Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 Next
Comments 19251 to 19300:
-
bjchip at 12:04 PM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Nigelj@9
I think the point I am coming to is that the "free market fundamentalism" is in all the ways that matter, a religion. Nor would I expect an evangelical to deal well with the issue simply because the surrounding environment for that movement is so deep in denial, but I don't think it is deterministic. We see that evangelicals who DO follow the science and there are no few of them, don't have a problem.
What appears to be true of them is that they do not subscribe to that belief in the free-market solving everything. The ones who expect God to solve every problem for them are less common. The ones who take stewardship seriously I think, more common.
"Lord..I pray and I pray and I never win the lotto." and the Lord says "Meet me halfway on this and buy a ticket" :-) ...that sort of lazy.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:13 AM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
Trevor_S @1, CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels have indeed flatlined:
That does not include emissions from cement manufacture, and nor does it include emissions from LUC. It is, therefore, quite possible that total anthropogenic emissions have continued to rise. (Certainly emissions from cement manufacture are likely to have done so.)
More importantly, a plateau in emissions still means anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. A plateau will only mean the increase is at a constant rate rather than at an accelerating rate as has been the case prior to 2014.
Finally, the three years of the fossil fuel emissions plateau have also, each set a new Global Mean Surface Temperature record. With higher temperatures comes a reduced rate of absorption of CO2 by the ocean, and consequently a rise in CO2 concentration. This factor will average out with slower rises in concentration in likely neutral or La Nina years in the near future.
-
blackhole at 11:11 AM on 4 June 2017Temp record is unreliable
I reviewed with interest the comments made to cosmoswarrior et. al. in comments 405-414. Tom Curtis points out in comment 406 that there is almost no difference between the raw and adjusted data from 1980-present for GNCNv3 data. Examining your plot, I would have to say I fully agree. Similarly, you showed plots of the new corrections, old corrections, and uncorrected NOAA temperature dataset in the figures in comment 409. Again, I would have to agree there is not much difference between three from about 1940 forward.
There is one statement you made, however, that needs correction. This is in comment 413(2) where you state:
Heller's giff does not demonstrate any significant change in values. Rather, it exhibits a change in the range of the y-axis from -0.6 to 0.8 for "NASA 2001" to approximately -0.85 to 1 for "NASA 2015". That represents a 32% increase and accounts for nearly all of the apparent change in trend - particlularly post 1980.
I downloaded this animated .gif file myself and extracted the individual images for 2001 and 2015. I then compared scales by copying and pasting the two axises from the 2015 image onto the 2001 image, and then sliding each axis from the 2015 image next to the corresponding axis of the 2001 image. It turned out that the horizontal axises of the two images were identical and the scale of the vertical 2015 image was slightly smaller than that of the 2001 image. Therefore, the actual slopes of the data plot for 2015 are slightly higher than what they appear in the plot image. I would have shown this image, but I am not sure how to do it just yet. While this data is not important for the points I want to make and carries no credibility with you, I thought I should point out the error since the topic came up recently.
From what you have pointed out in your most recent comments, it seems that you have debunked the myth about NOAA eliminating the "warming hiatus" in its paper of 2015. What happened was that we had a warming trend from about 1980 until 1998 when the warming rates were greatly reduced. We then continued on that level trend until 2015 when NOAA announced that they had shown with their "corrected" data that the warming hiatus never existed. Contrary to NOAA's claims, however, you pointed out that the corrected and uncorrected data are very nearly identical and therefore could not have eliminated the hiatus. This means, of course, that the hiatus not only existed back in 1998 but continues to this day.
So thanks for your inputs, Tom Curtis. You have been most helpful to us "climate contrarians" in making our case.
Moderator Response:[DB] Pathological liar and sock puppet of serial spammer cosmoswarrior has recused himself from further participation here in this iteration.
[PS] Also someone that seems absolutely determined that deniers have no concept of logic, critical thought or comprehension when it comes to trying to defend a preconceived position.
-
Trevor_S at 10:17 AM on 4 June 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #22
So where is all this CO2 coming from ? The IEA keeps reassuring us and folk like Stefan Rahmstorf use this data to suggest athrophogenic emisions have 'flatlined' for the last three years, for example here.. is it we're being misled about anthro emisions, as suggested here backed up by a real world example here ? or are sinks finally giving their CO2 up ie old anthro CO2 emissions coming back to haunt us, we have no El Nino to blame
-
nigelj at 09:23 AM on 4 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
There is a real danger here that by associating silly, illogical sorts of criticisms with specific issues, that we label anyone who has any criticism of climate science, vaccines or nuclear power zealots or ideologues, even when they are asking perceptive questions. Maybe the article could have been worded just a little more sensitively or just noted that there is nothing wrong with fact based or evidence based criticism (even if it turns out to ultimately be wrong).
The article was completely right in the main though, in terms of listing the various logical fallacies, and its fair to say there seems to be a group who see almost any new science as deeply suspicious and come up with the same fallacy arguments.
I don't have a fundamnetal objection to nuclear power. If you dont have coal or oil, then you have to use what options you can find. France appears to be in that category, or was in the past, although I stand to be corrected. Or did they not want to rely on imported coal from germany?
But I wouldn't want nuclear power in my country. We have numerous other energy options, an accident would decimate our economy as it could contaminate agricultural crop exports, and we are hugely reliant on those. We also get a lot of earthquakes almost everywhere. The issue comes down to benefits versus risks and costs and every country will be different. Not all criticisms of certain issues are foolish criticisms.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:35 AM on 4 June 2017It's waste heat
green tortoise @159, that is a very valid point, and also applies to fusion power (if and when it becomes viable). However, it places a cap on fision and/or fusion power at approximately the total current human energy use, or there abouts. If the deployment rates were favourable, we would do well to transfer all human power consumption to fision and/or fusion now, and restrict future energy growth to renewables. Unfortunately the deployment rates are not favourable, so that we are better of going straight to renewables with potentially some further construction of fision and/or fusion power to meet specific needs (marine transport comes to mind).
-
green tortoise at 07:46 AM on 4 June 2017It's waste heat
The paper from Mark G. Flanner (2009) "Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models" arrives at the following numbers for:
Global "waste heat" flux: 0.028 W/m2 in 2005 and 0.059 W/m2 in 2040
Regional "waste heat flux": up to 0.68 W/m2 in 2005 and 0.89 W/m2 in 2040 (both numbers for West Europe).
In a regional to local level both greenhouse and waste heat warming can be significant, approaching the current level of greenhouse forcing (3W/m2) in some areas (table 2).
This result supports the earlier, coarser work of Chaisson (2008) , "Long-Term Global Heating from Energy Usage", that arrives at the conclusion that global warming from waste heat alone can warm the planet by 3°C in 8 doubling times of the global non-renewable energy consumption. At a 2% growth rate in energy consumption this would happen in 280 years and at 1% growth rate in 320 years.
I see no loophole in this result, indicating that carbon neutrality is a necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition to prevent overheating a planet. In the longer term, net energy neutrality is also necessary.
Renewable energy that takes energy already in the environment can do the trick, and there are lots of it. On the other hand, carbon-neutral non-renewable energy sources like nuclear or fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage do not.
-
nigelj at 07:22 AM on 4 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Moderator, there is something a bit odd. The article says 49 comments on your main home page, but only 26 are displaying above. I don't think its my computer, as it also happens on the smartphone. Just letting you know in case its a software problem. Or maybe some comments were deleted.
Moderator Response:[GT]
Thanks. There seems to be a problem with the counts for a few recent posts. Have passed this on to be looked at. -
nigelj at 07:06 AM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Bjchip @6, I agree greed is not good. You see this reflected even in the writings of even ancient greece and egypt etc. I think we know it instinctively, but at an intellectual level we can observe looking at history that human prosperity requires humans cooperating and working together in group situations, and greed by certain members, and other destructive behavior by individuals, ultimately destabilises the group making prosperity very difficult.
Greed and ambition are often conflated. Ambition and the desire to aquire things are intrinsic and healthy, but the desire to covet and take more than is needed becomes greed. Ayn Rand wrote a book "In virtue of selfishness" which promotes the benefits of following selfish desires but she never really defined what she meant by selfishness. We can all recognise the virtue of humans being free spirits to make a profit doing what they wish, but if this sometimes becomes destructive or greedy and things break down, and at some point the destructive behaviour of the individual destablises the group.
Societies usually put limits on greed with simple things like the criminal law, but most societies go beyond this and promote sharing and so on.
Rand's claim that selfishness has virtue has some merit at one level, but does not obviate the need for limits on behaviour. She has a big problem because if she really believes in the virtue of selfishness, then what is wrong with people who simply steal things? Her simplicty falls down, and leads to anarchy. But she accepts the need for property law, and once one accepts that society needs laws and rules, this means you need government and have to discuss how far the laws go. If people cause harm to others by either greed or destructive behaviour, this is reason enough for laws, and harm can be done in many ways beyond theft for example environmental damage.
So I also think the free market fundamnentalists have got things wrong. Greed is not good and becomes hatred of government rules, and ultimately anarchic, and the rule of the jungle, at which point society destablises. Given dealing with climate change requires some degree of government input (and I wish it didn't but it does) it has bought the free market libertarian fundamentalists out in full force against climate science itself.
How does this relate to religion? I think this religious denial of climate science is not fundamental to climate denial. Plenty of religions recognise climate change and that greed is not good. However the evangelical religions are the exception, that are in denial about climate change. I have observed many of these people particularly their leaders are quite materialistic. They appear to interpret the bible as a free pass, take it literally, but dont worry about sin. They appear to believe as long as you believe in Christ you will be saved and that because a good person cannot buy their way to heaven through good works, there is no point even trying to be good. Most christian religions have the interpretation that humans should actually try to be good.
In fact if you read John Hartz link, its very interesting and the evangelicals have literally dozens of different reasons to oppose climate science. It's death by a thousand cuts, and this group would be very hard to convince. (Some of the comments posted on the article are very amusing eg JPDiddy).
-
bjchip at 04:38 AM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
#7 JJA
Of course!! The only way to get the American Political Right to mobilize on this is to characterize it as a "war" ;-)
-
jja at 04:10 AM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
To the extent that the IPCC WG1 does not include permafrost melt-emissions in their emissions pathway analyses, noting that they have grossly underestimated the carbon cycle feedback from warming soils (non-permafrost), that higher resolution models find a definitive impact from mitigation-scenario aerosol reduction rates on both the ENSO cycle (strongly positive) and Arctic sea ice (+1.5C avg temp), to the extent that the current models utilized in the AR5 project a vibrant September Arctic sea ice extent through 2050 and that a rapidly accelerated sea ice loss is currently observed, and will be greatly exacerbated by global atmospheric circulation changes induced by aerosol emissions reductions mentioned previously, such that Mid-Summer effective-free Arctic sea ice loss is now very likely by 2065 under RCP 6.0 with induced regional warming due to albedo that will be equivalent to a doubling of CO2, with all of its impacts on the Arctic circle, raising regional average temperatures by an additional +8C, to the extent that this is what the CURRENT science is saying (published since Dec. 2012 cutoff date for the IPCC WG1, we were only locking in total societal collapse by pursuing the anemic COP-21 accords and must mobilize into a WWII wartime footing of massive government production/intervention to achieve a net-zero emissions economy within the next 10 years.
-
green tortoise at 03:42 AM on 4 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
The post about waste heat says:
"The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat."
I never disputed that. What I am saying is that such situation may change in the long-term future. I will continue that discussion in the Waste heat thread.
-
green tortoise at 03:41 AM on 4 June 2017It's waste heat
I am linking to my discussion about nuclear power from here
-
bjchip at 03:29 AM on 4 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Greed is not good for any human society.This is clear in the evolution of our human societies, from the expression of it, in every major religion.
Buddhism,Hinduism,Ba'hai,Muslim,Christian and if I missed yours it is not intentional. All of them and the Atheists as well, all will tell you greed is bad.
Is this accidental? When one considers the role of religion in ensuring that a society survives, and the survival of that society as an indication of the "correctness" of the religion, one has to consider that the religion "test" is actually pretty telling. They don't agree on much but "greed" is uniformly excoriated as "evil" in every one of them.
In Christianity it is one of the "seven deadly sins".
What we can infer from this is that no major society that embraced "greed" as a sacrament, survived long enough for that particular religious belief to make a mark. Which has to suggest that there is some inherent difficulty for a society that needs to work together being comprised of individuals who each put themselves ahead of everyone else. They don't last. The necessary trust is absent. The society disintegrates.
So when we examine the cult of "free-market fundamentalism" and its exhortations that "greed is good" we can recognize that the people believing that horse-puckey are entirely un-Christian and destructive to the society they claim to be a part of. If they claim Christianity they are hypocrites and if they assert atheism they fail the test of logic. Conveniently for them.
It is however, this cult that is involved in the bulk of "Climate Denial" and their religion will brook no rights of anyone else being considered as important as their own right to wreck things to extract a few bucks from them. The benefits to others of those things don't matter at all. "Greed is good".
In no society can such a sick attitude long survive. It either kills the society and dies with its host or the society kills it. Religions are one of the ways society deals with such cancers. Education would be another.
Part of the issue with climate denial is that the cultists chose greed early. They ignored the science that warned that the headlong rush to get more money might be bad for everyone. The science got stronger and they rejected it. They would rather die than admit error as they know that if they are wrong they have done harm to others, and that is the most perverse aspect of this.
Their "religion" makes a near fetish of personal responsibility. If they accept the science they HAVE to take responsibility. As humans we never want to perceive ourselves as evil. Yet since the science has been clear, they have made things worse... and to accept it now, and accept their error, they have an even greater "responsibility" to shoulder.
In that hole they have dug, they can't stop digging. Failed as their response was, they cannot stop using it.
Which is a lot of why the argument is interminable, the logic absent and the opposition to the science intransigent.
Greed is bad.
-
green tortoise at 03:03 AM on 4 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
My apologies for the mistake about Angela Merkel scientific career. I saw some months ago a documentary about the life of Merkel (that was not about nuclear power, but about her in general), that cited her career at quantum physics.
If I have made some research, I would have found that she later specialiced in chemistry rather than nuclear physics.
As for nuclear power, I would comment the following:
Nuclear power shares with fossil fuels its non-renewable nature, and there are 3 well known issues with nuclear energy:
1) Safety from extreme events (like Chernobyl or Fukushima)
2) Nuclear waste
3) Military useThose are well known and will not go further discussing them. They can be resolved with more research , regulation and technology development.
Some years ago I believed nuclear power could provide a possible alternative to fossil fuels, given strong technological and regulatory improvements.
However then I found that there is a fourth, more subtle and serious issue with nuclear power (or any non-renewable fuel, for that matter):
Thermal power plants liberate heat, also known as "waste heat". Today waste heat is just a tiny % of global radiative forcing (so it is a marginal contributor to global warming), but with exponential energy consumption growth it can outpace in a few centuries the greenhouse warming.
Any source of energy that adds heat to a planet has the same problem, even solar power if not collected in the Earth surface but instead collected in space and then re-radiated to the Earth surface.
It's just a radiative balance calculation, heat warms a planet, no matter if it comes from the greehouse effect or from direct heating. The only sure check to planetary warming in the very long term (i.e centuries to millenia) is to limit energy use.
Energy use could be limited either by regulation or by turning to heat-neutral energy sources, like Earth-based solar, wind, small-to-medium hydroelectric, advanced biofuels, etc.
If I am going off topic, please feel free to re-direct me to a more appropiate thread.
Moderator Response:[TD] (I'm sorry, I accidentally clicked a button to send you a reminder about the comments policy. Thank you for being conscious of it and mentioning it without prodding!) What I meant to do was simply point you to the post about waste heat being trivial.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:13 PM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
green tortoise @32, Angela Merkel's publication record includes nothing on nuclear physics, nor anything directly related. Her scientific career was not at any nuclear facility. She was, however, Minister for the Environment and Nuclear Safety from 1994 to 1998. There is no reason to think her response to Fukushima was anything other than political.
-
green tortoise at 16:56 PM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Why the image about nuclear power? As far as I know, there is nothing anti-science in opposing nuclear power. Even Angela Merkel (herself a nuclear scientist) after Fukushima did a policy of nuclear phaseout.
As for GMOs, I know too little about them to have a settled opinion. The only thing I could say is that given the huge genetic diversity of genetical technologies, there may be some good (even excellent) GMO crops (like crops with vitamins and better nutritional values) but others that, like in every technology known to humankind, could go wrong. If there are some crops that produce toxins to kill parasites, could that not be that as bad as pesticides if mismanaged?
I will not lump together all those things. I would make the following classification:
- outright denialism (like the so-called AGW "skeptics", creationists, flat-earthers, etc.)
- Alarmists (like the ones that exaggerate side effects of vaccines, so scared about them that become blind to the much bigger threat of infectious diseases). GMO opposition, if not based on evidence, fits also here.
Of course there is a mixing of both groups, as both deny inconvenient facts, or invoke "conspiracy theories".
But as someone said before, one group deny a whole set of reality (climate change, evolution, age of the universe, etc.), the other exaggerate in a hyperbolic manner some possible problems in some specific areas (minimal side effects for vaccines, mismanegement of some GMOs, etc)
Moderator Response:[PS] How about providing a cite for your belief that Angela Merkel is Nuclear scientist? Quantum chemistry seems a bit of a stretch to put it mildly. In fact, it rather strongly suggests you are victim of someone pushing misinformation to attack nuclear power but prove me wrong.
-
LinkeLau at 16:47 PM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Dear NigelJ, thanks for your comments. There is indeed no doubt about Radiative Forcing of CO2, but my doubt is in all the higher order effects it causes and the little we still know about the impact of other important explaining variables, such as cloud formation.
