Covid 19 v AGW
Discussion
I’m not sure what is more surprising; the extreme measures being introduced to deal with Covid 19 that may cause a deep recession, destroy certain industries and put the global economy back years for a one off event or the almost complete lack of any serious action to deal with anthropogenic global warming even though the latter is likely to have much more severe and very long term consequences. It highlights again how despite our intelligence, collectively we are massively biased towards dealing with short term problem and threats rather than more pressing, long term problems.
It is ironic that dealing with global warming would require a much milder version of what is currently happening ie reduced travel, reduced consumption, etc.
It is ironic that dealing with global warming would require a much milder version of what is currently happening ie reduced travel, reduced consumption, etc.
Mankind is pretty clever and can work to adapt to environment and issues through science etc, given enough time.
On a climate thread a few months ago, after a QT program where there was visibly distressed young man shouting that the CC would kill us all, it was pointed out from some of us, that he may well see the end of mankind during his life, but that it was unlikely to be due to CC, more likely a pandemic, Kim Jong hitting the button etc etc.
A few months later, we see one of them kicking in.
On the scale of things at the minute, CC is absolutely not important, and to think it is, makes you daft.
On a climate thread a few months ago, after a QT program where there was visibly distressed young man shouting that the CC would kill us all, it was pointed out from some of us, that he may well see the end of mankind during his life, but that it was unlikely to be due to CC, more likely a pandemic, Kim Jong hitting the button etc etc.
A few months later, we see one of them kicking in.
On the scale of things at the minute, CC is absolutely not important, and to think it is, makes you daft.
Diderot said:
It would seem you've answered your own question. One is a real and present danger, the other isn't. A week in politics is a very long time. Greta who?
This. We no longer need made-up problems based off hypotheses to worry over & occupy us during a relatively boring period of history, we now have an actual real problem.Pumping out carbon gives you lots of cheap energy. That's the very tangible upside which the very less tangible AGW is up against.
Bodies clogging the streets while loved ones heave their last in front of you is very tangible and all downside.
Combine our loss averson with whatever Zuckerberg hit on with his squirrel comment (or Stalin with his Statistic one) and the answer is right there. The phrase Climate Change Emergency itself is an attempt to solidify what is otherwise an abstract and glacially incremental process.
Bodies clogging the streets while loved ones heave their last in front of you is very tangible and all downside.
Combine our loss averson with whatever Zuckerberg hit on with his squirrel comment (or Stalin with his Statistic one) and the answer is right there. The phrase Climate Change Emergency itself is an attempt to solidify what is otherwise an abstract and glacially incremental process.
Covid 19. or SARS - COV -2 .. The sequel, or whatever it is called today is not v AGW.
They are both on the same side surely?
A small virus seems to be doing more than a small child at the moment in reducing AGW....
I just say that from a statisticians viewpoint than anything social political.
They are both on the same side surely?
A small virus seems to be doing more than a small child at the moment in reducing AGW....
I just say that from a statisticians viewpoint than anything social political.
I will try again, but this time I will be more polite.
Climate change is slow, its natural and we may or may not be contributing to it by an infinitesimal amount.
Covid 19 is fast, affecting people and killing people in real time in front of us.
That is why we are reacting to it as we are.
Threads by you seem to be from the Jeremy vine school of discussion. Lots of comment, views and an almost hysterical undertone yet no resolution or solution. All in all pointless.
Climate change is slow, its natural and we may or may not be contributing to it by an infinitesimal amount.
Covid 19 is fast, affecting people and killing people in real time in front of us.
That is why we are reacting to it as we are.
Threads by you seem to be from the Jeremy vine school of discussion. Lots of comment, views and an almost hysterical undertone yet no resolution or solution. All in all pointless.
Here's a video from 2015 of Bill Gates warning that the world is unprepared for a seriously bad epidemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI
As I type, what he says seems all blindingly obvious and what he proposes would seem the bargain of the century. But in 2015 it meant higher taxes, more spending, global bureaucracy with bigger budgets and excess slack in global healthcare systems. All for something which, to the Western public, seemed contained and happening to distant people.
So likewise with climate change. I'm sure pacific islanders or those living near retreating glaciers probably take it a lot more seriously than urban shoppers upgrading their mobile or choosing their meal in a restaurant. Until it affects your actual week, it becomes an abstract problem for another day.
The same reason why we procrastinate, or take terrorism more seriously than antibiotic resistance, or live unhealthy lifestyles until we get health problems. We literally treat our future selves as though they're different people:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127901-your-...
These future crises are all somebody elses problem, until they land in our laps. It's the human condition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI
As I type, what he says seems all blindingly obvious and what he proposes would seem the bargain of the century. But in 2015 it meant higher taxes, more spending, global bureaucracy with bigger budgets and excess slack in global healthcare systems. All for something which, to the Western public, seemed contained and happening to distant people.
So likewise with climate change. I'm sure pacific islanders or those living near retreating glaciers probably take it a lot more seriously than urban shoppers upgrading their mobile or choosing their meal in a restaurant. Until it affects your actual week, it becomes an abstract problem for another day.
