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

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Western civilisation is fragile. Scarily fragile considering how quickly countries like Germany in 1930s turned into a murderous fascist dictatorship, and relatively liberal democracies like the USA fall in behind the leadership of a sociopathic authoritarian man child, the UK voting to commit economic suicide in Brexit, the Italians going through political crisis...

.

Exactly, but your observation does not even consider the 'Why'.

Why did Brexit happen? What were the circumstances on the ground that led to the election of Trump? Why are populist uprisings across Europe happening?Events like these do not just occur spontaneously.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'My certainty that it is not real'. 'My faith based opinion' etc.

Scientism is a very real concept and for many, it has become a replacement religion of sorts.

Isn't your opinion based entirely on 'faith' in 'the science'? Have you seen, first hand, the effects of climate change, or are you just taking the word of others that it must be true? If the latter, then that is faith.

What is your position based on?
A hunch?

How do you decide what to believe?

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

What is your position based on?
A hunch?

How do you decide what to believe?

So that is a yes then?


Most of what we 'believe', if we believe in anything at all, is faith based belief, including the belief that the science of climate, or a view of a political leader, is absolute. Whether that faith is misplaced or not is another question.


As an example, you said above that the great orange one was an 'authoritarian', which suggests that this is what you believe, but what proof is out there that he actually is an actual authoritarian? Is this belief of yours based on fact, or just the general consensus that has been fuelled in no small part by partisan pundits and media outlets?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'My certainty that it is not real'. 'My faith based opinion' etc.

Scientism is a very real concept and for many, it has become a replacement religion of sorts.

Isn't your opinion based entirely on 'faith' in 'the science'? Have you seen, first hand, the effects of climate change, or are you just taking the word of others that it must be true? If the latter, then that is faith.

There’s quite a difference, even if you don’t know the science, in trusting scientists or technologists compared to non experts, or religious preachers.

We do this everyday when we use the internet or get on a plane, or trust medical science.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that getting on a plane is the same as jumping off a building because in the first case we put our faith in science without understanding aerodynamics ourselves and in the latter case we jumped off because the preacher said faith in God would keep us airborne.

Oneiric 3

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There’s quite a difference, even if you don’t know the science, in trusting scientists or technologists compared to non experts, or religious preachers.

We do this everyday when we use the internet or get on a plane, or trust medical science.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that getting on a plane is the same as jumping off a building because in the first case we put our trust in science without understanding aerodynamics ourselves and in the latter case we jumped off because the preacher said trust in God would keep us airborne.

My argument is equivalent to no such thing.

Trust is trust, and to place trust in something means you hold a certain amount of faith in that target of trust. Faith in medical science can be held so strongly that placebos have been known to work (in some cases) as well as actual medicine. Faith in aviation can lead to death. A level of unthinkingness is required, which, as you say, is something we do without thinking!

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So that is a yes then?

No, it was a question about on what basis you form your opinion/belief/knowledge on a subject.

Most of what we 'believe', if we believe in anything at all, is faith based belief, including the belief that the science of climate, or a view of a political leader, is absolute. Whether that faith is misplaced or not is another question.

No it isn't. There is an entire category of philosophy called Epistemology which I don't want to go into because that's a whole forum in itself, and then there are heuristics that inform how our brain perceives truth or what our brain chooses to process as true versus what it chooses to be skeptical of.

We can arrive at considered beliefs by applying logic and reason to a question, whether it's a mathematical proof, or a scientific investigation. Someone who 'believes' that the odds of winning the Irish lottery are 1 in 10,737,573 because he did the maths and is confident in his maths skills is not the same kind of belief as someone who believes his chances of winning the lottery are 'good' because 'if you're not in you can't win'.

While we can never know anything for absolute certain, this doesn't mean we are equally uncertain about every claim. Science is the absolute gold standard in how we can separate reality from fiction.

As an example, you said above that the great orange one was an 'authoritarian', which suggests that this is what you believe, but what proof is out there that he actually is an actual authoritarian? Is this belief of yours based on fact, or just the general consensus that has been fuelled in no small part by partisan pundits and media outlets?

There's an enormous amount of evidence that he is an authoritarian. You need to stop looking at things in terms of proof, proof is for mathematics alcohol and tv courtroom dramas. Evidence is the best we can hope for when we are making our judgements about reality.

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

My argument is equivalent to no such thing.

Trust is trust, and to place trust in something means you hold a certain amount of faith in that target of trust. Faith in medical science can be held so strongly that placebos have been known to work (in some cases) as well as actual medicine. Faith in aviation can lead to death. A level of unthinkingness is required, which, as you say, is something we do without thinking!

You're using the word faith in a very oblique way.

What is the difference between trust and faith?

BTW, there is no evidence that placebo's 'work' at all.

Faith in aviation leads to death?
What? If you're an idiot and try to run off a cliff with feathers stuck to your arms?

Our relatively safe aviation system is not based on faith, it's based on rigorous standards in the construction, maintenance and operation of airplanes and air traffic control systems. We don't just trust Rolls Royce to manufacture their jet engines properly, they have extremely careful internal quality control systems and oversight by regulators and clients in multiple juristictions.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

There's an enormous amount of evidence that he is an authoritarian. You need to stop looking at things in terms of proof, proof is for mathematics alcohol and tv courtroom dramas. Evidence is the best we can hope for when we are making our judgements about reality.

'Stop looking at things in terms of proof". Your idea of science must differ to mine.. but I agree, basing a truth on 'evidence', rather than 'proof' is not the same thing as saying it is true, because as you and I know, fact is not the forte of science.

Regarding Trump, is there 'an enormous amount of evidence' that he is authoritarian, or does this vast amount of evidence only exist in your mind because you want/need it to be true. Serious question.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

'Stop looking at things in terms of proof". Your idea of science must differ to mine.. but I agree, basing a truth on 'evidence', rather than 'proof' is not the same thing as saying it is true, because as you and I know, fact is not the forte of science.

Regarding Trump, is there 'an enormous amount of evidence' that he is authoritarian, or does this vast amount of evidence only exist in your mind because you want/need it to be true. Serious question.

Fact is not the forte of science?

What now?

Oneiric 3

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Fact is not the forte of science?

What now?

Fact = absolute truth. Is science absolute truth, or the pursuit of absolute truth?

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Fact = absolute truth. Is science absolute truth, or the pursuit of absolute truth?

No it isn't. Its about approaching truth. Its about falsifying bad ideas and testing hypothesis to see where they fail.
Science is fundamentally about verifying and testing and repeating. Its as far from faith as you can get.

There is bad science out there but the best way of revealing that is through better science

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

No it isn't. Its about approaching truth. Its about falsifying bad ideas and testing hypothesis to see where they fail.
Science is fundamentally about verifying and testing and repeating. Its as far from faith as you can get.

There is bad science out there but the best way of revealing that is through better science

So basically, science is not 'fact', but what we believe to be true of the physical world at this point in time.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Science is fundamentally about verifying and testing and repeating. Its as far from faith as you can get.

It looks like you're confusing real science with climate science which relies on "experts" talking about C02 in human breath causing problems in the Arctic and the Pope to spread it's faith.




https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-05/pope-francis-indulgence-world-meeting-families-dublin.html

Akrasia

Science is a method of enquiry, a way of investigating the world around us, of testing hypothesis and refining ideas.

There are scientific facts, things like the atomic weight of the elements are facts, facts like the velocity required for an object to escape the earths gravity (about 11.2km/s), another scientific fact is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if we increase the concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere by any given amount, we can calculate with almost complete certainty how much extra solar energy this will trap within the Earth's atmosphere.

It's a property of fundamental physics that is extremely well understood.

The complicating factor is that radiative forcing from CO2 is only part of the problem Water vapour is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. But water vapour concentration depends entirely on the temperature of the air. Warmer air holds more water vapour, cold air holds less water vapour, so water vapour is seen as a positive feedback. If CO2 concentrations cause a small increase in air temperature, water vapour then increases in concentration which in turn increases the capacity for that same air to hold more water vapour.

CO2 and Water vapour as greenhouse gasses are both extremely well understood by climate scientists and physics. They can be modelled by relatively simple equations. But water vapour is linked to cloud formation, and this is the 'gap' in our understanding that climate skeptics tend to hide behind. Clouds are both a positive and a negative feedback. They can both reflect heat and trap heat depending on what type of clouds they are (at night time, clouds are always positive feedbacks)

There is genuine scientific debate on the role of clouds in climate change, but from what I have seen, the evidence seems to point towards either clouds being a net positive feedback, or a very weak net negative feedback, and not enough to compensate for all the other positive feedbacks that are pushing global temperatures upwards.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

It looks like you're confusing real science with climate science which relies on "experts" talking about C02 in human breath causing problems in the Arctic and the Pope to spread it's faith.




https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-05/pope-francis-indulgence-world-meeting-families-dublin.html

Wow, you still have it Dense. You're still making me laugh. You're not as funny as Alan Partridge, but as satire goes on an internet message board, it's pretty good.

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

Wow, you still have it Dense. You're still making me laugh.

Not to worry, the scientific community says it's natural to LOL, when faced with uncomfortable facts etc.

Nervous laughter is laughter evoked from an audience's expression of embarrassment, alarm, discomfort or confusion, rather than amusement.

Nervous laughter is a physical reaction to stress, tension, confusion, or anxiety. Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran states "We have nervous laughter because we want to make ourselves think what horrible thing we encountered isn't really as horrible as it appears, something we want to believe."

Those are the most embarrassing times, too, naturally. Psychologist and neuroscientist Robert Provine, from the University of Maryland, studied over 1,200 "laughter episodes" and determined that 80% of laughter isn't a response to an intentional joke.[1]

Akrasia wrote: »

Lol.

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

dense

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/berkeley-declares-climate-emergency-worse-than-world-war-ii-demands-humane-population-control.html

The environmentalists reveal their endgame.

Hysterical Berkeley City Council declares 'climate emergency' worse than World War II, demands 'humane' population control

The resolution, introduced in the ultra-progressive city by councilwoman Cheryl Davila, then invokes Pope Francis' comment that humanity is on the verge of global "suicide" and that "God's creation" is at stake.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/13/berkeley-declares-climate-emergency-worse-than-world-war-ii-demands-humane-population-control.html

The environmentalists reveal their endgame.

Hysterical Berkeley City Council declares 'climate emergency' worse than World War II, demands 'humane' population control

Did you read the city council resolution?
Can you quote me the part that talks about 'population control'

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Not to worry, the scientific community says it's natural to LOL, when faced with uncomfortable facts etc.






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

its also natural to laugh at satire and comedy. I can't believe that anyone actually believes some of the nonsense you come out with, so I'm assuming you're attempting satire.

I mean, you just said that People not Profit are responsible for pushing global warming as an agenda. Its ludicrous.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Did you read the city council resolution?
Can you quote me the part that talks about 'population control'

WHEREAS, reversing ecological overshoot and halting the sixth mass extinction
requires an effort to preserve and restore half Earth’s biodiversity in interconnected
wildlife corridors and to humanely stabilize population. as well as a shift toward a
climate-resilient society and culture that prioritize conservation, community, and mutual
aid over consumerism and narcissism;

You should like this, Akrasia. They use the same hyperbolic language as you.

The global economy’s overshoot of
ecological limits and, increasingly climate change, are driving a global fresh water
scarcity crisis and the sixth mass extinction of species, which could devastate much of
life on earth for the next 10 million years. All this and more demonstrate we are in the
midst of a climate emergency.

the Greenland Ice Sheet, which is likely to completely collapse at 1.6°C
warming, which NASA scientists have concluded would lead to 23 feet of sea-level rise,
billions of climate refugees, and a “global-scale catastrophe”;

it is an act of unspeakable injustice and cruelty to knowingly subject our
fellow humans now and into the future to societal disintegration, food and clean water
shortages, economic collapse, and early death on an increasingly uninhabitable planet;

Of course they also throw in the 2017 California floods and wildfires as "evidence" to back up their nonsense.

Read it all here

https://twitter.com/MobilizeClimate/status/1006784365743964160?s=19

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

its also natural to laugh at satire and comedy. I can't believe that anyone actually believes some of the nonsense you come out with, so I'm assuming you're attempting satire.

I mean, you just said that People not Profit are responsible for pushing global warming as an agenda. Its ludicrous.

No, People Before Profit, you might have heard of them?

Unless the dancers against climate change have gotten it wrong again?
Someone should tell them-

From their very own website:

This Wednesday February 7th could prove to be a turning point for Irish climate policy.

The Climate Emergency Measures Bill [1] introduced by Bríd Smith TD, People Before Profit, will be debated this Wednesday at 3:35pm.

https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/news/2018/02/05/5-simple-things-you-can-do-to-support-the-climate/

I do agree it does read like an attempt at satire, but they seem deadly serious about it.

We really shouldn't laugh, they might be offended.

Wanderer78

dense wrote:

No, People Before Profit, you might have heard of them?

Left leaning political parties, particularly those with left leaning economic ideologies, are largely powerless in modern politics, so it's baffling to think you think they are to blame for such issues.

dense

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Left leaning political parties, particularly those with left leaning economic ideologies, are largely powerless in modern politics, so it's baffling to think you think they are to blame for such issues.

Pretending to be baffled in order to prevent the socialists from claiming they've introduced the Climate Emergency Measures Bill is a strange tactic to adopt.

Let's cut the permanently whinging socialists some slack here and give them the credit they deserve for introducing this very important emergency measure.

http://www.bridsmith.net/brid-smith-td-introduces-climate-emergency-measures-bill-2017/

It's the only thing they've managed to do other than shout about water charges.

Wanderer78

dense wrote: »

Pretending to be baffled in order to prevent the socialists from claiming they've introduced the Climate Emergency Measures Bill is a strange tactic to adopt.

Let's cut the permanently whinging socialists some slack here and give them the credit they deserve for introducing this very important emergency measure.

http://www.bridsmith.net/brid-smith-td-introduces-climate-emergency-measures-bill-2017/

It's the only thing they've managed to do other than shout about water charges.

again, left leaning economic policies have played little or no part in modern economics, its clearly obvious we ve been engaging in highly conservative economics for decades now, particularly since the age of financialization.

Pa ElGrande

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, left leaning economic policies have played little or no part in modern economics, its clearly obvious we ve been engaging in highly conservative economics for decades now, particularly since the age of financialization.

The modern welfare state is built on left leaning economic policies or did you miss the part about taxes especially the progressive income tax you pay and sovereign debt burden that you carry along with the rest of us.

As I have said in a previous post climate change has become a vehicle for various sectional interests ranging from socialists pushing their agenda under the guise of climate justice to the financiers pushing carbon trading and subsidies, all combine to extract wealth from less well off people to enrich themselves and their patrons.

Pa ElGrande

HOW THE EARTH BECAME A HOTHOUSE: BY H2O
Wim Röst

ABSTRACT

Water, H2O, determines the ‘General Background Temperature’ for the Earth, resulting in Hothouse and Ice House Climate States. During geological periods the movement of continents changes the position of
continents, oceans and seas. Because of the different configurations, a dominant warm or a dominant cold deep-water production configuration ‘sets’ average temperatures for the deep oceans. Changing vertical oceanic circulation changes surface temperatures, especially in the higher latitudes. During a Hot House State, higher temperatures in the high latitudes result in a high water-vapor concentration that prevents a rapid loss of thermal energy by the Earth.

These three processes, plate tectonics (continental drift), vertical oceanic circulation variability and variations in atmospheric water vapor concentration and distribution, caused previous Hot House and Warm House Climate States. A change in the working of those mechanisms resulted in a transition from the previous Hot House Climate State to the very cold ‘Ice House State’ that we live in now. That change was set in motion by the changing configuration of continents, oceans and seas.

source

Wanderer78

Pa ElGrande wrote:

The modern welfare state is built on left leaning economic policies or did you miss the part about taxes especially

The modern welfare state has been under attack for decades now with highly conservative economic policies based proudly on the neoclassical school of thought, whereby constructs such as supply and demand, and ultimately market equilibrium persist.

Particularly since the age of financialization, it is believed, that reducing tax on capital and increasing tax on labour is best, as this will encourage growth in our economies, resulting in a 'trickle down' effect on this new found wealth, but this hasn't turned out as planned, as it seems, the only thing that has truly trickled down, has been the debts that have been created from this process. The true 'debt burden', is in fact private debt, which has been growing very quickly in this age of financialization, largely as a result of neoclassical thinking. It's important to realise, many of our left leaning political parties have also fallen foul of this thinking, hence a slow decline in their support, effectively they abandoned their base, i.e. the working classes. Progressive, I think not!

Not only has possible the majority of people fallen to this thinking, but so to has our planet, as deeply embedded in the neoclassical thinking are ideas such as 'continual growth', of which is in fact unsustainable, not just for all living species, but also our planet, i.e. we re potentially accelerating our own demise, as British Economist kate raworth says, the only things that grow continually in the biological world, are things such as cancer.

Akrasia

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

HOW THE EARTH BECAME A HOTHOUSE: BY H2O
Wim Röst

Get back to me when this guy has his theory accepted for publication in a reputable peer reviewed journal.

The internet is full of cranks and their pet theories.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

No, People Before Profit, you might have heard of them?

Unless the dancers against climate change have gotten it wrong again?
Someone should tell them-

From their very own website:
https://www.stopclimatechaos.ie/news/2018/02/05/5-simple-things-you-can-do-to-support-the-climate/

I do agree it does read like an attempt at satire, but they seem deadly serious about it.

We really shouldn't laugh, they might be offended.

So I can add 'the political system' to 'Climate science' as another thing that you have no understanding of

Any elected TD or senator can introduce a private members bill for debate, it doesn't mean it's going to pass, and even if it passes, it doesn't mean it's going to get through committee and the senate and become law. This bill is now in committee, I doubt it's ever going to become an act in it's current guise.

It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that socialists have been in any way responsible for the fact that there is a global scientific consensus that we need to address climate change, or that socialists in Ireland have pushed the center left or center right political parties to agree to tackle climate change. It's ludicrous and if this is your actual considered belief on the subject, then you're an unwitting satire of your own position.

On the other hand, there is enormous evidence that certain 'libertarian' political parties and institution have been doing a lot to try and corrupt the debate and prevent action on climate change. Do you acknowledge the role that right wing libertarian parties have been lobbying governments to reduce or eliminate measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

So I can add 'the political system' to 'Climate science' as another thing that you have no understanding of

Any elected TD can introduce a bill for debate, it doesn't mean it's going to pass, and even if it passes, it doesn't mean it's going to get through committee and the senate and become law.

So effectively you're hoping it will fail so you can claim the socialists who brought it forward have no influence on "climate policy", handy.

Akrasia wrote: »

It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that socialists have been in any way responsible for the fact that there is a global scientific consensus that we need to address climate change, or that socialists in Ireland have pushed the center left or center right political parties to agree to tackle climate change. It's ludicrous and if this is your actual considered belief on the subject, then you're an unwitting satire of your own position.

Says someone concerned with everyone else's carbon footprint except their own.

Akrasia wrote: »

On the other hand, there is enormous evidence that certain 'libertarian' political parties and institution have been doing a lot to try and corrupt the debate and prevent action on climate change. Do you acknowledge the role that right wing libertarian parties have been lobbying governments to reduce or eliminate measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Sure, it's the politically correct thing to do now, gotta be careful of not offending and reaching out to the easily offended who think the world is burning up.

By the way, you know well that there's no evidence that the majority of the globe's 8 million scientists has reached a consensus on this subject so why mislead by saying there is?

Better to preface any reference to an imagined global scientific consensus by saying you think or you imagine there's a consensus.