Climate Change - General Discussion : Read the Mod Note in post #1 before posting

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Hold up a moment. This is your own gibberish being handed back to you!

You're constantly moaning about global warming melting arctic ice and causing climate change and calling for the transition away from fossil fuels as if that's going to restore the melting ice and fix climate change.

If transitioning away from fossil fuels won't effect a manmade restoration of that arctic summer ice and provide the means for humans to arbitrarily control the climate and prevent it from changing just come out and say so!

You are now saying it's "gibberish" to suggest such a thing.

Where did I say we could restore melting ice?

I have said over and over again that we've gone past the point of preventing climate change, we're in damage limitation mode. And certain changes create positive feedbacks that amplify the warming, including arctic ice loss. If we lose the summer arctic sea ice, it's not coming back any time soon and the change in albedo and the release of methane from the continental shelf and tundra permafrost could cause a further amplification.

The reason we need to act urgently is because the effects of climate change get much worse the more we delay. Its possible that it's too late to prevent an ice free arctic summer, but we still have to minimise the amount of global warming we impose on our children

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

If we lose the summer arctic sea ice, it's not coming back any time soon and the change in albedo and the release of methane from the continental shelf and tundra permafrost could cause a further amplification.

So it's quite clear then that ditching fossil fuels and going for windmills isn't going to restore any of that lost Arctic ice or preserve current summer levels.

It's going to do nothing for it basically. We are, apparently, on a trajectory to lose Arctic summer ice within the next few decades anyway, isn't that right?

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm on here challenging the false information put forward by climate change deniers, or people who think it's not a major problem, even when they acknowledge that summer ice in the arctic will be gone within their own lifetime.

So it really does seem like gibberish to claim that ditching fossil fuels will provide man with the means of arbitrarily controlling global temperatures or even preserving summer arctic ice.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

So it's quite clear then that ditching fossil fuels and going for windmills isn't going to restore any of that lost Arctic ice or preserve current summer levels.

It's going to do nothing for it basically. We are, apparently, on a trajectory to lose Arctic summer ice within the next few decades anyway, isn't that right?




So it really does seem like gibberish to claim that ditching fossil fuels will provide man with the means of arbitrarily controlling global temperatures or even preserving summer arctic ice.

Your post doesn't make any sense. Consider this analogy:

Take a line of cars, all rolling down a slope towards a cliff with their handbrakes off. It might be a forlorn chase to stop the first car from going over the cliff (and once gone, it is smashed) but it mightn't be too late to apply the handbrakes in most of the other cars to ensure that they don't follow it. So while one or two cars may be lost forever, the community will still have some cars.

Essentially, you are saying that because the first car (summer arctic ice) is doomed, there is no point in applying the handbrake to the others. That simply isn't true.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Take a line of cars, all rolling down a slope towards a cliff with their handbrakes off. It might be a forlorn chase to stop the first car from going over the cliff (and once gone, it is smashed) but it mightn't be too late to apply the handbrakes in most of the other cars to ensure that they don't follow it. So while one or two cars may be lost forever, the community will still have some cars.

The problem with that analogy is that it fails to address how reducing C02 in the community will empower the community with the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures.

Because that, we are told, is how climate change has manifested itself.

And how it will manifest itself, because different parts of the world will experience climate change differently. Which is quite handy, if a little haphazard.

A bit of everything thrown in for good measure if you like; global warming will cause it to be warmer, snowier, colder, wetter, hotter, droughts there, floods here, but, and here's the thing: none of it is going to be caused by what was traditionally known as "weather".

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

How on earth does this tie in with 'international socialism' that you claim the UN is overseeing? :

Can you (or anyone) name the curiously unnamed global political and economic regime that the UN does want to be implemented then?

It must have a name of some sort?

And it ain't capitalism. So what is it?

Nobody here seems to want to discuss the slow, deep, global transformation that the UN is calling for:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."


https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

It's all a bit people before profit and Paul Murphy isnt it?

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Really getting tired of this US campus speak that has infested the European political narrative over the last few years.

Tired of campus speak?

I know exactly what you mean.
I'm still trying to get my chops around this:

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the ideologies im most critical of are very well written about, and continue to be so, i.e. ideologies such as neoliberialism and our most predominant macro economic theory, neoclassical theory. if you want see how disturbingly misunderstood human behavior is and 'integrated' into our economic models and systems, id recommend research into these ideologies and theories, in particular neoclassical theory, with its' rational expectations'.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The problem with that analogy is that it fails to address how reducing C02 in the community will empower the community with the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures.

Because that, we are told, is how climate change has manifested itself.

And how it will manifest itself, because different parts of the world will experience climate change differently. Which is quite handy, if a little haphazard.

A bit of everything thrown in for good measure if you like; global warming will cause it to be warmer, snowier, colder, wetter, hotter, droughts there, floods here, but, and here's the thing: none of it is going to be caused by what was traditionally known as "weather".

Seriously, this post makes no sense. I know what all the words mean, but they're not in any sensible order or context.

Reducing CO2 emissions will slow the rate of global warming. Global warming causes climate change, climate affects our weather. Weather is dynamic and variable.

Reducing CO2 emissions isn't an attempt to control weather. We can't control weather, but we do affect it.

You need to learn the difference between controlling something and affecting something.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Can you (or anyone) name the curiously unnamed global political and economic regime that the UN does want to be implemented then?

It must have a name of some sort?

And it ain't capitalism. So what is it?

Nobody here seems to want to discuss the slow, deep, global transformation that the UN is calling for:

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."


https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

It's all a bit people before profit and Paul Murphy isnt it?

They're talking about transforming energy systems, which are a major part of the world economy. And its going to be done through international agreements like the Paris accord, not by a shadowy communist world government

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

They're talking about transforming energy systems, which are a major part of the world economy.

No, can't be, there's no mention of transforming "energy systems" there.

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

They talk about "the necessary transformation of the world economy".

So, anyone else want to have a stab at it?

Transform from capitalist to what exactly?

Come on folks, can someone step up to the plate here?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No, can't be, there's no mention of transforming "energy systems" there.

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

They talk about "the necessary transformation of the world economy".

So, anyone else want to have a stab at it?

Transform from capitalist to what exactly?

Come on folks, can someone step up to the plate here?

you're just doing what you always do, you're zeroing in on words or phrases and ignoring the underlying context and meaning.

They are clearly talking about transforming from a fossil fuel based economy to a carbon neutral one. And this needs to be negotiated and planned internationally via investment targets and international assistance for LDCs to meet their targets, all of which are to be negotiated via international agreements.

Akrasia

Have you learned the difference between controlling something, and affecting something yet?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

you're just doing what you always do, you're zeroing in on words or phrases and ignoring the underlying context and meaning.

They are clearly talking about transforming from a fossil fuel based economy to a carbon neutral one. And this needs to be negotiated and planned internationally via investment targets and international assistance for LDCs to meet their targets, all of which are to be negotiated via international agreements.

No Akrasia, you're attempting to put some eco spin onto it.

Read it again, there's no mention of fossil fuel or anything to do with being carbon neutral in that press release about the ambition to transform the world's economic system.

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally


So for the last time, the UNFCC and the eco activists are advocating a move towards what global economic system? Something different from what's currently in place. There must be a name for it? Some sort of campus speak?

Something something based around social justice and putting people before profit by the looks of it.

Here's a better example:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Have you learned the difference between controlling something, and affecting something yet?

So now, when it suits, its actually nature, and not man made C02 that predominately controls temperatures?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No Akrasia, you're attempting to put some eco spin onto it.

Read it again, there's no mention of fossil fuel or anything to do with being carbon neutral in that press release about the ambition to transform the world's economic system.

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

The Lima Draft which was referred to in the statement is entirely about becoming carbon neutral
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/dec/08/goal-to-end-fossil-fuels-by-2050-surfaces-in-lima-un-climate-documents

So for the last time, the UNFCC and the eco activists are advocating a move towards what global economic system? Something different from what's currently in place. There must be a name for it? Some sort of campus speak?

Something something based around social justice and putting people before profit by the looks of it.

Here's a better example:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Quit reading between the lines Dense. Your last quote refers to what happens when valuable assets lose their value when they are no longer burned as fuel or used as dumping sites for pollution.

If most of the fossil fuels in the world need to be left unburned then this results in a 'de facto' redistribution of wealth, from the owners of fossil fuel resources. here's some more homework for you Dense, after you're finished learning the difference between controlling and affecting, can you learn what 'De facto' means, and when you've learned that, you can learn the difference between a descriptive statement, and a prescriptive statement.

If an economist says changing an energy system from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable or carbon neutral energy systems, will redistribute wealth from the owners of fossil fuel resources towards whatever energy system replaces it, this is not saying that wealth should be redistributed, it is saying that wealth will be redistributed as a consequence of that change. No more than how wealth was redistributed from the railway companies to car manufacturers and oil companies when private cars replaced steam engines as the dominant way of mass transit, or how wealth is being transferred from traditional media companies to internet media companies as people move to a new technology.

We can go from listening to the radio to listening to podcasts without getting rid of capitalism or without needing a 'socialist' redistribution of wealth.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

So now, when it suits, its actually nature, and not man made C02 that predominately controls temperatures?

It seems you haven't learned what these words mean. Try again please.

I apologise if this seems snarky, but these words have meanings that matter.
Control, affect, effect, driver etc, they all mean specific things and your argument seems to revolve around interchanging and confusing all these different concepts.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The Lima Draft which was referred to in the statement is entirely about becoming carbon neutral
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/dec/08/goal-to-end-fossil-fuels-by-2050-surfaces-in-lima-un-climate-documents

The same one that your eco allies at Friends of the Earth describe as being a mobilisation and resistance "against the patriarchal, racist and homophobic capitalist system"?


https://www.foei.org/news/the-lima-declaration

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The same one that your eco allies at Friends of the Earth describe as being a mobilisation and resistance "against the patriarchal, racist and homophobic capitalist system"?


https://www.foei.org/news/the-lima-declaration

No, not the same one.

You're showing here that you don't know what you're talking about, and rather than find out, you're just googling for anything that suits your narrative.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

No, not the same one.

You're showing here that you don't know what you're talking about, and rather than find out, you're just googling for anything that suits your narrative.

Because its so easy! And it's there for anyone who wants to see!

Look- Here's Professor Human Breath Causes Climate Change Sweeney sending notes back from COP20 enthusing about the star of the show claiming that climate change is a result of free trade and capitalism.

So it clearly is capitalism these environmental activists are railing against.


http://www.antaisce.org/articles/thoughts-lima-2-prof-john-sweeney-reports-cop20-un-climate-conference

Here's another well known climate activist, socialist Brid Smith TD railing against capitalism talking about Climate Chaos and other NGOs "fighting the good fight to try to get us all to wake up and realise that a race for the future is going on here" and claiming that "capitalism is completely incompatible with climate justice."


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2017120700061


Seems like you're all down on capitalism and want to replace it with some sort of socialist system.

Do you want to tell us what system it is you all want that will help them dispense their climate justice?

-And no campus speak please.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Because its so easy! And it's there for anyone who wants to see!

Look- Here's Professor Human Breath Causes Climate Change Sweeney sending notes back from COP20 enthusing about the star of the show claiming that climate change is a result of free trade and capitalism.

So it clearly is capitalism these environmental activists are railing against.


http://www.antaisce.org/articles/thoughts-lima-2-prof-john-sweeney-reports-cop20-un-climate-conference

Here's another well known climate activist, socialist Brid Smith TD railing against capitalism talking about Climate Chaos and other NGOs "fighting the good fight to try to get us all to wake up and realise that a race for the future is going on here" and claiming that "capitalism is completely incompatible with climate justice."


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2017120700061


Seems like you're all down on capitalism and want to replace it with some sort of socialist system.

Do you want to tell us what system it is you all want that will help them dispense their climate justice?

-And no campus speak please.

I note you've ignored my responses to your points and just threw more wild accusations about other people

blanch152

dense wrote: »

The problem with that analogy is that it fails to address how reducing C02 in the community will empower the community with the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures.

Because that, we are told, is how climate change has manifested itself.

And how it will manifest itself, because different parts of the world will experience climate change differently. Which is quite handy, if a little haphazard.

A bit of everything thrown in for good measure if you like; global warming will cause it to be warmer, snowier, colder, wetter, hotter, droughts there, floods here, but, and here's the thing: none of it is going to be caused by what was traditionally known as "weather".

I never said it would give the community the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures.

It is clear that you fail to understand the analogy and the underpinning logic. You might want to read it again and reflect further.

Oneiric 3

Capitalism in action:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/mar/09/national-disgrace-fury-over-100m-aid-deal-between-uk-and-saudi-arabia

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-saudi-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-weapons-armaments-yemen-civil-war-a8265821.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/01/monitor-450-yemeni-civilians-killed-december-180117054027984.html

Meanwhile, while our capitalist western leaders are unsurprisingly turning a blind eye to the daily atrocities committed in Yemen under their watch, they seem curiously united in the call for action against Assad. Dark days ahead.