The same reason why we procrastinate, or take terrorism more seriously than antibiotic resistance, or live unhealthy lifestyles until we get health problems. We literally treat our future selves as though they're different people:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127901-your-...
These future crises are all somebody elses problem, until they land in our laps. It's the human condition.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 18th March 04:51
frisbee said:
It's quite clear from the satellite images showing significantly less pollution that the Coronavirus was developed by environmentalists...
If so, they've f
ked that up too. Though, I guess that adds more weight to your argument, not less 
Experts warn that not only will emissions ramp up to make up for lost ground, but the pandemic could stifle long-term action to combat the climate crisis. Companies are less likely to pony up for investments that would reduce their carbon footprints during a recession, and an economic slump could reduce investments in green tech.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bvg39q/chinas-a...
Esceptico said:
I’m not sure what is more surprising; the extreme measures being introduced to deal with Covid 19 that may cause a deep recession, destroy certain industries and put the global economy back years for a one off event or the almost complete lack of any serious action to deal with anthropogenic global warming even though the latter is likely to have much more severe and very long term consequences. It highlights again how despite our intelligence, collectively we are massively biased towards dealing with short term problem and threats rather than more pressing, long term problems.
It is ironic that dealing with global warming would require a much milder version of what is currently happening ie reduced travel, reduced consumption, etc.
It's almost like you've fully bought into the AGW scare stories. Are you Al Gore?It is ironic that dealing with global warming would require a much milder version of what is currently happening ie reduced travel, reduced consumption, etc.
amusingduck said:
frisbee said:
It's quite clear from the satellite images showing significantly less pollution that the Coronavirus was developed by environmentalists...
If so, they've fked that up too. Though, I guess that adds more weight to your argument, not less Experts warn that not only will emissions ramp up to make up for lost ground, but the pandemic could stifle long-term action to combat the climate crisis. Companies are less likely to pony up for investments that would reduce their carbon footprints during a recession, and an economic slump could reduce investments in green tech.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bvg39q/chinas-a...
Camoradi said:
amusingduck said:
frisbee said:
It's quite clear from the satellite images showing significantly less pollution that the Coronavirus was developed by environmentalists...
If so, they've fked that up too. Though, I guess that adds more weight to your argument, not less Experts warn that not only will emissions ramp up to make up for lost ground, but the pandemic could stifle long-term action to combat the climate crisis. Companies are less likely to pony up for investments that would reduce their carbon footprints during a recession, and an economic slump could reduce investments in green tech.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bvg39q/chinas-a...
On BBC news last night there was an interview with a medical scientist. He was asked about how the pandemic was likely to develop over the next few weeks and months.
He said that it was very to predict because modelling was so dependant on the quality of the information put in.
I thought that was odd, as so much of the Climate Change argument revolves around the use of modelling, and there is more confidence there (at least by some) about its value.
He said that it was very to predict because modelling was so dependant on the quality of the information put in.
I thought that was odd, as so much of the Climate Change argument revolves around the use of modelling, and there is more confidence there (at least by some) about its value.
glazbagun said:
Here's a video from 2015 of Bill Gates warning that the world is unprepared for a seriously bad epidemic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI
As I type, what he says seems all blindingly obvious and what he proposes would seem the bargain of the century. But in 2015 it meant higher taxes, more spending, global bureaucracy with bigger budgets and excess slack in global healthcare systems. All for something which, to the Western public, seemed contained and happening to distant people.
So likewise with climate change. I'm sure pacific islanders or those living near retreating glaciers probably take it a lot more seriously than urban shoppers upgrading their mobile or choosing their meal in a restaurant. Until it affects your actual week, it becomes an abstract problem for another day.
The same reason why we procrastinate, or take terrorism more seriously than antibiotic resistance, or live unhealthy lifestyles until we get health problems. We literally treat our future selves as though they're different people:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127901-your-...
These future crises are all somebody elses problem, until they land in our laps. It's the human condition.
My teenage daughter often talks about her future self in the third person - generally as she is guilty about how she is giving her future self shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwI
As I type, what he says seems all blindingly obvious and what he proposes would seem the bargain of the century. But in 2015 it meant higher taxes, more spending, global bureaucracy with bigger budgets and excess slack in global healthcare systems. All for something which, to the Western public, seemed contained and happening to distant people.
So likewise with climate change. I'm sure pacific islanders or those living near retreating glaciers probably take it a lot more seriously than urban shoppers upgrading their mobile or choosing their meal in a restaurant. Until it affects your actual week, it becomes an abstract problem for another day.
The same reason why we procrastinate, or take terrorism more seriously than antibiotic resistance, or live unhealthy lifestyles until we get health problems. We literally treat our future selves as though they're different people:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2127901-your-...
These future crises are all somebody elses problem, until they land in our laps. It's the human condition.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 18th March 04:51
t to deal with (eg postponed homework). Similarly “past self” always gets blasted for being such a lazy bh! It’s quite amusing but we’ve also had serious conversations about to what extent you remain “you” throughout your life even though most of the molecules that make you up change every seven years or so (that is from memory so might not be correct). Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff