. And scientific articles take months to pass peer review.
1 Like
You might want to edit that again. Your second sentence makes no sense.
Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2040.html
thats a lot of supposition for a person calling out other people on their lack of accurate references.
1 Like
sure, but they have to keep up the deception every day. we only have to convince any individual once that obvious BS artist is obvious. its not hopeless. once youâve seen the man behind the curtain, you donât unsee him there.
3 Likes
