Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[turbobloke]

Jobs going south along with Germany's opaque, costly and ineffective green transition (see federal audit posted previously for details).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/12/05/an...

[robinessex]

Shock!!! BBC publishes climate bks (again).

[LongQ]

Langweilig said:

Some idiots on the social media want all internal combustion engines banned by 2030. Some people there's just no talking to.

They don't have to be specifically banned. Just make the emission regulations more and more impossible to meet and the rules for the outputs form the various vehicles sold impossible to support financially.

What you will then see is the manufacturers flight to alternatives ASAP as seems to be in progress now.

Without banning anything the market will somply move to a point where very few if any ICE cars remain.

It may take a little longer to shift commercial vehicles.

10 years is probably about the limit of average life for an existing ICE day to day vehicle based on the current levels of complexity. If the manufacturers vacate the market, for whatever reason, that is likely to shorten for entirely economic reasons so long as the new electric based infrastructure is thought to be progressing well enough to keep up with demand. If the infrastructure build out does occur I would imagine that ICE longevity, based on the running costs, will shorten or keeping them running will become very expensive. Of very time consuming. Or both.

There may be some sort of sideshow for hydrogen along the way.

Whether it is all affordable is another matter.

I suspect we are going to find out.

Could be interesting, especially if it is a Europe only thing.

[Gadgetmac]

Article in Psychology Today about tackling climate change denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.c...

It's a thing.

[JustALooseScrew]

Gadgetmac said:

Article in Psychology Today about tackling climate change denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.c...

It's a thing.

link said:

In addition to motivated interference, there is also a powerful psychological component to this blindness to scientific reality

Talk about eyes wide shut.

link said:

The science that proves the earth is warming is very technical and difficult for most of us to grasp.

Indeed, so probably best that you shut up and stop commenting on stuff you can't grasp (e.g. complex chaotic systems that can't be modeled in a computer software system).

What an appalling article, though I applaud the fact that science and society allow these people to at least get their voice heard. A bit like the school christmas carol singing in the local Catholic church a few years back. Half way through the proceedings most of the adults got down on their knees when the priest decided it was about time for a prayer.

I was stunned to see so many compliant adults, with out rhyme or reason accepting the gospel utter ste that was frothing forth from his mouth.

I found the whole experience sickening, much like the clap-trap that we've been hearing for the last 20 years about how we only have five minutes to save the planet.

[LongQ]

Gadgetmac said:

Article in Psychology Today about tackling climate change denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.c...

It's a thing.

Well this is article is nearly a year old so totally obsolete now ....

But wait ...

"What we are being asked to do will take gargantuan efforts and face vicious opposition. “Solving climate is going to be harder, and more improbable, than winning World War II, achieving civil rights, defeating bacterial infection and sending a man to the moon all together,” warn Auden Schendler and Andrew P. Jones. It is very difficult to accept as real a problem that requires this magnitude of solution."

and


"In one of the most poignant recitations of this sense of being engulfed by the enormity of the implications of climate change, scientist Alison Spodek Keimowitz wrote about her change in perspective after her brush with death from cancer. “I found that I no longer could see a track that turned away from the edge. We are already locked into catastrophic changes, terrible human and animal suffering, the loss of so much of what makes this Earth itself." The problem is just so huge that it is nearly unthinkable. Our minds try to save us from utter hopelessness by pushing aside thoughts of climate change. Denial kicks in as our minds’ default for temporary self-preservation."

So basically, and probably correctly since at this time and for some extended period in to the future no one has a sensible clue about how to gain "control" over the climate of the planet (hardly surprising as we don't come close to understanding it and are as yet unable to control even human actions and reactions that threaten individual and collective survival) these people are pointing out that humans are unable to deal with complex matters beyond their control. They know that in reality there is very little they can do about such things especially since the perceived problem is not well understood - at least not to the point where someone can define a perceived solution that could be engineered and made to work. And has any basis in recognisable reality as current experienced.

But then the masses seek some power, external to their own weak and incapable selves, to come along and tell them what to do and take responsibility for saving them and the future generations that, for some obscure reason, they care about without really knowing why.

People cannot face the fact that there is no known solution to the perceived problem (that they believe exists).

They deny that possibility since it is unacceptable to them.

Their belief that they (to some extent since they cannot accept that they have no power at all) but more likely other more powerful beings, as a backstop to their inability to achieve anything themselves, are not going to be able to change things somehow and avoid the proposed approaching problems AND any adverse fallout from the "fixes" that, given lack of knowledge and global social control, are very likely to go wrong. Just like the human actions that, we are told, have gone wrong and got us to the position we are at now.


Large measures of denial all around then.

Prayer may be required.

Perhaps it's time to stop categorising by name calling - an especially bad trait for people who appear to be in the medical profession involved with mental health.

[Gadgetmac]

Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=climate+cha...

[JustALooseScrew]

Gadgetmac said:

Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=climate+cha...

You really are a bit special aren't you.

From what I'm reading, no one is denying that climate is changing - it always has.

Whether it is due Humans is debatable, but allegedly the science is settled and that is the point where I call bull st. Science doesn't work that way.

[anonymous-user]

JustALooseScrew said:

ou really are a bit special aren't you.

From what I'm reading, no one is denying that climate is changing - it always has.

Whether it is due Humans is debatable, but allegedly the science is settled and that is the point where I call bull st. Science doesn't work that way.

Do you think humans are causing the climate to change or are influencing the climate?

[Mrr T]

Gadgetmac said:

Article in Psychology Today about tackling climate change denial.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.c...

It's a thing.

Psychology is a science in serious crisis.

[Gadgetmac]

JustALooseScrew said:

Gadgetmac said:

Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=climate+cha...

You really are a bit special aren't you.

From what I'm reading, no one is denying that climate is changing - it always has.

Whether it is due Humans is debatable, but allegedly the science is settled and that is the point where I call bull st. Science doesn't work that way.

I'm very special, thanks.

Of course you're talking bks as usual there are many who are denying the climate is changing, just click back through this thread to find lots of instances of the temperature data being called untrustworthy. Ask Robinessex whether the climate is changing or whether it's all part of a conspiracy to corrupt the data into something it's not.

Of course the latest line being spun by denial central, and one where you guys on here are a little behind the curve, is that global warming is real but as we are too late to do anything about it we may as well carry on burning fossil fuels etc etc etc

This argument is coming due to the fact that the science is now indeed overwhelming all arguments against AGW. It's kind of like a resignation argument.

I look forward to seeing that arguments first appearance on this thread. It's coming

[Phud]

Gadgetmac said:

I'm very special, thanks.

Of course you're talking bks as usual there are many who are denying the climate is changing, just click back through this thread to find lots of instances of the temperature data being called untrustworthy. Ask Robinessex whether the climate is changing or whether it's all part of a conspiracy to corrupt the data into something it's not.

Of course the latest line being spun by denial central, and one where you guys on here are a little behind the curve, is that global warming is real but as we are too late to do anything about it we may as well carry on burning fossil fuels etc etc etc

This argument is coming due to the fact that the science is now indeed overwhelming all arguments against AGW. It's kind of like a resignation argument.

I look forward to seeing that arguments first appearance on this thread. It's coming

so do you think this change is because of humans and the climate has always been steady

Please provide your stable climate period and what the perfect climatic conditions and environmentals where

[JustALooseScrew]

El stovey said:

JustALooseScrew said:

ou really are a bit special aren't you.

From what I'm reading, no one is denying that climate is changing - it always has.

Whether it is due Humans is debatable, but allegedly the science is settled and that is the point where I call bull st. Science doesn't work that way.

Do you think humans are causing the climate to change or are influencing the climate?

As one who has a bit of a scientific background, I'm more concerned about the measurements. So I'm not in a position to answer your question "Do you think humans are causing the climate to change or are influencing the climate? " with any certainty.

My gut feeling is yes humans probably are having an effect on planet climate, whether that effect is anything to be worried about is another question.

My own personal view is that plastic pollution is a way more serious problem than a bit of extra CO2.

[Gadgetmac]

Phud said:

Gadgetmac said:

I'm very special, thanks.

Of course you're talking bks as usual there are many who are denying the climate is changing, just click back through this thread to find lots of instances of the temperature data being called untrustworthy. Ask Robinessex whether the climate is changing or whether it's all part of a conspiracy to corrupt the data into something it's not.

Of course the latest line being spun by denial central, and one where you guys on here are a little behind the curve, is that global warming is real but as we are too late to do anything about it we may as well carry on burning fossil fuels etc etc etc

This argument is coming due to the fact that the science is now indeed overwhelming all arguments against AGW. It's kind of like a resignation argument.

I look forward to seeing that arguments first appearance on this thread. It's coming

so do you think this change is because of humans and the climate has always been steady

Please provide your stable climate period and what the perfect climatic conditions and environmentals where

I, that's me personally, am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think.

What is puzzling me though is that you actually think innane questions like in your first paragraph have been overlooked by scientists all over the world for the last 30 years or, because they are too difficult to answer, have been swept under the carpet.

You sir are deserving of some kind of Prize for finding the hole in the scientific reasoning underpinning all climate research.

[Phud]

Gadgetmac said:

I, that's me personally, am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think.

What is puzzling me though is that you actually think innane questions like in your first paragraph have been overlooked by scientists all over the world for the last 30 years or, because they are too difficult to answer, have been swept under the carpet.

You sir are deserving of some kind of Prize for finding the hole in the scientific reasoning underpinning all climate research.

You seem unable to read, I asked you, what is your view?

If you are unable to string a sentance together that's fine, if you don't know thats fine.

[Gadgetmac]

Phud said:

Gadgetmac said:

I, that's me personally, am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think.

What is puzzling me though is that you actually think innane questions like in your first paragraph have been overlooked by scientists all over the world for the last 30 years or, because they are too difficult to answer, have been swept under the carpet.

You sir are deserving of some kind of Prize for finding the hole in the scientific reasoning underpinning all climate research.

You seem unable to read, I asked you, what is your view?

If you are unable to string a sentance together that's fine, if you don't know thats fine.

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

[Phud]

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing our decreasing that temperature.

No you're quite right you are irrelevent.

Tropical fish are able to deal with quite a range of temperatures, so you miss the point, but thats very normal with your posts.

[Greeny]

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

[Gadgetmac]

Phud said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing our decreasing that temperature.

No you're quite right you are irrelevent.

Tropical fish are able to deal with quite a range of temperatures, so you miss the point, but thats very normal with your posts.

Fortunately my irrelevence doesn't tend to burn me as much as yours does you as the rest of the world considers you irrelevant where climate change is concerned.

[Gadgetmac]

Greeny said:

Gadgetmac said:

Which bit of "I am irrelevant when compared to what scientists in the field think" didn't manage to tunnel it's way into your tiny mind?

I'd guess you also didn't pick up on my comment that I think your question is innane.

Tropical fish in an aquarium have the water at an optimum temperature for a reason, you wouldn't want to start increasing or decreasing that temperature.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 17:58

So are you saying that the earths temperature at present is optimum, and like fish in an aquarium we can not survive any minor change in that temperature.
Even though the earths temperature varies vastly across the globe, and people still seem to survive and choose to live in a variety of climates?

No, we will survive, but our environment will change which will hurt us, probably in catastrophic ways in the medium term. That's what the science is pointing to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_...

Edited by Gadgetmac on Sunday 8th December 18:20