From my experience the first reaction is denial. Next is some desperate attempt to cling onto some news they read about something that will solve everything. Then, when you point out that there is no solution, and that the article they read doesn't scale up to global levels, they try and argue that "our country" can't save the whole world. Then some get the Eureka moment where they realize that we're all in the same boat, and then they become quiet watching their shoes for a while, before they change the subject, while being careful not to talk about the weather.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
There's a thought that's struck me about the way this conversation has turned since I last checked in on this thread - which is that I think that a subtle point has been missed, particularly in regards to what I believe @jasonbarron has been trying to say. He actually made it quite concisely today (15:30 hours) but I think it was missed or at least brushed past.
As I've mentioned previously, the "consensus" science is actually pretty tame compared to the hysteria. The bulk of probable outcomes for climate change (as in, the combination of events and impacts which collectively fall in the 90% certainty range as described by the IPCC) are relatively minor and are actually dwarfed by the other societal and economic challenges which lie ahead of us. (That statement is explicitly made in the IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10, so you lot have to live with that statement I'm afraid.)
Jason has been talking about the political and media responses to the worst-case scenarios being portrayed by the media and then used as a springboard for political advocacy which he doesn't agree with.
That's true of the "Snowball Earth" phenomena of the 1970s and the "12 years to save the Earth" mentioned on this page. It's also true of the likes of the Guardian and the BBC moving into full on, headline-grabbing, propaganda mode for almost anything that sounds a little bit dangerous without properly explaining the certainties involved.
It doesn't matter that that isn't what the scientists involved actually said or did. It matters how it's being portrayed by the media and politicians of the time. It does matter that the science community fail to correct the exaggeration of their work in the name of environmentalism.Trying to dismiss his argument on the basis of what the scientists said is a strawman response and will only build frustration on his part - and correspondingly yours - because you're talking at cross-purposes. He isn't talking about the scientists.
As I've mentioned previously, the "consensus" science is actually pretty tame compared to the hysteria. The bulk of probable outcomes for climate change (as in, the combination of events and impacts which collectively fall in the 90% certainty range as described by the IPCC) are relatively minor and are actually dwarfed by the other societal and economic challenges which lie ahead of us. (That statement is explicitly made in the IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10, so you lot have to live with that statement I'm afraid.)
Jason has been talking about the political and media responses to the worst-case scenarios being portrayed by the media and then used as a springboard for political advocacy which he doesn't agree with.
That's true of the "Snowball Earth" phenomena of the 1970s and the "12 years to save the Earth" mentioned on this page. It's also true of the likes of the Guardian and the BBC moving into full on, headline-grabbing, propaganda mode for almost anything that sounds a little bit dangerous without properly explaining the certainties involved.
It doesn't matter that that isn't what the scientists involved actually said or did. It matters how it's being portrayed by the media and politicians of the time. It does matter that the science community fail to correct the exaggeration of their work in the name of environmentalism.Trying to dismiss his argument on the basis of what the scientists said is a strawman response and will only build frustration on his part - and correspondingly yours - because you're talking at cross-purposes. He isn't talking about the scientists.
Correct. He is concerned, with how the general hysteria is forcing 'political and social' change. Change that he feels, is not required, as it is being driven; by the unwarranted, hysteria. Change that affects, his everyday life.
Basically. He will argue against this; as that is what he does.
I remember driving down the freeway back in 2007, listening to a segment on NPR (extremely left leaning, tax payer subsidized public radio here in America) where the media mogul and owner of CNN Ted Turner was speaking at a symposium on climate change, predicting that within 15 years from that point the world would be an overheated, sterile landscape where the ultra rich lived behind walled in enclosed communities with plenty to eat, while the dirty remnants of humanity prowled the wastes outside of these privileged compounds literally eating each other. Weird that that doesn't seem to have happened yet, unless you count the homeless epidemic in San Francisco (and plenty of other major cities) where literally thousands of mentally unstable and drug addicted rejects of socially liberal policies "live" on the streets just a block or two from Nancy Pelosi's gated community of fabulously wealthy and powerful privilege.
Last edited:
There is a little thing that bugs me about some of your posts J.B. The 'tax payer' thing. Ok, you are a tax payer. Therefore you are funding the rest of the planet. Most of which I would say that you are not happy with, your taxes, paying for another set of hippy lefties. The bug I have is this. So the radio station, gets funding from the state? What difference dose it make? Why is it a point, that 'has' to be made? Why do you have to add it to your statement? basically, you don't.
You see the thing is: Like it or not. You are funding practically every every media outlet, around you. Through subscription and their advertising revenues. A cent on that product, a dollar on another, to pay for the adds they run.
One more thing: Why are
As to what was said: About high walled citadels and wastelands. Well this is already happening, as regards, the high walls and protected living spaces, for the wealthy. Practically ever country has them, especially the U.S. As to the wastelands. Detroit? New Orleans?
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure what's going on here, perhaps we're talking at cross purposes.
I thought you were referring to me going quiet, which is true. I really need to rest my eyes to avoid severe eyestrain. Posting gets arduous for me, I need to carefully pace how much I do, how much reading I do, even TV viewing. When a conversation (or an argument) goes on too long for me I need to bring it to a close. Sometimes rather abruptly. I failed to do that in time last year in a long debate with Talarin, my vision became too swimmy and I accidentally misread a label and ate some gluten accidentally, losing a lot of weight I couldn't afford to lose. Didn't feel like posting for a very long time after that.
Anyway, going to have to break this off soon to avoid a repeat. Sorry if I've got your meaning completely wrong.
From what I've learned doing global sustainability system modelling, while following the development of the current global situation, I would say that it's pretty safe to assume that we will continue business as usual, because we don't have a realistic way of replacing fossil energy if we want to continue the economic growth. That will cause what is called a Seneca Effect, being postponing the problem, but also causing a steeper decline once the Earth system collapses. Almost every single factor that I've been looking at point at somewhere around 2050 as being the point where the decline really begins. From then on, it's like falling off a cliff tied to a large boulder. The sooner we wake up and smell the coffee, the smaller the boulder, but I see no way of avoiding falling off the cliff.
Realizing that is kind of depressing, but I guess it's a phase we all will have to go through sooner or later. It's kind of like working at a casualty dept. at a hospital. You might start out using a lot of energy being concerned on behalf of the patients, but after some time you realize that your energy is better spent on trying to save as many lives as possible. Otherwise you might risk going insane.
Just addressing one of your points, CMDR: I regularly watch/read media outlets, as many as I have time for on any given day, who's viewpoints are diametrically opposed to my own. I'd go so far as to say I watch/read them a great deal more than outlets with which I'm more aligned with morally or philosophically. I consider it of great importance to consider the other point(s) of view on any given issue.
I think you are just, winding yourself up. Considering and knowing the opinions of those with opposing views is one thing and important. But dedicating too much time, will become an obsession and only give you grey hairs. Do you watch the Arabic channels? Or Chinese news?
Kind of a stretch to assume that I'm "just winding myself up," CMDR. And in a world where the other side of any given argumentative position is typified by people only absorbing their own confirmation biased news outlets, it's simply not giving me enough credit. As to Arabic and Chinese sources, well, not on a regular basis, I don't have the time. I would if I did, though, as my philosophy extends out as far as you care to reach. Like it or not, my opinions do in fact stem from deep personal thought and research on most matters that I bother to comment on with any degree of seriousness.
Fires in the Amazonian lung ?
This is false, it's lies of the fanatics of the environment, I deny ! There are no fires currently in the Amazon due to deforestation, intensive agriculture, overexploitation of wood and other resources.
In addition we can very well adapt and live without the Amazon. Our children will only have to wear oxygen masks all day long in their bigs 4X4.
The essential is to over-consume and destroy the planet.
Yes I say it loud and clear ! There is no fire in the Amazon !
I deny it ! I deny it! I deny it !
They will eat their children and their parents.
The situation in the Amazon, devastated by deforestation and fires, is "out of control" Brazilian environmental activist Marina Silva denounces, accusing President Jair Bolsonaro's ultra-right-wing government of allowing a "frantic action" that damages a vital ecosystem for the planet.
Marina Silva, visiting Bogota, said in an interview with AFP Thursday that the Latin American giant has the knowledge and the "technology" to control the fires, which devour large areas of jungle because, according to she, from the "negligence" of the Bolsonaro team, a climate-skeptic.
Marina Silva, visiting Bogota, said in an interview with AFP Thursday that the Latin American giant has the knowledge and the "technology" to control the fires, which devour large areas of jungle because, according to she, from the "negligence" of the Bolsonaro team, a climate-skeptic.
Bolsonaro claims (out of the blue with zero evidence) that the fires are false flags started by the NGOs trying to save the rain forrest.
There are basically three types of arguments when you want to prove something. Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is "shaky" because it involves a subjective element, but in this case it still kind of makes sense:
Abductive reasoning "starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations."
Also it's pretty clear that Bolsonaro either haven't understood the ecological consequences of converting the rainforrests into agricultural land, or that or he just doesn't give a dead rat about the future.
Taking only what is referenced by the IPCC, I do not think the even the soft-side of probable outcomes are minor. Neither do any of the people in the scientific community I've spoken to. Neither does the IPCC itself.
The primary consequences of climate change, upon humans, will indeed be social and economic. No one who can even pretend to know what they are talking about would claim otherwise.
Trying to separate the societal and economic challenges that climate change will create or exacerbate from the underlying climatological changes is like trying to separate cause and effect. When someone gives a figure as to the cost in lives of climate change, they most certainly are not saying that the bulk of those people are going to drown in rising seas or torrential rains, or succumb to hypothermia or heat stroke. They are talking about the resulting spikes in discontent, erosion of social systems, poverty (including disease and hunger), and violence.
The condolence of "small relative to other drivers" doesn't mean much. In most of 1940s Europe, violence was a small contribution to the death rate...relative to other drivers. It is a worthwhile comment on perspective, but the 2014 report may well have undersold the threat...not that it matter much if their recommendations aren't going to be met regardless.
He's also been calling climate change a hoax and suggesting that the scientific community has been manipulated into misleading people...that's not at all the same thing as politicians and media misleading people, or people misleading themselves...which are all givens.
This was never a thing. Global cooling a few articles in mainstream magazines that drew attention to a very fringe opinion at the time, that was never reflective of anything that could have been mistaken for scientific consensus.
At the peak of the media attention on "global cooling" or anything of the sort, consensus had long been, and would continue to lean heavily toward, identifying a warming trend. Even the author of the paper that was referenced by that infamous 1975 Newsweek article (which was largely responsible for popularizing the idea) didn't claim there was a global cooling trend...he just cited a hypothetical outcome based on what aerosols and particulates were capable of doing.
When talking about the reality of the issue, or whether scientists have been manipulated, this is all that matters.
Last edited:
Taking only what is referenced by the IPCC, I do not think the even the soft-side of probable outcomes are minor. Neither do any of the people in the scientific community I've spoken to. Neither does the IPCC itself.
The primary consequences of climate change, upon humans, will indeed be social and economic. No one who can even pretend to know what they are talking about would claim otherwise.
Trying to separate the societal and economic challenges that climate change will create or exacerbate from the underlying climatological changes is like trying to separate cause and effect. When someone gives a figure as to the cost in lives of climate change, they most certainly are not saying that the bulk of those people are going to drown in rising seas or torrential rains, or succumb to hypothermia or heat stroke. They are talking about the resulting spikes in discontent, erosion of social systems, poverty (including disease and hunger), and violence.
The condolence of "small relative to other drivers" doesn't mean much. In most of 1940s Europe, violence was a small contribution to the death rate...relative to other drivers. It is a worthwhile comment on perspective, but the 2014 report may well have undersold the threat...not that it matter much if their recommendations aren't going to be met regardless.
He's also been calling climate change a hoax and suggesting that the scientific community has been manipulated into misleading people...that's not at all the same thing as politicians and media misleading people, or people misleading themselves...which are all givens.
This was never a thing. Global cooling a few articles in mainstream magazines that drew attention to a very fringe opinion at the time, that was never reflective of anything that could have been mistaken for scientific consensus.
At the peak of the media attention on "global cooling" or anything of the sort, consensus had long been, and would continue to lean heavily toward, identifying a warming trend. Even the author of the paper that infamous 1975 Newsweek article (which was largely responsible for popularizing the idea) didn't claim there was a global cooling trend...he just cited a hypothetical outcome based on what aerosols and particulates were capable of doing.
When talking about the reality of the issue, or whether scientists have been manipulated, this is all that matters.
Looking at the global system, there seems to be two major problems that both are related to global warming. One is that we are running out of "cheap" energy without an alternative. There are many proposed alternatives, but none that have been implemented, and most of the proposed solutions simply doesn't work if you try and scale up the numbers to a global level. Energy is vital, because we need it to change anything towards a more sustainable system. With energy you can theoretically reorganize the system into anything you want, but without energy you have to do everything by hand. If we use primarily the oil before we have built an more sustainable global energy supply and distribution, then we will be seriously up the creek without a paddle.
Even manual labor also demands energy but in the form of food, and food is the other major problem. We have raised the human carrying capacity of the planet considerably by industrializing the agriculture, using fossil energy, pesticides and fertilizers. Today we can almost feed a population of 7.7 billion, but before the intensive farming we couldn't even feed a population of 1.6 billion in 1900. It goes even further back. 12.000 years ago the population was 1-4 million spread over the planet, and many scientists agree that that was the carrying capacity for a population living as hunter gatherers. The food security for a population growing towards 10 billion in 2050 is currently only possible continuing the farming systems, which ruin the ecosystems and lead to increased temperatures. Furthermore we will definitely see a peak production of both oil and phosphate rock within this century.
The obvious solution is to reduce our consumption of energy and other resources as much as possible, while we move towards a more sustainable global system, but that is considered problematic for the growth economy. Without growth the modern economy will collapse. On the other hand, the transition we need towards sustainability is a mindblowingly huge task, which should leave plenty of room for earning "a few" $.
- Status