Global Warming

Post Reply New Topic

I am personally in agreement with the existence of anthropogenic climate change entirely.

But for those who disagree with the exitance of climate change to any capacity, even those who disagree completely, the visible impact of human expansion should be obvious. Nature is something to be preserved, because when a species dies, that's the end of its entire lineage, and it is not recoverable by natural means.

When we destroy forests, when we throw trash everywhere without finding ways to reuse, destroy, or at least contain it, when we exploit and corrupt the natural world, we're really hurting ourselves in the long run. Just like someone can destroy their backyard, lots of people all polluting and destroying has decimated entire landscapes and will turn what we have left into an extremely overpopulated human-only world (which makes me shudder).

"Deniers" sounds goofy though. It sounds too much like religious people talking out "unbelievers". And nobody is going to be won over by terms like that or any kind of condescending remark or description.

It's a choice between actually trying to convince people by treating them with respect or getting satisfaction from using the "me smart, you stupid" routine.

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard'

.... the whole issue is one of epistemology, really, which makes skepticism into a denial of the validity of scientific epistemological methods.
the climate change sceptic is merely sceptical about climate change, but he is denying the way science derives knowledge.

It's usually a matter of challenging a particular form of secience rather than denying science.

Which is being done by reputable scientists who are just as educated and knowledgeable as any climate scientist.

But liberalism loves its pet derogatory labels, hence "denier". I'm surprised it's not something like "climaphobe".

Indeed, so let's take these arguments about the label "sceptic" to their logical conclusion...

Being a sceptic does not indicate anything about one's current opinion, it only indicates that one's opinion is open to change subject to evidence which one finds compelling. This applies to any scientist who is honestly pursuing the work of science, just as much as to an open-minded person who is yet to be convinced at all. Attaching the label "sceptic" only to those people who's opinion does not align with the consensus, sneakily implies that those who's opinions do align with the consensus are all, of necessity, dogmatists.

Such a redefinition of the word is thus, at best, a cynical attempt to wrap oneself in the mantle of neutrality, and at worst, it is a slur (by omission) upon anyone who believes in the consensus - an allegation of being "sheeple" against anyone to whom the label is not applied. If one is offended by being labelled a "denier", a "climaphobe", or anything else, then one should not hypocritically play semantic games with the labels one applies, or does not apply, to anyone else.


I'll decide who I do or don't find credible for myself, thanks!
Or is this some kind of consensus? - I'm a bit sceptical about that!

I hadn't looked into the "Green New Deal" in any depth. It seemed to me like a bit of a meaningless phrase - kinda symptomatic of the activist class who care deeply about global warming and think the government should be doing "more", but with no idea of what the government is actually doing.

So I looked up what's behind this latest craze, and it's a real mixed bag. According to Wikipedia:


As I said either in this thread or the other one, this sort of thing is my day-to-day work. So while I don't claim to know everything, and certainly there are lots of things that experts are wrong about, and I know enough to know that I don't qualify as an expert, I also know that I am in a much better position to judge the feasibility of these proposals than most people.

So here's my take:

- an expansion of the Clean Air Act - I'm not entirely sure about either the legislative context in the US or how these activists want to change the act, but this is a piece of legislation which hasn't been amended in nearly 30 years despite huge scientific advances in this time. Air pollution is a trickier issue than people realise, but I think there's probably a good case for some sort of updating of this act.

- a ban on crude oil exports - the US is a net exporter so this makes some sense from a climate perspective, but from a policy perspective an end to US exports would just cause other countries to benefit without affecting the market much at all. There are some situations in which we still need hydrocarbons, such as certain industrial processes and long-range air transport or remote areas without reliable renewables. Carbon taxes would make more sense.

- an end to fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel leasing - would be a significant shock to the economy but need not be a shock to the energy system as more advanced renewables are now capable of competing subsidy-free. Remarkably right-wing policy though!

- a phase-out of all gasoline powered vehicles by 2040 - unsure exactly what "gasoline" means in this context. I think this is almost a really good idea. There needs to be a very ambitious policy to end the sale of cars powered by internal combustion engines by around that sort of date, and attempts should be made to achieve the same for other forms of road transport. Railways should largely be able to be electrified if they aren't already. Air travel is much trickier, and I think the same is currently true of boats. All vehicles? No, probably not. All cars? Yes, good suggestion.

- "vigorously oppose" ... “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy.” - erm, this is stupid. Net zero is net zero. Obviously we need to take other things like air quality into account, but renewables are largely intermittent and can't respond to surges in demand - the only foreseeable alternative to CCUS or nuclear power is massive energy storage, which is currently rather environmentally damaging. Negative emissions technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) are necessary for the little bits of the economy that we can't decarbonise. Emissions trades and offsets can serve a similar purpose while also creating extra economic opportunities for developing countries. If a poor country discovers an oil field under a rainforest then economics will currently force them to cut down the rainforest and burn the oil. If instead we offer to pay them to plant new rainforest so we can legally burn a little more gas without damaging the environment, then we're all better off.

In theory, I think a radical investment in green technology could be extremely good for the economy as well as the environment. It's a real technical challenge that creates high-skilled jobs as well as more manual construction jobs. Everything from constructing wind turbines to re-insulating houses via installing EV charging points will help create jobs and inject stimulus into the economy. And sometimes you need to couple investment with "stick" legislation to make people abandon their polluting lifestyles. But these policies need to be thought out properly - it seems the Green New Deal people haven't even thought about domestic energy consumption for example, or smart grids, and they've dismissed most of the best tools we have.

That's one of the things I think is outrageous, the fact that valuable green technology already exists yet corporations buy the patents up, blocking people from being able to use the technology. So it's not that we don't have the technology to put a huge dent in CO2 output, so pumping more resources into creating more technology will likely follow the same current course, we really need to focus on doing something about allowing corporations to buy up patents and sit on useful technology without any intentions on using it.

I think it would be great all around for people who patent there creations to be able to sell there technology to multiple companies or individuals and outlaw the ability for one company to buy the patent and prevent others from having access to the technology. The original designer gets to make more money off of their idea(Great!), then it adds more competition which drives prices down and opens up the possibility for more people to start business rather than having corporations be able to dominate so fiercely.

I didn't use the term "factual information"...
You did...

There are two major information sources I watch on the boo -tube...
One openly professes to have a politically conservative leaning...
The other may not admit to its perceived left-wing bias, (after all, it is *legally* obliged to be impartial because it is funded by the taxpayer and there is actual legislation for it to be so), but it has observably been seen to favour left-wing agendas...( Admittedly, after this issue was put under the spotlight, this left-wing leaning does seem to be mitigating on some programs at least...)

Politicising (truth sodomy) on both sides of the political divide may not be the case in America (I am assuming you are from there), but over here in Oz, this happens all the time, hence my need to check both sides of the argument from either source...
In addition to this, lies through omission is a major "sin" made by both sides...

Have you ever heard the adage: "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see
(Be cautious about accepting something without evidence.)"?...
And to add to that I would like to point out there is a world of difference between "evidence" presented as factual and evidence which has been verified as valid...
Look at the "Global warming" threads...

How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go?


One last observation:
It is interesting how many people seem to believe there is only one context...
The weltanschauung may not be the same here in Oz as it may be in Russia, China, Germany, France, Great Britain or America...
Dare I say: It is axiomatic?
And to try and educate me about a culture I have lived in all my life is a tag presumptuous...
Assuming that is what you are actually doing...

Pax...

I give you an and raise you an
Your call...

There are some who are seriously targeting me on this point, hence the following:

I need to make explicit my hidden qualifier: "to me"...
I.E.
"...people who use the term [denier] erode their credibility in terms of objectivity", *to me*...

But obviously, it isn't *me* specific, because I have heard the comment made by others...
Go figure...<shrug>

The point I was making is: that if one wasn't aware of the negative connotations attached to the word in a confrontational context, one is now...

ciao...

Agreed...
It is self-evident here in Oz...

Welcome, newbie...

P.S.
You forgot the "h"...

P.P.S.
Oh, you mean: "Antrax is the second book in Terry Brooks' The Voyage of the Jerle Shannara fantasy trilogy."

You're exposing your own bias here in your preconceptions about me: I am not American. I don't live in a single one of the countries you mentioned in this ramble.

There's no "k" in "America." Never has been. And there never will be a "k."

Bias?
How is simply being curious where you are from biased?
Knowing where you are from might give me greater insight into other cultures...

My point about people from different parts of the world having a different Weltanschauung, is still valid, btw...
You may simply have a different view of things than me because of your culture...
This is a totally impartial/objective statement...
If you wish to infuse it with your own "colour", be my guest, but if it changes the meaning of what I am saying, please don't...

Frankly, I am confused about why you are taking this tack...
Are you projecting, is it a manifestation of insecurity or is it simply a misunderstanding?

Pax...

I never go off topic, btw...<cough>

In my entire life on and off the internet, you are the only person who brings this into focus...
I guess that makes you special...

<cogitating> What is going on psychologically here with Mr CraftieCortie?

You weren't being curious and asking me where I'm from, you just assumed I'm American. I'm taking this tack with you because I don't take your argument style seriously because I don't think you want to be taken seriously. You certainly don't try to express yourself very clearly so I'm just messing with you basically because it seems like that is what you're doing with your threads.