Akrasia

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said it would give the community the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures.

It is clear that you fail to understand the analogy and the underpinning logic. You might want to read it again and reflect further.

He read your post, ignored the point and highlighted the word 'community', an incidental reference, and ranted based on that word.

Atlantic Dawn

The diesel solution that the Greens brought in is 'working', it kills off 23k people a year in the UK, that's 23k people using less resources on the earth each year just for the UK alone.

http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/gd52wh/dispatches--britains-diesel-scandal-channel-4-dispatches/

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I never said it would give the community the ability to control either the local climate or local temperatures.

It is clear that you fail to understand the analogy and the underpinning logic. You might want to read it again and reflect further.

Hey, no hard feelings ok?

People often think it's easy to write a good analogy, and of course when they try, they find it's not as easy as it looks.

They're a little like jokes, some of them just fall flat.

I felt that one did

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/10/21/good-analogies/

Akrasia

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The diesel solution that the Greens brought in is 'working', it kills off 23k people a year in the UK, that's 23k people using less resources on the earth each year just for the UK alone.

http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/gd52wh/dispatches--britains-diesel-scandal-channel-4-dispatches/

The Diesel thing was a mistake, but your story refers to hauliers breaking the law and flouting emissions control systems.

The greens can be blamed for not anticipating the fraud that would happen but it wasn't helped by the fact that the Auto Industry systematically lied about the emissions their cars were producing and cheated environmental tests.

If it wasn't for the environmental regulations, there would be significantly more deaths caused by poor air quality in our towns and cities. A lot of the current deaths are caused by individuals and companies who don't comply with the regulations that are there for public health and safety.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Hey, no hard feelings ok?

People often think it's easy to write a good analogy, and of course when they try, they find it's not as easy as it looks.

They're a little like jokes, some of them just fall flat.

I felt that one did

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/10/21/good-analogies/

That analogy was fine. There will always be a certain percentage of the population who completely miss the point of any analogy though.

Perhaps these people need better reading between the lines glasses.

Akrasia

Any luck with your learning yet Dense?
Have you found out the meaning of the words Control and Affect yet?

What about De Facto?

Have you learned the difference between Descriptive and Prescriptive speech yet?

I recommend you try, it will make a big difference to your comprehension when you figure these out.

Mr Bumble

Akrasia wrote: »

Any luck with your learning yet Dense?
Have you found out the meaning of the words Control and Affect yet?

What about De Facto?

Have you learned the difference between Descriptive and Prescriptive speech yet?

I recommend you try, it will make a big difference to your comprehension when you figure these out.

I always find you've lost the argument when you're posting stuff like this.
The words quoted are well up there on the list of the most condescending posts in the history of Boards.
Your passionate wish to hector everyone into believing your point of view may be you life's work but I can't read any more.
You've driven me out of this thread with your unimpeachable certainty about everything. Have a nice Grand Solar Minimum.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Hey, no hard feelings ok?

People often think it's easy to write a good analogy, and of course when they try, they find it's not as easy as it looks.

They're a little like jokes, some of them just fall flat.

I felt that one did

https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/10/21/good-analogies/

Nothing wrong with the analogy, you didn't like it because it didn't fit your worldview.

In responding, you have firstly completely misinterpreted it, and secondly, made a general criticism of analogies, without addressing any of the particular points actually raised.

Akrasia

Mr Bumble wrote: »

I always find you've lost the argument when you're posting stuff like this.
The words quoted are well up there on the list of the most condescending posts in the history of Boards.
Your passionate wish to hector everyone into believing your point of view may be you life's work but I can't read any more.
You've driven me out of this thread with your unimpeachable certainty about everything. Have a nice Grand Solar Minimum.

you've obviously not been reading my posts then. I don't want people to believe my point of view, I want people to believe the science, and I don't want people peddling conspiracy theories instead of the accepting the science behind global warming.

I was pushed to resort to the kind of language as above with Dense because he engages in hit and run arguments using misrepresentation and conflating words and meanings to generate a warped version of events.

I was going to define these terms for him, but I knew he would ignore it, so the only hope I had of getting him to acknowledge the meaning of these terms was to get him to define them himself, or at least think about the definitions privately and realise he's been getting mixed up.