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

dense

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Come to think of it, why should we care what 'the science' has to say about climate change? since it is science that created this mess in the first place, and basically destroyed and exploited every possible natural resource on the planet?

What is the point of calling "natural resources" natural resources if it is to be inferred that we should not exploit them as resources?

Where was the "alternative" resource going to come from, which provided the means for advancement in all aspects of life since the industrial revolution?

(I accept advancements can be judged subjectively, but the option remains for everyone to eschew them, but I don't see that happening.)

If someone answers "the sun", "windmills", the progress of that technology stalled and was overtake unless I'm mistaken?

Or are the conspiracy theories about "big oil" sabotaging alternative energy inventions and "disappearing" other energy breakthroughs actually true?


I asked in the thread before, no one answered so it's not known whether anyone believes in any of that or whether they think it's bunkum.


If it's bunkum it doesn't say much for alternative energy.



Thing is, even the most alarmed by C02 here is unwilling to bother about their own carbon footprint, whilst using away on those aforementioned natural resources.


So there is a strange dichotomy in this whole doctrine about how we, sorry, other people should be something something these natural resources that have been so peculiarly misnamed and whilst we remain contentedly exploiting them.

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You will actually find the majority of our environmental damage is due to our economic activities, and over reliance on fundamentally flawed political and economic ideologies such as neoliberalism and particularly neoclassical theory, whereby ideas such as continual 'growth' must be persued at all costs, even though it is having detrimental negative effects on our planet, and if allowed to continue, will more than likely, accelerate the end of our plants ability to harbor life, including human life.

Do you agree with this sort of talk then:


https://aim4truth.org/2017/04/24/the-real-energy-revolution-has-begun/



Which essentially says that most of the ills of the world can be laid at the feet of "big oil" and that (presumably amazing, cheap, and efficient) alternative energies abound theoretically, but "big oil" has scuppered them all and screwed with their patents etc.etc.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Thanks for the tip...

but where exactly did I say or imply that 'all science is stupid'? Grant it, a lot of it is pointless, for example, why should we care if NASA sends rockets to Mars? it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the lives of the billions here on earth, many of them which are chronically underfed with no basic healthcare available to them.


Come to think of it, why should we care what 'the science' has to say about climate change? since it is science that created this mess in the first place, and basically destroyed and exploited every possible natural resource on the planet? Maybe science should stick to what it knows best, like creating even more 'sophisticated' weaponry so murderous western states can sell them for huge profits to already war crippled countries.

Yeah, F*ck science, says the guy typing on a computer using wifi to post on the internet, in a web forum dedicated to the science of weather forecasting.

NASA sending robots to space is part of the scientific community that puts satellites into orbit to provide communications services around the world, GPS, weather prediction services, mapping, environmental monitoring etc

NASA and other scientists developing new technology is what will ultimately help solve the problem of scarce natural resources through allowing us access to minerals beyond our own planet, or recycle and reuse the mineral wealth already here, and develop new materials technology that will give common elements the properties that we can currently only get from rare metals, and these scientists may ultimately help avoid disaster if we can intercept an asteroid on a collision course with earth.

These scientists are warning us now of the environmental destruction that we are causing and warning us of what will happen to future generations if we don't do something about it.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I totally agree, but all this is not possible without 'the science'.

Let's not pretend that 'science', in its base form, and in all of its forms, has any moral or ethical standing.

Science is just a methodology that creates predictive models that can be tested and used to develop technology or improve our understanding of the universe.

It's amoral, but so what, it's the only way humans have ever properly improved our understanding of nature. Before science, we had shamans and prophets, superstitions and domination by brute force.

Science can be misused by politics or corporate interests, and the fruits of scientific discovery can be utilised by anyone of any motivation to do good or do evil. On this debate, the overwhelming majority of academic scientists supporting the AGW hypothesis, and a tiny number of scientists, some of whom with a record of shilling themselves for corporate propaganda who are doing everything they can to manufacture doubt and uncertainty in order to delay action for their own selfish or ideological reasons.

Oneiric 3

'Says the guy who is using a computer* You mean that same computer that is contributing to my 'carbon footprint', that you tut tut at constantly?


The last couple of posts here really show just easily it is to misinterpret what is being said. I don't need a lecture as to what science is or is not. Yes, science is a tool, a study. But when people begin using it as a means to push a personal ideology, then it ceases to become science, and instead becomes a form of scientism. I also become deeply suspicious of people who use this scientism as a way to look back on the ways of our ancestors with a sort of foundationalless disdain. "Look how far we have come, people were sooooo backward back then, how silly they were", without any sense of irony, because these are the same people who pontificate about how we are destroying the planet because of our so-called 'enlightened' and advance technological ways.


Such horse****.

Oneiric 3

dense wrote: »

What is the point of calling "natural resources" natural resources if it is to be inferred that we should not exploit them as resources?

Where was the "alternative" resource going to come from, which provided the means for advancement in all aspects of life since the industrial revolution?

(I accept advancements can be judged subjectively, but the option remains for everyone to eschew them, but I don't see that happening.)

If someone answers "the sun", "windmills", the progress of that technology stalled and was overtake unless I'm mistaken?

Or are the conspiracy theories about "big oil" sabotaging alternative energy inventions and "disappearing" other energy breakthroughs actually true?


I asked in the thread before, no one answered so it's not known whether anyone believes in any of that or whether they think it's bunkum.


If it's bunkum it doesn't say much for alternative energy.



Thing is, even the most alarmed by C02 here is unwilling to bother about their own carbon footprint, whilst using away on those aforementioned natural resources.


So there is a strange dichotomy in this whole doctrine about how we, sorry, other people should be something something these natural resources that have been so peculiarly misnamed and whilst we remain contentedly exploiting them.

Fair points Dense.

You might be interested in this article that reveal that all this moralising by the chattering classes about 'climate change' and 'sustainable development' is just another means for a very privledgd minority to keep little brown people in their place.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/how-the-world-bank-keeps-poor-nations-poor/

The world is falling down around them, and they can't see it. Too busy tut tutting about how bad we little people are by putting on a coal fire to warm our bots on a cold winter's evening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeFCmGfadI8

They'll learn.. the hard way.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Says the guy who is using a computer* You mean that same computer that is contributing to my 'carbon footprint', that you tut tut at constantly?


The last couple of posts here really show just easily it is to misinterpret what is being said. I don't need a lecture as to what science is or is not. Yes, science is a tool, a study. But when people begin using it as a means to push a personal ideology, then it ceases to become science, and instead becomes a form of scientism. I also become deeply suspicious of people who use this scientism as a way to look back on the ways of our ancestors with a sort of foundationalless disdain. "Look how far we have come, people were sooooo backward back then, how silly they were", without any sense of irony, because these are the same people who pontificate about how we are destroying the planet because of our so-called 'enlightened' and advance technological ways.


Such horse****.

Hey, you're the one who came in here and posted a link to a paper that has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with climate change and your only commentary was to be proud that you don't understand it because you think it's pointless

We were backwards in the past, that's the definition of the word backwards in this context. Pre-scientific civilisations were often plagued with horrific and barbaric practises based on misunderstandings on what caused diseases or natural disasters. We don't do human sacrifices anymore to get the rain gods to bring us rain. We try to understand the causes for how our weather works, and we establish patterns and trends and plan for the future. We build reservoirs and aquaducts when we identify that there is a risk of water shortages in the future.

Allocation of resources is a political decision, you can't blame scientists for this, and resource allocation and ownership is the root cause of many of the worlds problems


We're not destroying the planet because of our technological ways. We have the technology to both preserve the environment, and destroy it. The choice of how we use technology is down to how we run our political and economic systems.

If governments of the world were more forward thinking and better educated and more scientific in their approach to political and economic policy, then we would have a brighter future ahead of us. If the vast majority of the best trained experts in a field are telling you we're doing something that is going to cause enormous problems in the future, we should listen to them instead of putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring them because of some wierd view that believing the best available evidence is some kind of ideological bias.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Fair points Dense.

You might be interested in this article that reveal that all this moralising by the chattering classes about 'climate change' and 'sustainable development' is just another means for a very privledgd minority to keep little brown people in their place.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/how-the-world-bank-keeps-poor-nations-poor/

The world is falling down around them, and they can't see it. Too busy tut tutting about how bad we little people are by putting on a coal fire to warm our bots on a cold winter's evening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeFCmGfadI8

They'll learn.. the hard way.

People who advocate for climate change action, like me, also advocate for better distribution of resources and climate justice (dense will probably have something to say about that)

The people most at risk from climate change are amongst the poorest people in the world.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

If governments of the world were more forward thinking and better educated and more scientific in their approach to political and economic policy, then we would have a brighter future ahead of us. If the vast majority of the best trained experts in a field are telling you we're doing something that is going to cause enormous problems in the future, we should listen to them instead of putting our fingers in our ears and ignoring them because of some wierd view that believing the best available evidence is some kind of ideological bias.

A nice, cosy solution but also based on pure fantasy which I find unbecoming of you. Most of our world leaders are 'educated' and are very scientific in their approach, but we see them as not being so because we don't like the approach they take. For all their faults, and there are many, governments have much to deal with, different groups to appease, a society to maintain and so on and so forth. You think a group of climate scientists, or scientists of any other field (whose educational qualifications are often very limited to a very narrow and specific field) holding that position of power would do a better job? I don't think so. People are not atoms and the complexities of human nature and society do not fit into nice neat little boxes


You also suggest that politics 'abuses' science. How does this divert blame from those scientists who profiteer from the development of weaponry so 'advanced', with the specific intention of causing as much death and destruction as possible to the greatest number, that the human mind cannot even comprehend it? Picking out the 'good' bits of science and ignoring the bad does not make that bad look any more good.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

NASA and other scientists developing new technology is what will ultimately help solve the problem of scarce natural resources through allowing us access to minerals beyond our own planet, or recycle and reuse the mineral wealth already here, and develop new materials technology that will give common elements the properties that we can currently only get from rare metals, and these scientists may ultimately help avoid disaster if we can intercept an asteroid on a collision course with earth.

"Natural resources" keep popping up in the conversation, but this time they are in fact a resource and a now the scarcity of them is a problem!


As this thread continues it is becoming more and more evident that people really need to think about what their position on all of this is, if, on the one hand they're decrying other people's use of natural resources whilst having no issues about using them themselves, and, on the other hand, now simultaneously saying they're concerned about them running out.

Oneiric 3

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/world/europe/slovenia-election.html


Charles Darwin would surely approve:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin/

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

NASA and other scientists developing new technology is what will ultimately help solve the problem of scarce natural resources through allowing us access to minerals beyond our own planet, or recycle and reuse the mineral wealth already here, and develop new materials technology that will give common elements the properties that we can currently only get from rare metals, and these scientists may ultimately help avoid disaster if we can intercept an asteroid on a collision course with earth.

That's quite a list of science fiction there. It all depends on this guy...

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

People who advocate for climate change action, like me, also advocate for better distribution of resources and climate justice (dense will probably have something to say about that)

Yes, from my reading of the public discourse, "climate change advocates" always advocate that they believe it is up to others to do something.

The typical, climate-alarmed Guardian commenter crying out for someone to give them less shiny toys to play with comes to mind here.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

A nice, cosy solution but also based on pure fantasy which I find unbecoming of you. Most of our world leaders are 'educated' and are very scientific in their approach, but we see them as not being so because we don't like the approach they take. For all their faults, and there are many, governments have much to deal with, different groups to appease, a society to maintain and so on and so forth. You think a group of climate scientists, or scientists of any other field (whose educational qualifications are often very limited to a very narrow and specific field) holding that position of power would do a better job? I don't think so. People are not atoms and the complexities of human nature and society do not fit into nice neat little boxes


You also suggest that politics 'abuses' science. How does this divert blame from those scientists who profiteer from the development of weaponry so 'advanced', with the specific intention of causing as much death and destruction as possible to the greatest number, that the human mind cannot even comprehend it? Picking out the 'good' bits of science and ignoring the bad does not make that bad look any more good.

By abusing science, I mean dishonesty, like when politicians commission reports and instruct the authors to find the results that they want to find, or commission reports and bury any results that they don't like, or the 'sexing up' of the WMD report for the Iraq war for example, Or when politicians use selection bias to pick and choose reports that support their political agenda rather than the best available evidence. Politicians are skilled at sophistry, so they can appear to be making claims supported by evidence and science while actually misrepresenting what the best available evidence actually says.

This selection bias is one of the biggest ways that science can be perverted by ideology and everyone is guilty of it on some level. We should periodically re-assess our core beliefs and do an internal meta analysis of the evidence to see if what we believe is actually supported by the evidence, or if we are deluding ourselves.

Regarding killer evil scientists making weapons of mass destruction. These are humans who capable of internally reconciling their work with the moral consequences of their productive output.

Some of them are callous mercenaries who just want personal reward so go to work in 'the private sector' because that's where the most money is. Others are there because they believe that their technology will be used to defend human life more than to take it, others are less philosophical about it and just see it as a job and they're just doing their job in a legal industry in a competitive jobs market where people can't always choose who their employer is. You'll hardly ever hear the names of the scientists who work in these weapons industries, they're not working for themselves, for their own reputation, they're working for their employers, their employers dictate their research and own their output.

Not all scientists are driven to make the world a better place, but there is a sub section of research scientists in academic fields. These are lower paid sectors, these are in a sector that is extremely competitive but also the motivation to make a good name for yourself means you have to produce good quality, honest analysis that stands up to the scrutiny of your peers.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

That's quite a list of science fiction there. It all depends on this guy...

What part of that was science fiction?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

What part of that was science fiction?

"Access minerals beyond our own planet".
"Diverting asteroids".

Those.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

"Access minerals beyond our own planet".
"Diverting asteroids".

Those.

I was arguing against someone who said the mars rovers are pointless by saying that these missions allow us to develop the technology that we will eventually use for other more practical purposes. Are you saying that if an asteroid was detected that was going to collide with earth, that we wouldn't try to divert it?

Are you suggesting that we would never try to extract minerals from an asteroid once the technology is mature?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/03/world/europe/slovenia-election.html


Charles Darwin would surely approve:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin/

Darwin was a product of his time, he viewed the 'savage' tribes as a sub species of humans in the same way chimps and orangutangs are all different varieties of great apes. He never said he wanted these 'species' to be eliminated, he just thought that they would be out competed by the better adapted species competing for the same resources, he thought these 'savages' would be subject to the same evolutionary natural selection that other sub species are and would eventually go extinct

He was wrong, and he was proven wrong by better understanding of human genetics and we now know, and have done for a long time that these tribes and 'races' are all homo sapiens with very little genetic differences distinguishing them from caucasian man.

The great thing about science is that we can throw out the bad ideas and keep the good ones. The solution to bad science is better science. Politics and ideology can pervert this by clinging onto bad ideas because they have an emotional or ideological attachment to them.

dense

If only all the fantastic, environmentally friendly, alternative, efficient energies discovered by the scientific community hadn't been suppressed, we wouldn't have emitted so much planet-damaging C02 in the last century.


But governments have conspired with capitalist fossil fuel companies to ruin the planet for our grandchildren.



http://www.theorionproject.org/en/suppressed.html


http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/another-green-energy-technology



:rolleyes:

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Darwin was a product of his time, he viewed the 'savage' tribes as a sub species of humans in the same way chimps and orangutangs are all different varieties of great apes. He never said he wanted these 'species' to be eliminated, he just thought that they would be out competed by the better adapted species competing for the same resources, he thought these 'savages' would be subject to the same evolutionary natural selection that other sub species are and would eventually go extinct

He was wrong, and he was proven wrong by better understanding of human genetics and we now know, and have done for a long time that these tribes and 'races' are all homo sapiens with very little genetic differences distinguishing them from caucasian man.

The great thing about science is that we can throw out the bad ideas and keep the good ones. The solution to bad science is better science. Politics and ideology can pervert this by clinging onto bad ideas because they have an emotional or ideological attachment to them.

"A product of his time'. This argument seems to be used a lot in the attempt try and explain away little bits of info that they don't like or does not fit in with their clinical, postcard view of the world.

Throwing out bad ideas and keeping the good ones does not sound like sound science to me. If science is 'amoral', as we both agree it is, why, in this case, are you applying your own subjective interpretation of it?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I was arguing against someone who said the mars rovers are pointless by saying that these missions allow us to develop the technology that we will eventually use for other more practical purposes. Are you saying that if an asteroid was detected that was going to collide with earth, that we wouldn't try to divert it?

Are you suggesting that we would never try to extract minerals from an asteroid once the technology is mature?

No matter how powerful we think are, no amount of lasers or space mirrors will be able to divert an asteroid weighing millions of tonnes travelling at kms per second.

