Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Indulgences.
People seek to pay in some way for indulgences that forgive them their sins.
Right now, perhaps more than at any time previously, I would like to see the thought leaders of AGW express their commitment in ways that could be meaningful in, say, 2100.
By then it may be more feasible for people to look back on the human experiences related to AGW alleviation policies, whatever those policies developed into, then to decide whether they feel that the preceding generations offered solid and effective guidance.
If not, in the thinking of current times, they would surely be due some compensation.
Perhaps, like we see with Nuclear power concerns, the AGW reversal plans should be required to make funds available to deal with potential negative outcomes. The first "Thought Leaders" in the field could, perhaps, show their commitment to their beliefs by making their earnings available to the funds with the promise that future generations of their families may draw on those funds once the work has proven to be of positive benefit.
The management at Microsoft and other grandee companies of our times could set the standard by foregoing their over-blown salaries and gross bonuses. Morally it would seem to be the right things to do to put their overcompensated bank balances where their mouths are.
In my opinion.
I think the rest of the world, faced with paying MS, et al, even more money to fund such vainglorious dictatorial objectives to satisfy the whims of the wealthy, would tend to agree.
People seek to pay in some way for indulgences that forgive them their sins.
Right now, perhaps more than at any time previously, I would like to see the thought leaders of AGW express their commitment in ways that could be meaningful in, say, 2100.
By then it may be more feasible for people to look back on the human experiences related to AGW alleviation policies, whatever those policies developed into, then to decide whether they feel that the preceding generations offered solid and effective guidance.
If not, in the thinking of current times, they would surely be due some compensation.
Perhaps, like we see with Nuclear power concerns, the AGW reversal plans should be required to make funds available to deal with potential negative outcomes. The first "Thought Leaders" in the field could, perhaps, show their commitment to their beliefs by making their earnings available to the funds with the promise that future generations of their families may draw on those funds once the work has proven to be of positive benefit.
The management at Microsoft and other grandee companies of our times could set the standard by foregoing their over-blown salaries and gross bonuses. Morally it would seem to be the right things to do to put their overcompensated bank balances where their mouths are.
In my opinion.
I think the rest of the world, faced with paying MS, et al, even more money to fund such vainglorious dictatorial objectives to satisfy the whims of the wealthy, would tend to agree.
A44RON said:
Has anyone collected all the Climate & Environmental Change predictions made in the last 40 years and scrutinised the percentage which transpired to be accurate?
I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
It's difficult to collate one list because it would cover hundreds of thousands of papers, depending on your criteria. People have projected the effects of increased CO2 on soil quality in one region of one country, while others have projected the temperature of the stratosphere around the entire Earth, and pretty much everything in between.I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
At a macro level, things are turning out pretty much exactly as expected. Temperature rises predicted half a century ago are still on track, Arctic ice loss is as expected, permafrost melt is as expected, flora is responding as expected, animal migration patterns are as expected, glacier loss is as expected etc.
Of course they haven't all been right, as nobody ever expected them to be, or claimed they would be. There are a lot of factors involved and some of this stuff is almost impossible to
If you do actually look into it, look at the actual research and pay attention to confidence levels and error bars. Picking the most extreme, least likely scenario and then using that as evidence that it's all wrong is for the loons and tabloids.
durbster said:
Which means you believe the anthropogenic impact on the climate could be far larger than the science and evidence suggests.
I don't recall you ever making that case though. Only the opposite. Why is that?
Does that angle need any more pushing than it already gets across most media outlets?I don't recall you ever making that case though. Only the opposite. Why is that?
Balance is the key. You don't seem to be too balanced in accepting the other direction *could* be the case, no? If so, why not?
If the whole debate were far less emotive, absolute and nihilistic, we'd achieve better, more effective lasting results IMO. But such is the human condition. Nature's found a great leveller as it always does.
Maybe start by resisting the urge for churlish digs? (No matter who did what first. Rise above it. It will strengthen your position
) LongQ said:
Indulgences.
People seek to pay in some way for indulgences that forgive them their sins.
....
New Religion.... People seek to pay in some way for indulgences that forgive them their sins.
....
A few threads have had me thinking about root causes. Posted elsewhere but I think it's hypocrisy that's polarising us across the spectrum. This topic is no different.
This isn't helped by the speed with which opinions can now be issued to a massive audience. People say s
t without thinking through the consequences to conclusion and how hypocritical it makes them. No matter how good the argument, it simply leads to them being ignored. Which is potentially a real shame, as the situation isn't black or white, isn't absolute. 
A44RON said:
Has anyone collected all the Climate & Environmental Change predictions made in the last 40 years and scrutinised the percentage which transpired to be accurate?
I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
ISWYM but there's no agenda in reporting whether a prediction happened or not, and there's a lot of it about. It's a matter of seconds' effort online to find dozens of failed apocalyptic predictions, too many to list with work bekoning.I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
In 1967 it was 'already too late' with dire famine forecast by 1975.
In 1970 Ehrlich said the oceans would be 'dead' by 1980.
New York would be under water by 2015; at the latest 2019 (Hansen)
In 1988 the Maldives were forecast to be underwater by 2018 (UN) unless global warming was reversed by 2000.
The Arctic would be summer-ice-free by 2008/2013/2016/2018 (etc it's now 2050 and that'll be wrong too).
In 2000 it was predicted by UEA CRU senior climate scientist Dr Viner that within a few years UK snow would become "a very rare and exciting event" and "children just aren't going to know what snow is".
In 2004 The Pentagon's climate gurus predicted Britain would have a Siberian climate by 2020.
In 2008 the north polar ice cap was predicted to be completely ice-free by 2013.
In January 2020 Glacier National Park in Montana removed signs saying all glaciers will be melted by 2020 due to manmade global warming, having been warned it was bunk in 2017.
And the rest.
A44RON said:
Has anyone collected all the Climate & Environmental Change predictions made in the last 40 years and scrutinised the percentage which transpired to be accurate?
I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
Off the top of my head, I think it's ZERO !!!I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
robinessex said:
A44RON said:
Has anyone collected all the Climate & Environmental Change predictions made in the last 40 years and scrutinised the percentage which transpired to be accurate?
I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
Off the top of my head, I think it's ZERO !!!I'm genuinely interested. The debate has become so polarised and political, many sources come with an agenda.
Thankfully, we have intellectual heavyweights like Niall Ferguson, who are pointing out the absurdity of this cult: https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-gre...
Niall Ferguson said:
60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China… but nobody talks about that. They talk as if its somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem… which is frustrating because it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter...
Britain’s CO2 emissions peaked in 1973 and are now at their lowest level since Victorian times,” reports the Spectator. “Air pollution has plummeted since then, with sulphur dioxide levels down 95 per cent. Britain’s population is rising but our energy consumption peaked in 2001 and has since fallen by 19 per cent.
WHO absolute (rather than per capita) pollution map:Britain’s CO2 emissions peaked in 1973 and are now at their lowest level since Victorian times,” reports the Spectator. “Air pollution has plummeted since then, with sulphur dioxide levels down 95 per cent. Britain’s population is rising but our energy consumption peaked in 2001 and has since fallen by 19 per cent.
Niall Ferguson said:
Britain’s CO2 emissions peaked in 1973 and are now at their lowest level since Victorian times,” reports the Spectator. “Air pollution has plummeted since then, with sulphur dioxide levels down 95 per cent. Britain’s population is rising but our energy consumption peaked in 2001 and has since fallen by 19 per cent.
Stop that. The Beeb needs something to scare us all withhttps://www.cfact.org/2020/01/10/the-world-owes-u-...
"Climate activists and their media allies aim to make it beyond discussion that the warming of the past century that delivered us from the depths of the Little Ice Age must by definition must be harmful. But an objective look at the impacts of our modestly warming climate tells a completely different story. One hundred years ago, human lifespans were shorter, people were poorer, cold-related epidemics like influenza killed millions, and hurricanes, droughts, and other extreme weather events wreaked havoc. As our climate warmed and fossil fuels stimulated economic prosperity, human life expectancy improved, living standards improved, climate-related deaths plummeted, crop production set new records, and extreme weather events became less frequent and severe. The world of 2019 is a much more healthy, prosperous, and climate-benign world than was the case in 1919. And yet, climate activists and their media allies react incredulously when anybody suggests that a warmer world is proving better for human health and welfare than a colder world."
"Climate activists and their media allies aim to make it beyond discussion that the warming of the past century that delivered us from the depths of the Little Ice Age must by definition must be harmful. But an objective look at the impacts of our modestly warming climate tells a completely different story. One hundred years ago, human lifespans were shorter, people were poorer, cold-related epidemics like influenza killed millions, and hurricanes, droughts, and other extreme weather events wreaked havoc. As our climate warmed and fossil fuels stimulated economic prosperity, human life expectancy improved, living standards improved, climate-related deaths plummeted, crop production set new records, and extreme weather events became less frequent and severe. The world of 2019 is a much more healthy, prosperous, and climate-benign world than was the case in 1919. And yet, climate activists and their media allies react incredulously when anybody suggests that a warmer world is proving better for human health and welfare than a colder world."
Cut meat and dairy intake 'by a fifth', report urges
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
Peak denial came and went with climategate and the putative 'pause' and cold sun theories - happy days!
Now we just have denial based on whether the world will end in 10 years
I think we’ve reached peak alarmism and peak stupid. Now we just have denial based on whether the world will end in 10 years
LongQ said:
I'm not convinced about that. I suspect there is still some way to go before we reach the summit.
Agreed - we're nowhere near peak alarmism. This is just the beginning. The whole business isn't going to start going away anytime soon. The BBC 6 o'clock news is already effectively 'Climate Change Daily' and it'll get worse.People are beginning to smell a profit - The golden rule applies here.... 'Just follow the money'.
robinessex said:
Cut meat and dairy intake 'by a fifth', report urges
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Cool, that's ecologically sound.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Lettuce is more than three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than bacon, according to researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University. Save the planet, eat less rabbit food and more bacon.
If you happen to find the greenie spin on this, the emissions relate to producing the foodstuffs not eating them - classic misdirection. Analogy: emissions from manufacturing a car and running a car on the road are entirely different. A low emissions (manufacturing) car can be high emissions in use due to fuel consumption, and vice versa.
Also in terms of the point of eating rabbit food i.e. a supposedly healthy diet, eating the mixed / recommended “healthier” foods (aka a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood) increases environmental impact in three key categories: energy use up by 38%, water use up by 10% and GHG emissions up by 6%.
WelshChris said:
LongQ said:
I'm not convinced about that. I suspect there is still some way to go before we reach the summit.
Agreed - we're nowhere near peak alarmism. This is just the beginning. The whole business isn't going to start going away anytime soon. The BBC 6 o'clock news is already effectively 'Climate Change Daily' and it'll get worse.People are beginning to smell a profit - The golden rule applies here.... 'Just follow the money'.
WelshChris said:
LongQ said:
I'm not convinced about that. I suspect there is still some way to go before we reach the summit.
Agreed - we're nowhere near peak alarmism. This is just the beginning. The whole business isn't going to start going away anytime soon. The BBC 6 o'clock news is already effectively 'Climate Change Daily' and it'll get worse.People are beginning to smell a profit - The golden rule applies here.... 'Just follow the money'.
This will be a legally enforced "at any cost" profit opportunity reinforced by a the legal destruction of previously existing profit opportunities - often in a time frame accompanied by perpetual rule changes that eliminate even the possibility of a realistic transformation from one type of business to another by many of the existing business operations.
Thus it costs the "investors" and that cost, ultimately, trickles down to losses throughout the economic pyramid.
Things could become very interesting in a political sense at some point soon.
Given no real recovery of "the financial system" since 2008 it will be interesting to see whether the great and the good can cobble the system together sufficiently for it to struggle along for another decade.
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Cut meat and dairy intake 'by a fifth', report urges
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Cool, that's ecologically sound.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Lettuce is more than three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than bacon, according to researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University. Save the planet, eat less rabbit food and more bacon.
If you happen to find the greenie spin on this, the emissions relate to producing the foodstuffs not eating them - classic misdirection. Analogy: emissions from manufacturing a car and running a car on the road are entirely different. A low emissions (manufacturing) car can be high emissions in use due to fuel consumption, and vice versa.
Also in terms of the point of eating rabbit food i.e. a supposedly healthy diet, eating the mixed / recommended “healthier” foods (aka a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood) increases environmental impact in three key categories: energy use up by 38%, water use up by 10% and GHG emissions up by 6%.
dickymint said:
turbobloke said:
robinessex said:
Cut meat and dairy intake 'by a fifth', report urges
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Cool, that's ecologically sound.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-512...
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says.
It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals.
But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed.
The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC)........continues
That's a good idea. Another tax to force us to fruitlessly fix the planet. For the record, I DON'T WANT TO BE A COW AND EAT MORE VEG.
Lettuce is more than three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than bacon, according to researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University. Save the planet, eat less rabbit food and more bacon.
If you happen to find the greenie spin on this, the emissions relate to producing the foodstuffs not eating them - classic misdirection. Analogy: emissions from manufacturing a car and running a car on the road are entirely different. A low emissions (manufacturing) car can be high emissions in use due to fuel consumption, and vice versa.
Also in terms of the point of eating rabbit food i.e. a supposedly healthy diet, eating the mixed / recommended “healthier” foods (aka a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood) increases environmental impact in three key categories: energy use up by 38%, water use up by 10% and GHG emissions up by 6%.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff