Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 Next
Comments 7301 to 7350:
-
nigelj at 07:01 AM on 13 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Scaddenp @9, yes I know what William is saying. However using dunite as enhanced weathering to essentially capture carbon might be a little bit quicker than you think. I mentioned it because this is a sort of general news page.
Depends on how you define quickly I guess. This article suggests that if broken up and spread thinly and scaled up, it has the potential to capture 20% of our yearly emissions, so one years emissions in five years, ten years of current emissions in 50 years, which is a significant sized chunk of what's in the atmosphere. It just surprised me a bit because I thought it would be slower.
It's expensive, but without some of the tricky problems of other approaches. Might make for an interesting article. Its not even remotely a replacement for renewable energy, but could be useful technology.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:39 AM on 13 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
The BBC item I linked to @10 is a comprehensive presentation that is based on the information sources MA Rodgers has noted and a little more.
-
MA Rodger at 18:44 PM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
William @5,
Regarding the effect of a Covid-19-induced reduction in CO2 emissions & the impact on atmospheric CO2, there is a CarbonBrief article by an impressive list of guest authors on this very subject. They suggest that atmospheric CO2 (as measured at MLO) would have shown a BAU increase of 2.80ppm (± 0.57) but, with the reduction in global CO2 emissions due to the Covid-19 crisis, estimate at 8% for the year with the implied atmospheric CO2 increase being 0.32ppm less or 11% smaller.
As a rule of thumb, we need to reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 50% to put a halt to increasing atmospheric CO2 (and this a temporary halt without continued cuts in emissions). However, under BAU we are still seeing small increases in CO2 emissions (Global Carbon Project numbers averaging 1% increase per year in recent years, down from 3% a decade ago but still an increase.)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:01 PM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
william @5,
As scaddenp has indicated the CO2 production reduction during the COVID-19 restriction of activity should not be expected to result in a reduction of atmospheric CO2 levels. Even if no more new CO2 was being generated by any human activities, the process of CO2 removal is rather slow. More important, the reduction of fossil fuel use has not been a full shut-down, not even close.
Check out this recent BBC News Item.
The reduction of production of new CO2 is very significant. And the COVID-19 Dip could help achieve the globally agreed limit of harm to future generations, harm being done by portions of the current generation continuing to desire to benefit from harmful fossil fuel abuse. But the real test will be if there is actually an increased awareness and improved understanding that it is unacceptable for people to only care about their personal opportunities for benefit and risk of harm.
Will more people realize that the fact that they are not the only human requires that they strive to Not Harm Any Others, and try to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity? That is what the COVID-19 restrictions are all about, personal limits of behaviour to reduce the risk of harming Others.
-
scaddenp at 14:01 PM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Nigel, I understood William to be asking about Covid-related CO2 reduction which I dont think could reduce atmosphere CO2. Even if emissions went to zero, natural CO2 removal cant happen fast. Dunite and other enchanced-weathering based solutions are very slow. And emissions havent stopped, just slowed.
-
nigelj at 10:33 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #19
Excellent recent national geographic article on reducing waste and the circular economyhere.
-
nigelj at 09:48 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
Scaddenp @7. One word. Dunite.
-
scaddenp at 07:24 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
William - I dont see much of possibility for decreaing CO2 in atmosphere. How would that happen so fast? I do think it should heavily (and temporarily sadly) reduce the rate of increase for this year.
-
nigelj at 06:40 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
OPOF @4, thanks appreciated. NZ did implement various measures to try to stop the spread of the virus to the pacific islands. Our government is led by a left leaning party which has always been sympathetic to the needs of the pacific islands, however there is also a conservative party in the coalition with an equal commitment to their interests. NZ has always had a close economic, and immigration relationship with the pacific islands
New Zealand has just exited a very severe lockdown, but one I feel made sense to curb the spread of the virus.The severe lockdown seems to have worked because new numbers of infections are down to about two per day. Its hard to gauge the economic consequences, but at this stage unemployment numbers are much lower than America on a per capita basis. But its been very tough on business and too early to really say.
The fact we have got the numbers of infections right down was probably because we entered this lockdown very early, when infection numbers were very low. Leave it too late and its hopeless.
I do not wish to come across as complaining about the lockdown. It hasn't been too horrendous, time to catch up with some reading etc, and the government has carefully considered the economic implications. However I find suggestions that lockdowns show that its possible to make truly huge reductions to energy use a bit shallow as previously pointed out. But we can clearly make some reductions without pain, for the good of the planet.
-
william5331 at 06:21 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
If the reduction in CO2 emissions due to C19 does not show a decrease in atmospheric Carbon dioxide, it might mean that we are already in a tipping point and are unlikely to be able to control the situation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:28 AM on 12 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
nigelj,
I am impressed by the extraordinary measures taken in New Zealand to limit the risk that COVID-19 would be spread to the South Pacific island states that New Zealand is the portal to.
I appreciate how much of a restriction and sacrifice that was, just for the benefit of people on other islands that few people in New Zealand ever visit and that New Zealand and the rest of the world receives no significant economic benefit from. I compare it to Canada's Leadership responsibility to indigenous populations. That is something that Canadians are waking up to. However, some prefer to fight to keep on Dreaming about Making Canada Great Again, like when it's Leadership did not care so much about Others who they may be able to make Disappear with actions tantamount to Cultural Genocide - a recent conclusion of what Canadian Leadership had done in the past because the majority of the colonizing population had developed a liking for that type of leadership, leading to the need for Truth and Reconciliation (imagine that - colonizers liking what they could get away with, and their future generations having to break free of the tragic thinking and try to make amends for it).
The recent spread of measles to those South Pacific islands connected to New Zealand was a tragic wake-up to the many ways that more fortunate nations have responsibility for protection of the populations that are less advanced (and may actually be more advanced socially) but are able to live decent lives without the extravagance and distraction of industrial consumerism.
I visited the Cook Islands many decades ago. It was an incredibly relaxing, enjoyable and educational week. In my MBA, my Critical Thinking course, an Option, included the presentation of many challenging alternative Real ways that economic activity occurred around the world in the 1980s. The way that Cook Islanders lived was refreshing, though even they were succumbing to the temptations to get new technology devices they really didn't need, steps onto the slippery slope towards immersion in harmful industrial consumerism.
-
James Charles at 20:17 PM on 11 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
“We don’t look for absolute proof, as that can never really exist in science, we look for what the preponderance of evidence tells us. There is no absolute proof for Gravity, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, insert your discipline of choice. There is only what the weight of evidence tells us. Climatology is no different.”
scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/there-is-no-evidence/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:48 AM on 11 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
It is easy to be angry and disappointed by the restrictions of Freedom that were required to limit the rate of spread of COVID-19. After all, the vast majority of the benefit was the limiting of Harm Done To Others. Many people were willing to Personally Risk Their Chance of Getting the Disease rather than limit how they lived and behaved to reduce the Harm Done to Others. And many people decided to believe that the recommended actions did not actually Reduce the Harm Done to Others, or tried to claim that there needed to be a "balance" (code to disguise a push for a Harmful Compromise), of their personal benefit with the harm done to Others by their actions. And some of them, like a Texas Leader declared that Older people should be happy to experience an early death from COVID-19 if that would Help preserve and protect the economy for Others.
I think there is a Good Understanding that can be taken from the COVID-19 experience that relates to the pursuit of limiting the Harm of Climate Change and more rapidly achieving and improving on all of the Other Sustainable Development Goals. The developed socioeconomic-political systems have caused a lot of people to develop powerful motivations to resist "Limiting and correcting their developed and liked behaviours to reduce the Harm Done To Others".
"Developing a liking for activity that is understandably harmful to Others and resisting being limited or corrected" cannot be defended as being helpful. It can only be excused (and it is a poor excuse) as Human Nature Focused on Pursuit of Personal Interests with the consideration of acceptability, the thinking associated with self-governing and self-limiting of actions, being restricted to Personal Perceptions of Benefits and Risk of Harm. That thinking pursues benefit even if there is some personal risk of harm. And that type of thinking can exaggerate or incorrectly perceive benefits and be dismissive of, diminish, or misunderstand the risks.
In addition to the Individual Focus on Benefit and Harm being misleading, as soon as a person is living as part of a community of Others, even just a community of 2, that Individual limit of thinking about self-governing and self-limiting needs to become Limited by the requirement to "Avoid acting in ways that Harm or increase the risk of Harm to Others", and "Aspiring to act in ways that are Helpful to Others".
And each sub-community of a larger community must also Govern and limit its collective actions to Avoid Harming Others, and Aspire to Help Others (a fundamental understanding of many Religions that many people claiming to be Religious seem to deliberately miss).
Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to Help develop sustainable improvements for all of Humanity, everywhere today and into the far future, leads to learning about the unacceptability of the Socioeconomic-political systems that have developed and the many undeserved perceptions of Superiority that have developed.
The Harmful potential of Selfishness, and the fact that all humans have the ability to learn to limit how Harmful they are to Others and increase how Helpful they are to Others is what Everyone needs to Learn from the COVID-19 experience. That understanding makes people Less Easily Impressed which enables them to more accurately identify who deserves to have Higher Status.
-
Joel_Huberman at 23:44 PM on 10 May 2020PETM climate warming 56 million years ago strongly tied to igneous activity
Thanks, Howard Lee, for another of your interesting explanations of the conflicting hypotheses behind mass extinction events. I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3.
-
nigelj at 16:37 PM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Eclectic @14, ha ha very true, except I'm making the lizard stuff up as I go along, although I vaguely recall reading about the theory a few years ago, is to by David Ickeman? Apparently the royal family are prime suspects.
Hilarious isnt it. I find it the least interesting of conspiracy theories, because its so totally insane. Maybe it started as a joke.
But by sunbathing I just meant to raise their body temperature. Curiously enough my garden has been invaded by small lizards recently...
Yes the denialists final argument is its all lies, or all a conspiracy. Its all something, but whatever it is don't expect us to accept the science or do anything, and don't even think about taxing us, and giving the dividend back, or slightly taking away our freedoms, we would just die. It would be awful.
-
nigelj at 15:36 PM on 10 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
The covid 19 lockdowns are brutal causing massive unemployment, economic depression and hardship. Only a fool would promote anything like that to mitigate climate change. And the results mostly don't look durable. New Zealand left a very severe lock down about 10 days ago, and there was virtually a stampede back to normality. (Semi normality to be accurate)
But there might be one positive spinoff for the climate. The covid issue has shown the ability of governments to act robustly and decisively (America possibly excepted) when lives are at stake and so people might now be more receptive to strong government climate initiatives.
The flip side is that lock downs have had pretty horrible economic consequences, so might put people off government climate mitigation.
The one thing that might remain is more working from home, which might have some long term impact on emissions. The reason I say this is most organisations seemed to have been able to work from home quite effectively. But only time will tell.
And the other positive spinoff might be that covid 19 has woken people up to the fragility of our civilisation, and might get them thinking more about climate problems.
-
Eclectic at 15:26 PM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Nigelj , you are well ahead of me ~ obviously you are at the Advanced Level for detection of Lizards. I can only stand in awe of you, and your courage. But I do hope you are postponing your "kissing technique" until after the Coronavirus Social Distancing regulations are revoked. Or do you surreptitiously inject Them with bleach, first?
Nor had I heard about the Lizard Overlords' sun bathing habits. Is it true that their skins will tan to a slight orange, after only minimal sun exposure? It would explain something that I had been wondering about! It would also explain all the "speaking with forked tongue", which has become ever more prominent in certain political circles. Though older journalists will say that twas ever thus for politicians . . . which might well indicate that the Overlords have been in charge for much longer than we imagined.
By "thermostat settings", presumably you mean that the Lizards like hot conditions. Conspiracy-wise , this would also explain why most politicians talk the talk . . . but are hardly lifting a finger to counteract Global Warming. See, it all fits into place!
More seriously : Conspiracy is always the last refuge of the climate scoundrel ** .
** Climate Scoundrel sounds better, IMO, than Climate Skeptic ~ but as a label, I rather doubt it is going to take off.
Whenever you push a pseudo-skeptic into a corner, by relentlessly using logic & evidence . . . eventually the pseudo-skeptic won't admit that he is wrong, but will play his last card : Conspiracy. It is all conspiracy ~ every climate scientist in the world has joined a conspiracy to fake all the data. And why no whistleblowers among these millions of scientists? . . . okay, that just points to a Whistleblower Conspiracy as well.
-
nigelj at 13:03 PM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
I suppose it had to happen. A conspiracy theory movie on covid 19 circulating on youtube claiming its all a conspiracy by big pharma and the government to force people to use vaccines. The cheerleader for the moronic rubbish is Dr Mikovitz, apparently "once a practising medical researcher, spent five days in jail for allegedly stealing material from a lab and had her research on chronic fatigue discredited in 2011." she is also a prominent anti vaxer. Newspaper article on the movie here.
Eclectic, you just have to look at the suspected lizard shape shifters sun bathing habits and thermostat settings and on kissing them check for a forked tongue.
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 09:48 AM on 10 May 2020Greenhouse effect has been falsified
Of course, the moon getting so cold and staying so cold all night has a lot to do with the length of the lunar night too, and many more things I'm not an expert on.
Someone recently tried to tell me the greenhouse effect can't matter b/c the moon which has no CO2 gets hotter than the earth. But that graph was impressive how the temp seems to sit near the Nadir most of the night... and shows that the moon is WAY colder than the earth.
Thank you!
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 09:35 AM on 10 May 2020Greenhouse effect has been falsified
It sounds like the moon equator average temp is a lot colder than the mean of 130ºC and -110ºC (reference in 163). But the mean of those 2 numbers is not, not 20ºC (said in 162), it is 10ºC.
Thank you MA Rodger. The graph in Figure 9a mentioned in 163 shows that you can't just average max hot and max cold to get the average lunar temperature. One can see how fast a planet cools when there is no atmosphere to retain heat nocturnally. The overall temperature average is so much closer to the maximum cold temp, b/c it spends so much more time there. While it takes so much time to heat to max temp during the lunar day (it's only at this max for a short while), max cold temp is reached almost as soon as night falls and it stays at that max cold all night.
-
Eclectic at 09:32 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
Very well expressed, Philippe and MA Rodger.
What is the probability that the poster @3 will return to admit his mistake in logical thinking? Or will he fall back and use Curry's technique of vague rhetorical blather ~ so sadly deficient in critical analysis.
-
Eclectic at 09:13 AM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Nigelj @11 , sorry, but it is no use trying to identify our shape-shifting Lizard Overlords.
They walk among us, and we can have no idea how many they are, for they are so convincing. Just when you think you have spotted the blink of a nictitating eyelid membrane . . . they explain it away as being just their contact lenses.
-
MA Rodger at 09:12 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
Deplore This @3,
As set out by Philippe Chantreau @5, in the time of Galileo there wasn't much of a process which could be today called a "scientific community's acceptance" to allow us to understand how far Galileo's contemparies accepted his work. All we hear is that the Pope famously got very 'trumpy' with his work. But if you roll the clock on 50 years and you find the likes of 'Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes' or 'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica' so in 50 years there was established complete acceptance.
And so for comprison, 50 years on from, say, the likes of John Sawyer setting out the scientific case for saying:-
"The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6 °C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."
50 years on we see there is a very strong consensus that such a finding is correct. And spelling-wise, "Judith Curry" is correct although so much of what she writes about climate change is unsubstatiated nonsense.
-
alea at 08:53 AM on 10 May 20202020 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #19
The pandemic is temporarily good for the environment, but I'm a bit uncomfortable about trying to use it as an example of how a low carbon way of living could be, and how it isn't that difficult. The article seems to focus purely on the emissions from the reduction of transport and industry, which is all well and good, and yes, it does show to a point there are better ways of doing some things, but a skeptic might ask what is the point in having a better environment if you can't go out and appreciate it. If getting our emissions down involves slashing our freedom of mobility, cuts us off from distant family relatives, destroys our social lives, stops us enjoying our hobbies (like hiking in my case), and results in a deterioration in mental health because people can't enjoy physical connection with their friends and loved ones, is that really a better way of living? We have to hope, and advocate, that this pandemic could lead a way of having the same environmental benefits as the without the major downsides. I'd like to think we can, if I take a train to Scotland, spend a week point to point backpacking around the highlands, then get a train home, is that really so environmentally evil? I hope not, because it is really beneficial for my mental health.
-
nigelj at 07:53 AM on 10 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
MAR @10, you make an interesting and convincing point about coincidence. A good example might be this. Shortly after Princess Dianas tragic death in the tunnel a couple of mysterious black cars shout out at high speed raising suspicions about a hit job. Most likely all coincidence, yet obviously a question that needed investigating. I dont think they were ever tracked down. Then there was that letter she wrote, etc.
This was a truly amazing set of coincidences enough to make even me suck in my breath, and they needed investigating, and criminal conspiracies to happen, however in the end the driver being drunk is a simple and compelling explanation enough for me. Occams Razor?
And of course we must be on the lookout for those amongst us with nictating eyelid membranes :)
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:25 AM on 10 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
The need to be more aware and better understand the Politics of Status and Freer Market Economics, and the need to correct the developed systems and correct many of the currently developed results of the systems, is an important point exposed by the documentary.
The Economic Systems and Political Systems are two significant things that humans have made-up. They could be Helpful Tools for the development of sustainable improvements for Humanity. They should help Everyone benefit in some way, especially the least fortunate. And nobody should be harmed in any way by the actions of either system.
Being Helpful Tools would require the systems to be governed and limited by expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
It is clear that without Helpful Governing and Effective Limits those Tools, the economy and politics, can develop into harmful weapons of mass destruction rather than being Helpful Devises that benefit Humanity.
The people who put the economy on a pedestal and try to free it from constraints play politics to weaponize the systems for their advantage because they perceive potential personal benefits from doing that.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:19 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
If Galileo's contemporaries had developed their own instruments similar to his, repeated his observations, replicated his results, reached his conclusions through multiple independents lines of inquiries, there would have been a scientific consensus in no time. Of course, in the time of Galileo, science was more like philosophy and had severe social constraints emanating from the religious power structures, who would not let one challenge their authority so easily. So the consensus that existed at the time was by no means a scientific consensus, but a mish mash of superstition, dogmatism, conformism, social control, politics etc.
The difference is glaringly obvious, and anyone with basic critical thinking skills can see through the fallacy.
A scientific consensus does not consist of a bunch of people getting together to pat each other on the back for agreeing with all the rest of them. It consists of multiple independent teams working hard, double checking their results, submitting them to highly critical peers who will try their hardest to find flaws in their work, and independently reaching the same conclusions. A scientific consensus is not similar opinions across the board, it is persistent convergence of research results. That is what an examination of the scientific litterature will show.
-
RedBaron at 03:44 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
@3
Yes this is true, however.... you will make a big Non Sequitur logic fallacy if you think that is what happened with climate science.
In fact the confidence came first and then when the confidence interval was high enough for years and years and every counter explanation of the evidence falsified, that finally consensus emerged.
-
Deplore This at 02:48 AM on 10 May 2020IPCC human-caused global warming attribution confidence is unfounded
Judith Curry is correct. Science is not group think. The percentage of practitioners who agree with a theory is not the confidence interval that it is correct. Consider the so called scientific communities acceptance of Copernicus and Galileo.
-
MA Rodger at 23:11 PM on 9 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
nigelj @9,
I should make plain. Firstly, in my opinion the real power of 'conspiracy' is a combination of 'coincidence' which is always available by the bucket-load and the human (probably more a male thing) pleasure in 'solving' mysteries. Thus a simple 'coincidence' can become over-guilded (like this one) and/or then 'solved' by crazy theorising.
And secondly, to understand the true nature of my comment @5, do note where the link goes in the final paragraph @5 (a link I was required to insert - the shape-shifting lizards insisted I did).
-
Eclectic at 23:10 PM on 9 May 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18, 2020
Quite right, Michael Sweet.
This is indeed a major point, which Climate Denialists simply don't get ~ or refuse to think about. A small increase in average global temperature produces a disproportionate increase in frequency & severity of heat waves.
Denialists in Wisconsin and Alberta look at a 1 or 2 degree Fahrenheit rise as being insignificant, or even mildly enjoyable. They avert their mental eyes from an increasing tide of climate refugees over the next 100 years or more. There is no Wall which could ever be effective, to preserve and "protect" the Global North.
-
michael sweet at 22:54 PM on 9 May 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18, 2020
Does anyone here know how farm animals are affected by high heat like this? Any papers?
-
Eclectic at 22:45 PM on 9 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
James Charles @34 ,
<" The issue here is not with the seriousness of the crisis, but with the way just one solution is on offer; and it just happens to be the one that makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. ">
I respectfully suggest that you [plural] have mis-diagnosed "the issue".
The actual issue is the damage and degradation of the physical world, deriving from AGW. (Damage in relation to the currently-constituted human society as well as in relation to the plants & animals which had adapted to the Holocene climate.)
And regarding "the rich even richer and the poor even poorer" ~ well, that is a human societal condition which preceded (by decades & centuries) modern global warming. If you have any social or economic evidence that "green energy" has - or is destined to - substantially worsen an already grossly inequitable situation . . . then I'm sure readers here would be very interested to see your presentation !
# The website reference you linked to, is (IMO) a poorly-argued piece, consisting of a series of half-truths spun into pessimistic nihilism ~ exactly the sort of attitude that Churchill took during World War Two . . . not.
[ My apologies to Churchill, who wouldn't have finished a sentence with the negative adverb ;-) ]
-
michael sweet at 22:42 PM on 9 May 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #18, 2020
Category 6 has an article (original scientific paper) on a new paper describing heat episodes with wet bulb temperatures over 35C. Temperatures this high are beyond survivability for humans. They never mention farmed animals but they would probably also die.
From the abstract:
" We find the most extreme humid heat is highly localized in both space and time and is correspondingly substantially underestimated in reanalysis products. Our findings thus underscore the serious challenge posed by humid heat that is more intense than previously reported and increasingly severe."
The incidence of these events is rapidly growing worldwide. Apparently the Indian sub continent is very susceptible and areas around the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.
-
James Charles at 17:36 PM on 9 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
'A new documentary Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs – hardly right-wing climate change deniers – set out to understand how fossil fuel lobbyists and corrupt politicians had thwarted the increasingly urgent transition to a carbon neutral future. What they found, however – and what the documentary details – is an equally corrupt “green energy” lobby that has no real solutions to the predicament we are in. As Michael Donnelly at Counterpunch explains:
“The basic conclusion is that we have been following corporate foundation-financed, Democratic Party-tied misleadership and that is why we are where we are."
The issue here is not with the seriousness of the crisis, but with the way just one solution is on offer; and it just happens to be the one that makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer.' -
nigelj at 07:39 AM on 9 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Conspiracy theorists often point at big governmnet, the jews, the 'elite', the illuminati, the chinese, etc.) It looks like they want a scapegoat and it seems connected to racism and excessive paranoia about rulers and governments. Although I agree with MAR it might often start with the real culprits making up a story to spread. There might be a confluence of a variety of psychological factors in people who get carried away with conspiracy theories and not just one thing.
I used to be an architect, and I have designed high rise towers. I can tell you for free the twin towers fell over because an aircraft full of jet fuel was deliberately flown into them, but the mechanism that caused the towers to collapse like this was not straightforward. I suspect conspiracy theorists find it all boring, and want a more exciting explanation.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:05 AM on 9 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
MA Rodgers,
As a Canadian I remain aware that years after the more complete understanding of the event was established many Americans still believe the initial Conspiracy Story that the 9/11 attackers got into the USA through Canada. That tale was told by many of the same people in the USA Administration who claimed that Saddam Hussein was the cause of the 9/11 attacks. And that same group of story tellers have been discovered to have been trying to figure out an excuse to Invade Iraq before 9/11 happened (and Canada is a target for Fanatasy Conspiracies made-up by the Right-wing likes in the USA because Canada is far more Socialist and accepting of the Diversity of ways of being Human than the Right-Wing like).
I can provide links for all of the points I have made, but I believe they are now pretty common knowledge (and they would all be Internet Content - which a Conspiracy Fantasy believer could simply claim was Fake News - and Round and Round it could go).
-
BaerbelW at 00:57 AM on 9 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Richard @3
Have you checked who authored the Conspiracy Theory Handbook? I trust the judgement of the authors for rather obvious reasons.
SirCharles @2
For the German translation we did have a discussion of what to call them and settled on "Verschwörungsmythen". There is a blue box in the article about the handbook on our partnersite Klimafakten.de.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:54 AM on 9 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
They should be called Conspiracy Stories - A sub-set of Fantasy Stories.
The people making them up would appreciate any naming that gives any degree of credibility to the Tales they want to tell.
-
MA Rodger at 22:59 PM on 8 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Eclectic @4,
I wouldn't be too quick to blame the unusual events which the world throws up as being the work of shape-shifting lizards because such creatures don't like folk talking about them.
Regarding 9/11, Donald Trump evidently believes it was the work of people who "wouldn't have been here" if he had been president. This suggests the perpetrators were foreign and so it was not a domestic conspiracy.
The other point to note is the vast number of 9/11 theories that have been created, and seem to appear systematically according to the BBC, likely by the hand of those who either were responsible for 9/11 or alternatively those who are engaged in a greater conspiracy and are happy to let the 9/11 conspiracies blossom as it draws the critical and foresnic analysis of conspiracy theorists away from them and their activities.
So the evidence suggests there easily could be a deeper conspiracy at work making 9/11 look more than it actually was. Such ideas are in no way ridiculous and are derived directly from here (in the boxes on page 10).
-
Eclectic at 22:14 PM on 8 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Richard , don't sweat the small stuff.
The real threat to us, is our covert Lizard Overlords . . .
-
Richard13699 at 21:57 PM on 8 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
I took a quick look at this download.
I am amazed that a website that promotes the scientific approach should be so disparaging of people who seriously and for good reason, doubt the officlal US government conspiracy theory behind 9/11.
If you are going to (correctly of course) require that information and data here are factual and peer reviewed, how can you promote a pamphlet that applies this pejorative label to those who have applied similar principles to the clearly contradictory, often scientifically impossible "official explanation" around 9/11?
And don't starat me on the Kennedy assassination - and magic bullets!
-
SirCharles at 21:51 PM on 8 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
BTW, I never call them "conspiracy theories". I call them conspiracy hypotheses or just what they are: conspiracy myths.
-
SirCharles at 21:43 PM on 8 May 2020The Conspiracy Theory Handbook: Downloads and translations
Great! Many thanks for that. Will share widely.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:06 PM on 8 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
niglej and alea (and anyone else interested),
The aspect of the movie I sort of agree with is the need to reduce the energy used by people to live decent lives. But the conversion of all energy production to renewable sources needs to be achieved even if that is "more expensive" energy. And the energy being "more expensive" cannot be allowed to be an excuse to reduce assistance to the less fortunate to ensure that every human lives at least abasic decent life (ending poverty).
Everybody's actions add up to become the future. The lack of helpful corrective actions, and lack of support for helpful corrective leadership, by people through the past 30 years needs to be understood to be inexcusable. It has added up to become the much larger harm done to the future generations (which includes people today, because today is the future from actions through the past 30 years) and the much more challenging correction of developed behaviours today.
Almost every suggestion I made to reduce impact can be acted on today. No new technical developments are required. And none were needed 30 years ago for people to behave less harmfully. And that understanding existed long before the makers of this fiction-filled documentary made-up their stories.
A significant factor keeping people from adopting the changes of behaviour that would help reduce the amount of climate change harm is that the better behaviour is not Cheaper, Easier, or More Enjoyable. Those are poor excuses to Not Behave Better.
And what can clearly be understood, can be a Common Sense, is that competitions for impressions of superiority relative to Others based on popularity, profitability, and materialism related impressions will develop harmful results unless the harmful options are kept out of the competition or those things are: made to be more expensive, harder to do, or collectively understood to be undesirable behaviour.
Developing a liking for harmful activity also develops powerful motivation to resist correcting the bahaviour.
Somehow I evaded the socializing development influences of consumption and materialism economic competition even though I grew up immersed in it. Long ago I developed an appreciation for the precursors to current day understandings like the Sustainable Development Goals and other "sustainability focused" Governing Objectives that have been developed. There are many well identified needs to correct harmful unsustainable developments.
The 1972 Stockholm Conference was the first formal acknowledgment by global leadership that sustainability of human activity required Governing to make corrections of Harmful unsustainable things that had already developed and Helpful Governing of the direction of new developments. That awareness and understanding has been increased and improved since then, particularly the comprehensive set of Objectives that are presented as the Sustainable Development Goals.
My constantly developing focus is "Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to ensure no harm is done to Others and help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity".
That includes the detailed discussion of the documentary as it relates to that overarching governing objective of the importance of helping achieve and improve on the SDGs and the related effort to limit the harm being done, that hopefully Common Sense Meaning of Life.
Every Individual's actions that have impact outside of the Individual add up to become the collective future. So it is important to consider cases where a person identifies something Helpful that they believe is a result of their actions if their actions are also understandably Harmful.
It is obvious that an Individual should try to be more helpful to themselves than they are harmful to themselves. That can be hard to do in a socioeconomic system with misleading marketing that is allowed to tempt people to believe and do things that may not really be helpful to them or Others and could actually be very harmful (tobacco and alcohol marketing is just one example). What is harder for many people to accept is that that Personal Focused basis for decision making is not valid when the Individual's actions have affects beyond or outside of the Individual. That can lead to harmful unsustainable activities becoming popular and profitable.
It needs to become Common Sense that it is not legitimate to do an evaluation summing up perceptions of Helpfulness and Harmfulness to Others. That type of evaluation is only valid for an Individual's actions that have affects restricted to the Individual. A person's actions only affecting themselves is rare in any society. The majority of an Individual's actions have affects beyond the Individual. In those cases an individual's actions need to Not be Harmful to Others, and the Individual should aspire to be Helpful to Others. A person who benefits from harmful actions should not get credit for also being helpful. What a sustainable society and economy needs is for Harmfulness to Others to be minimized (hopefully being zero) while, in parallel, helpfulness to Others is increased. One exception is medical interventions, in which case there is a need to evaluate the helpfulness minus harmfulness of the intervention and only apply it if there is expected to be a net-benefit.
That understanding, or justified improvements of it, needs to become the Common Sense that governs everything that all humans do.
Once a person acquires and accepts that Common Sense they will almost certainly see that there are many people who have developed many motivations to resist acquiring and accepting that Common Sense. They will appreciate that they themselves had to overcome many developed beliefs, and resist many temptations, as they pursued the realization of that Common Sense. And they will also have had to limit and correct many of the activities that they had developed a liking for.
That personal experience then helps recognise the many ways that harmful unsustainable activity become popular and profitable and resist being limited or corrected.
The economic understanding is fairly straight forward. The competition for popularity and profit can only be expected to produce sustainable helpful results if the vast majority participating are Governed by "Expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to ensure no harm is done to Others and help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity". That majority needs to have the power to Govern and Limit the behaviour of those who will not responsibly self-govern that way. More harmful and less sustainable ways of doing things can be easier and quicker ways to "Win the Competition". Unless those activities are excluded from the competition, or cannot become popular or profitable, they will end up Harmfully Winning a Lot for People who do not care to limit how they Enjoy Their Winning in Their lifetime (a repugnant result of Ungoverned Unlimited Competition in Pursuit of Happiness).
Another way to say it is that competitions for impressions of superiority can develop very harmful results, especially when they are played out in competitions for popularity and profitability. Pursuit of popularity and profit have undeniably developed harmful unsustainable activities. That is mainly because the more harmful and less sustainable ways of doing things are easier and cheaper. But an additional harmful influence is misleading marketing, promotion that does not more fully inform consumers about the unsustainability or harmfulness of what they are being tempted to want. That misleading marketing can even make people resist becoming more aware and understanding of how harmfully unsustainable the things they have developed a desire and liking for actually are. The result is a system that results in the development of harmful unsustainable activity because it is cheaper, easier and more easily made to appear desirable. And that type of system can clearly be seen to also develop powerful resistance to correction of harmful unsustainable activity that becomes popular or profitable.
So a major problem is competition for impressions of superiority relative to others based on popularity and profitability not being effectively governed and limited by expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
Achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals will require corrections of the developed socioeconomic-political systems, not just corrections of developed economic activity. And many people can be expected to powerfully resist that type of correction occurring. Allowing a Correction of awareness and understanding is understood to be heading down the "slippery slope" towards corrections of the existing systems.
Game On. Keep on Expanding Awareness and Improving Understanding and Sustainable Improvements have an increased chance of developing.
-
nigelj at 07:46 AM on 8 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
alea @31, I admire your efforts to cut the carbon footprint, and I understand the frustrations and philisophical dilemmas.
This is how I rationalise the thing to myself, and my own philosophy. I have cut my own carbon footprint somewhat, although not to the same extent as you. My approach is based around the fact that the IPCC plan to mitigate climate change essentially specifies that the "heavy lifting" be done with renewable energy, (especially a new electricity grid) but that this cannot deal with all the issues, so we also need 1)negative emissions technologies and 2)to reduce our own carbon footprints and energy consumption. Given that renewables energy can do the heavy lifting, maybe around 75% we obviously dont have to reduce our energy consumption to near zero, and I have taken a 25% reduction as being appropriate.
So I'm certainly prepared to play my part. I drive a small fuel efficient car and will buy an electric car at some stage. I mostly use public transport so the car is not a priority. I have an efficient heater etc but in no way am I prepared to turn the thermostat right down to 12 degrees in winter, its just too cold for me even with an extra sweatshirt, and goes beyond a 25% reduction in my energy use. I fly much less than I used to, but will still do some flying.
Now if the system is unable or unwilling to provide a new energy grid, Im not prepared to go beyond moderate 25% reductions in my carbon footprint and use of energy. While the climate problem is serious, its not serious enough for me to reduce my lifestyle back to that of a third world farmer, and I will not severely punish myself, or become a sacrificial lamb for the failings of the wider system to provide a renewable energy grid. I am prepared play my reasonable part, and we all need to do that, but nothing more, and my conscience is clear. The heavy lifting has to come form renewable energy.
Not saying everyone has to approach it like me. Just saying how I do it.
You make a good point about people needing to see tangible benefits for reducing carbon footprints. I tend to concentrate on promoting lifestyle changes which do have tangible benefits, eg flying a bit less save people money. We could probably get our energy use down 25% in ways that do have tangible benefits.
I see little point in promoting extreme things that people are incredibly unlikely to do, like absolutely massive reductions in energy use, because it wastes my energy. I also don't waste my time promoting crazy stuff, like giving up on all or most technology because its all allegedly unsustainable. We need a more specific and focused approach.
A lot of the general envirinmental issue should really be about reducing waste. National Geographic march 2020 edition has an excellent article on this.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed typo.
-
alea at 20:52 PM on 7 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
nigelj@26
"Yes true about the low hanging fruit. It may surprise you, but I do think all the other solutions you list are realistic and people may yet adopt them better.But M Moores solutions require we go much further than that. Remember his solution to climate change is lower population growth and less use of energy. Full stop."
Thing is I can see that the extreme advocacy of living to the true definition of sustainability (as put forward by one contributor on RealClimate), and that literally doing that is impossible without hardship, and people will resist it, could both be right.
I have had a go at making significant inroads into my carbon footprint. I cut right down on meat intage, rented an allotment, turned the thermostat down to 12C in winter and compensated with a hoodie (UK winters are too cold to dispence with space heating completely), don't buy anything that I can't logically justify, use an energy provider which invests in renewable energy, avoid flying, use the train to visit family (240 miles away), cycle all local journeys, and worked up to being able to cycle to work daily (19 mile round trip with hills). I even went as far as going car free for about three years. The latter worked until I was hit by a careless driver and nearly died in hospital. My experience taught me that going beyond the low hanging fruit is tough, and is made worse with the system punishing me for taking more sustainable options. Visiting family by train costs over £100. Driving costs £45 in fuel. Which mode of transport would most people choose? I can't transport hundreds of kg of manure to my allotment for soil improvement, but now have a car again which solves that problem. Choosing a bicycle as my primary mode of transport means taking costs, in the form of limited mobility and increased vulnerability (externalised by motorists), because everyone else is still driving, but the tangible benefits are not immediately apparent, there are lagged benefits in the form of reduced financial cost and increased cardiovascular health.
I can't see how you can convince people en-masse to make lifestyle changes that make life less convenient or enjoyable without a tangible benefit, yet ultimately we have to do something to knock down emissions, and that something (or combination of somethings) is going to have to go beyond the easy stuff. This is where I haven't come across a decent solution, although cleaning up energy production is a good start, how do you tell businesses to stop having meetings requiring people to fly abroad, and use video conferencing instead, or stop people from buying consumer goods they don't need, or manufacture stuff to last so it doesn't need replacing as often, instead of either designing things to break just past the guarentee or telling people they need the latest model of xyz because..., or tell people to holiday locally instead of flying? Some of this could be done with regulation, but people don't like regulation beyond a certain point, and any democratic government that goes beyond that point will find themselves out of office next election.
I guess I am looking for some hope (to combat despair), in the form of a step by step feasible method of transitioning to a significantly more sustainable way of living on a global scale, it doesn't have to be the purist version, your definition would be adequate.
-
nigelj at 13:42 PM on 7 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
OPOF @29, I agree Gibbs and Moores suggestions of lower population growth and limiting energy consumption are so vague as to be useless. They also hand the denialists ammunition, because the denialists will just say all we have to do is limit population growth.
"What have Moore/Gibbs been spending their time on since 2015? Why?And why did they make such an inaccurate and misleading production and release it on Earth Day in 2020?"
They obviously did it on earth day for maximium exposure and to do maximum damage. I dont know for a fact what their motivations are but one of the reviews I read said that they believe that renewables are just a device for fat cat billionaures to make profits. That is enough for me to work out what their motivations are political. I dont need a better explanation. Its similar to the way the denialists hate things like carbon taxes, so they attack climate science.
There are many valid criticisms of badly behaved rich people, and capitalism, but Moores and Gibbs are just patently stupid ones. Some rich people will make a profit. So what? If we dont want that, then governments need to provide the funding or you have laws against excessive profiteering, but we don't go and rubbish renewables.
I see you prefer to concentrate on lists of positive things we can do to reduce energy consumption. That should be our main focus, but its worth discussing the doco.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:41 AM on 7 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
nigelj,
I have not watched the movie. I have seen so many valid criticisms of its content that I see little point in watching it.
But, base on the criticisms I have seen, I am skeptical about claims that Gibbs/Moore offer any descriptions of what should be done. Their "Reduce the Population" and "Reduce the energy consumption" points appear to have no supporting recommendations presented. They do not appear to say they mean. Their claims are like saying "Limit the harm done by climate change - without stating any limit", or "Make America Great Again". Pointless statements can be Harmfully Popular.
The Sustainable Development Goals are robustly established current understandings. And they can continue to be improved upon. They were published in 2015. Moore and Gibbs seem to be unaware of the SDGs, or any of the massive amount of awareness and understanding that is the basis for the SDGs.
What have Moore/Gibbs been spending their time on since 2015? Why? And why did they make such an inaccurate and misleading production and release it on Earth Day in 2020?
-
nigelj at 07:59 AM on 7 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
One Planet Only Forever @27
"I find arguments that a person should not be expected to live a "hair shirt lifestyle" to be poorly substantiated statements that can be tragically popular because people can make-up whatever they want as their understanding based on that type of 'brief marketing-style' claim. "
Well ok true enough, but I have never siad that. What I've said is promoting that sort of extreme lifestyle change with its ultra low energy consumption is crazy, because the cure becomes worse than the climate problem, and few people are likely to do it, so I'm not going to waste my energy on promoting it. M Moores documentary falls into this category. He effectively leaves us without any plausible solution at all, so its hard to put a positive spin on this so called documentary.
" Examples of what dramatic reduction of energy use can actually mean:"
Yes sure, but this still falls short of what M Moore is claming in terms of reducing energy use. They are mostly useful ideas, and I promote many of the same ideas on various websites, but not everyone can afford triple glazing etc or will be prepared to give up so much. I'm just saying we can probably cut our energy use by maybe 25%, 50% at best, so we still need a lot of renewable energy. This is pretty much the IPCC mitigation strategy.
Prev 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 Next