You're saying mining minerals from an asteroid in Space? How much exactly do you think we could get from one? How to do it? Which minerals are we so severely lacking here on Earth but are ripe for the picking out there in Space?

As I said, Science Fiction.

Oneiric 3

So, to sum up. Developing countries have the boot stamped down on their face (repeatedly) by 'concerned' penthouse dwelling climate advocates, but some flighty and unrealistic idea about exploiting planet Mars for its resources is 'scientific endeavour' that is to be embraced. Essentially, this all equates to nothing.

Gaoth Laidir

As it happens I'm half way through reading this book at the moment. All about migrating the human race to Space Noah-style as the moon explodes. They intercept an icy asteroid and all, proper science fiction style.

"Seveneves" by Neal Stephenson.

Start reading it for free: http://a.co/9EZuwqx

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No matter how powerful we think are, no amount of lasers or space mirrors will be able to divert an asteroid weighing millions of tonnes travelling at kms per second.

You're saying mining minerals from an asteroid in Space? How much exactly do you think we could get from one? How to do it? Which minerals are we so severely lacking here on Earth but are ripe for the picking out there in Space?

As I said, Science Fiction.

You're an expert at orbital dynamics as well as climatology and everything else it seems.

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool" (Shakespeare)

It doesn't take as much energy as you'd think to deflect a large asteroid so that it misses earth

Tiny changes in velocity from a long way out will be enough to deflect it

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid-deflection-mission-enters-next-design-phase

And there have already been missions launched to survey and return samples of Asteroids by NASA and JAXA

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

As it happens I'm half way through reading this book at the moment. All about migrating the human race to Space Noah-style as the moon explodes. They intercept an icy asteroid and all, proper science fiction style.

"Seveneves" by Neal Stephenson.

Start reading it for free: http://a.co/9EZuwqx

Thanks for the recommendation, I like SciFi but I prefer hard SciFi. Does this book have realistic physics and technology or is it full of dilithium crystals?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So, to sum up. Developing countries have the boot stamped down on their face (repeatedly) by 'concerned' penthouse dwelling climate advocates, but some flighty and unrealistic idea about exploiting planet Mars for its resources is 'scientific endeavour' that is to be embraced. Essentially, this all equates to nothing.

Where do developing countries get penalized by climate change activists. If anything, renewable energy gives them opportunities to develop decentralised energy and water infrastructure. The existing oil and gas regime has hardly been a fertile environment for sustainable development in LDCs

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You're an expert at orbital dynamics as well as climatology and everything else it seems.

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool" (Shakespeare)

It doesn't take as much energy as you'd think to deflect a large asteroid so that it misses earth

Tiny changes in velocity from a long way out will be enough to deflect it

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid-deflection-mission-enters-next-design-phase

All a purely theoretical exercise that has not been proven. Call me a fool all you want, I'll see you back here in 2022.

And there have already been missions launched to survey and return samples of Asteroids by NASA and JAXA

Taking a sample is one thing, "extracting minerals from an asteroid... to ultimately help solve the problem of scarce natural resources through allowing us access to minerals beyond our own planet" (i.e. harvesting useful quantities of minerals from an asteroid) is another. Again, which minerals are you talking about? And for what?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

"A product of his time'. This argument seems to be used a lot in the attempt try and explain away little bits of info that they don't like or does not fit in with their clinical, postcard view of the world.

Its an explanation not a justification. ,we are all products of our time (and place).
You can't blame people for being ignorant about things that haven't been discovered yet.

Throwing out bad ideas and keeping the good ones does not sound like sound science to me. If science is 'amoral', as we both agree it is, why, in this case, are you applying your own subjective interpretation of it?

Bad ideas are ideas that are do not fulfill their intended objectives if implemented.

They can be assessed scientifically.

Many ideas are so bad they get rejected outright and never get implemented. Some ideas are tried and fail, and scientific assessment would find that it was flawed either in its conception or its implementation or both, and other ideas are good ideas but never get tested because there are entrenched interest groups who block them because they might actually work.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Where do developing countries get penalized by climate change activists.

How about right here, for starters?



https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/953188/eu-news-paris-climate-change-agreement-ireland-fined


https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0601/967646-sse-airtricity-price-increase/

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

How about right here, for starters?

What's your point here?