Do humans lack the necessary intelligence to adapt to climate change?

jaxxx wrote: »

Intelligence? No. Integrity? Yes.

I can go along with that but perhaps its not so simple as that:

People generally find it hard to act on knowledge that contradicts their everyday experience. The experience must come first, even if it is second-hand; hence all the support groups for people who want to change their lives or habits.

I think most people can relate to a certain inertia inherent in our nature that makes us reluctant to act even when it's in our best interests. Often it is the stimulus of external events or the cajoling of other people that forces us to act. We are also accustomed to a certain economic orthodoxy which has not changed,for many of us,in our lifetime,and so we cannot envisaged an alternative structuring of society.

Perhaps it is difficult for a people that attempt to quantify every kind of risk in terms of monetary value to think about a type of risk that can only be compensated for through accepting a different living arrangement....

In a sense we are stuck in a paradigm that considers any criticism of the current status quo as heresy as in the example of the American dream:

America’s national mythology makes it anathema to think of collective failure. All failure is to be regarded as individual failure—something that happens to somebody else, or to you, but only if you happen to be unlucky or do not try hard enough.” In short, the status quo is unsustainable but changing the collective lifestyle to arrest global climate change is unthinkable. Individuals who cling to an unsustainable paradigm clash with those who are persuaded by scientific evidence that a new paradigm is needed.

The previous quotes are from the following article: https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_20_1/tsc_20_1_cairns.shtml

If intelligence means using scientific evidence as the basis for changing human lifestyles, to be congruent with natural law, is it fair to say that humankind is not displaying much intelligence given the propensity by many, to describe the increasing call for real action by prominent scientific bodies and industry, as hysteria or fanciful and to deride anybody who says otherwise.

Many arguments that support this notion that the media is creating hysteria around the subject seem to be oblivious to our very recent history.

https://theconversation.com/food-security-how-drought-and-rising-prices-led-to-conflict-in-syria-71539

In 2015 the Welsh singer and activist Charlotte Church was widely ridiculed in the right-wing press and on social media for saying on BBC Question Time that climate change had played an important part in causing the conflict in Syria.

From 2006 until 2011, [Syria] experienced one of the worst droughts in its history, which of course meant that there were water shortages and crops weren’t growing, so there was mass migration from rural areas of Syria into the urban centres, which put on more strain, and made resources scarce etc, which apparently contributed to the conflict there today.

Between 2007 and 2009 Syria increased its annual imports of wheat and meslin (rice flour) by about 1.5m tonnes. That equated to a more than ten-fold increase in importing one of the most basic foods.

In 2008 the global price of food increased dramatically. This increase was the result of a complex set of issues including historically low global food stocks, drought in Australia following production lows in several other areas over the previous few years, and speculation and an increase in biofuel production in North America.

Many it seems are of the opinion that the hysteria around climate change is synonymous with 'Day after tomorrow scenarios' but the reality is far more mundane than that. The issue of migration has come to prominence in western nations and has influenced the politics of our nearest neighbour as well as our European partners. Is it intelligent to deny any causal link between certain aspects of migration and climate change?

dalyboy wrote: »

Yes I 100% believe what I see outside my window. It’s called weather. We have had it for thousands of years. It’s always been changeable. I genuinely do not want to sound patronising however have you ever heard of the scientific method ? If you have then explain how science has come to the conclusion that climate change is (a) actually happening (b) man has a role to play in its existence. Don’t forget to tell us how they are manipulating their independent variable in the test (this is imperative when conducting a scientific experiment, otherwise it’s pseudoscience FACT) . If you can satisfy this request I’ll donate €100 via PayPal to your favourite charity. GO ....

Ah come on. That suggests then that the whole of scientific studies on the subject dating back to 1896 is bogus. You can't seriously believe that? I can understand scepticism on the extent because that is uncertain. The models are used to refine the understanding and that's standard practice. Through that process they gain a better understanding of the climate drivers. You can't seriously state that you're more qualified than a myriad of scientists across many disciplines over a span of decades. That,without meaning to be rude,sounds delusional. Also I've read many of the papers on the subject and even logic dictates that they are correct.

If you could link a scientific paper and explain your reasoning why it's fabricated then that would be useful in order to more clearly understand your position because as it stands I don't think it holds much water.

To be honest I could provide links to detailed reports from Goldman Sachs, the insurance industry, Multinational Conglomerates and wait for it, BP and Shell https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/15/it-is-impossible-todays-big-oil-companies-adapt-climate-change-jonathon-porritt - http://www.proyectomilenio.org/documents/10156/43639/Shell+Energy+Scenarios+2050+-Signals+%26+Singposts-.pdf?version=1.0, none of which in any way,shape,or form support your position. So how in the name of God could they all be wrong and you're right. Makes no sense whatsoever. Even Richard Muller, a noted sceptic, does not deny AGW. In fact I can't think of anybody that does and I have researched that side of the argument quite extensively. Richard lindzen also doesn't deny AGW.

But as I said this is also part of a project so your feedback is helpful.

dalyboy wrote: »

Everyone of those companies, banks etc you mentioned have vested interest in futures trading on carbon credits / trading etc. Papers , reports , drivers etc etc are NOT scientific method observed. They are examples of conjecture , a kind of observe a phenomenon and declare a cause and effect. Empirical science is the only science I take seriously. It involves the following .....

Observe a natural phenomenon and define a question about it
Make a hypothesis, or potential solution to the question
Test the hypothesis
If the hypothesis is true, find more evidence or find counter-evidence
If the hypothesis is false, create a new hypothesis or try again
Draw conclusion

So climate change hypothesis cannot be tested as you would need a spare earth to test your hypothesis.

There is not one REAL scientist in the world who would challenge the media , the banking backed agenda or the whipped up hysterical public on the topic of climate change. They would be at this stage be risking their career and families long term safety. The scientists who back the climate farce are benefiting financially.
Believe me or not but the science is on my side on this topic , not yours.

Well I'm afraid your word on the subject is an unconvincing argument. It would be absurd to even suggest it is. Observations of Venus,for example,facilitate insights into the phenomenon of the Greenhouse effect:https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets.
Also https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/scientists-study-venus-atmosphere-through-transit.

Paleoclimatology has also demonstrated the relationship beteen co2 and temperature and extensive study of the PETM has provided great insights as to what the effect of our emissions will have on the climate drivers and as I mentioned previously,the science is not new and is actually linked to fundamental principles of Physics.Think Fourier (1768 – 16 May 1830). Are you going to tell me he was pressurised into formulating his theories? Also Scientists,from right across the Globe are involved in the research of Climate Change and they operate under different regimes so what you suggest would be a global conspiracy.

If you have a link to a scientist that supports your position you refer to then that would help me understand your position better. It would also help if you provide some rationale as to why you think a spare earth is required to test the Hypothese.

Here for example is a link to a climate sceptic I previously mentioned from 2012:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Here is the reaction of one of the co-authors

Other members of the Berkeley Earth science team include Nobel Prize winner Saul Perlmutter and climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology.

However Curry expressed her discontent with the findings and told The New York Times she had declined to be listed as a co-author on the latest paper.

"I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don't think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming," she was quoted as saying.

"Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."

Here is a another statement from Curry

Climate science communication hasn’t been very effective in my opinion. The dominant paradigm seems to be that a science knowledge deficit of the public and policy makers exists, which is exacerbated by the Koch-funded climate denial machine. This knowledge deficit then results in the public failing to act with the urgency that is urged by climate scientists.

So as I said I've researched both sides extensively but I have been unable to find anybody who supports your position. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and it isn't that you dismiss AGW out of hand but rather you are sceptical of the predictions and consider them alarmist. To that I can only repeat the models represent our current best understanding of the impact but there is still much uncertainty regarding the processes underlying the climate drivers but unfortunately that uncertainty is not at the moment in our favour. I don't know what else i can say on the subject as I'm not motivated to convince anybody of my side of the argument. It's just that you have not provided any evidence.so far,to support your position. As I said if you want me to post links in support of my argument,I can,but it doesn't seem that you do as you have already dismissed them out of hand as being politically motivated out of a sense of fear.

KyussB wrote: »

It's not a matter of intelligence - people have the full ability to understand the nature and urgency of the problem, there are just impediments to this understanding becoming widespread - and we are witnessing those impediments crumble fairly quickly, now.

As for what to do about climate change, again, it's not a matter of intelligence - we already have the big-picture outline of the solutions that are required, we just need to do them - but again, there are impediments to people understanding that it's actually possible to undertake those solutions - and those impediments are far bigger, have lasted far longer, and are far more pervasive than those which hold back understanding the basic nature/urgency of climate change.

As understanding in the former paragraph enters the mainstream (it already has - it's just solidifying its position, now), understanding of the latter will necessarily follow - it is inevitable, now, because the public are actually motivated to understand and get to the bottom of the solutions, and the solutions are entering mainstream consciousness now - but it will take bit more time.

As to why the impediments exist at all: Worth reading about Agnotology, and books/films like Merchants of Doubt - there are fairly extensive propaganda networks, which work very very hard to 'capture' and restrict the public/political narrative, where it affects their businesss interests.

OK,duly noted and perhaps the poll should have included such an option as indicated by another poster. However,since it's not possible to amend the poll I am inclined to interpret that answer as being a 'No', in that we don't lack the intelligence ,but rather,reliant as we are on the competence and integrity of our political leaders and their ability to co-operate globally in a coherent and co-operative manner,to formulate and present credible and effective solutions, tailored to each countries particular circumstances,there has being a spectacular failure on their part to carry out their duties. (This interpretation is solely for the purposes of reporting on the poll as it stands as data collected based on the content and substance of arguments put forward and against will be considered and incorporated into a revised poll).

However,if I understand you correctly,this is not a failure in the actual intelligence of the species but rather a product of the venal and unscrupulous interests of an insignificant % of the population whose unhealthy influence on decision makers, vastly disproportionate to the sway of an average individual,has acted as a brake on the dissemination of information and delayed the discussion and implementation of solutions.

Thanks for your valuable contribution. I am proposing to formulate my argument in support of the motion,although your input has now given me pause for thought, and I hope you have the time to contribute further to this discussion. I am also trying to solicit input from other interested parties.