I have seen many studies in academics that showed effects of a certain experimental variable in a controlled environment. These effects tended to be very clear. But when implementee in practice, if thousands and thousands of other variables also played a role, the effect found in a controlled environment were not found anymore, or diminished largely.
I argue my comment is not off topic. It is a reaction to the first sentenses of the post of John Abraham that states "the science of climate change is clear and that humans are the cause of warming". This is a far to simple statement as so much on climate effects still have to be discovered.
Moderator Response:[PS] First this is offtopic. Use the search button to find appropriate topics. Second making a pile of unsupported comments is sloganeering. It might be what you believe, but that does not make it true. Arguments from Personal Incredulity have no weight, especially to the better informed. Either back your arguments with evidence or find somewhere else to comment. I suggest a long hard read of the IPCC WG1 report.
-
ubrew12 at 15:44 PM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
DrivingBy@25: Woodrow Wilson didn't start WWI, although he arguably ended it. And the dust-up of 150 years ago was no fault of Lincoln's, but Slavery's. Trump is not presiding over the worst hardship in our government (largely thanks, economically, to the 'African' who preceded him). It's his remarkable ability to make a sow's ear out of a silk purse, that will render him the worst in history. The Paris agreement mostly justified China spending half a trillion dollars on renewable energy in the six year we're centered in, and India making smaller but similar commitments to wean itself from coal. It justified the over 90% of new electric power turned on last year in Europe that came from renewable sources. All while 'requiring' remarkably little from America, other than fracturing more of its 'Heartland' for natural gas, and hiding the fugitive emissions from the Fed's (and the locals who will have to inhale them). That's the definition of a 'win-win', and who couldn't put up with that? The worst president in American history, that's who.
-
nigelj at 12:35 PM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Macro @30 I live in NZ and don't recall the zucchini scare, but ok I accept some traditional crops have had problems. However what bothers me more is this: We know that this occasionally happens with traditional breeding, but we do have a good picture going back decades to get a feel for the scale of things. And people were ill, they didn’t die.
Genetic engineering is a whole new frontier, a new system. Because of this I just really hope the testing is really good. There doesn't seem to be that much good quality genuinely independent testing. And ok maybe the same applies to traditional crops.
I read a fair amount, and there seems some quite good credible material critical of ge at various levels, more so than anti vaccine material etc.
I'm not calling for gmo's to be banned globally, America can do as it wishes. But they are very strictly controlled in NZ. You can trial them but its not easy. Frankly we are likely to make more money as a nation with organic foods. Once gmos become widespread in NZ there will be cross contamination so organic options become limited. But I admit I'm driven here by my own commercial views on what may work for my country as much as the safety issue or other issues.
Yes I do hear what you are saying any corporation can become a monopoly, whether gmos crops or traditional crops. All monopolies tend to be problems not just monsanto, but right now they are certainly a problem.
I also thought the need to buy new gmo seeds was that they were deliberately designed to self terminate. This might be commercial, but it’s an alarming, questionable sort of thing.
-
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Mukesh Prasad - it appears I inadvertantly deleted your comment instead of moderating it. Try again but this time try stating your objection, on topic, backed with data and/or references to peer-reviewed science, and leave the sloganeering and attitude behind. Debate about science is very welcome but only if you are prepared to abide by comments policy of this site.
-
DrivingBy at 11:07 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
While I disagree rather strongly with Trump's current stance on AGW, to state that not persuing the Paris agreement (which would have been dead in the Senate anyways) equals being the worst President in history would be funny, were it not sad. Has the author forgotton World War I, and Wilson's delusional League of Nation which was surely, really for sure this time outlaw war? Or the little dust-up a mere 150 years ago?
This is temporary, mostly symbolic annoyance. The rest of the world will go on with its plans to slow AGW as before, and in a bit, after some theatre, the US will join it. But the Paris treaty/agreement/whatever is not some holy writ, even if implemented in full it would only slow ACC and not halt, much less reverse it.
None of the current or proposed plans are likely to halt climate change; if the US and the rest of the world really wanted to do that, the time to start was around 1970. The Greenhouse Effect has been known for over 200 years and CO2's approximate role for over 100. Neither were secrets known only to the USA.
-
John Hartz at 10:14 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Recommended supplemental reading:
Why so many white evangelicals in Trump’s base are deeply skeptical of climate change by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Acts of Faith, Washington Post, June 2, 2017
-
nigelj at 09:56 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe @19, I wasn't off topic. The article is rather general about what Trump has just done and why, and I simply added to that. I admit you didn't raise that issue in your post, but I added ot on any way as its relevent to the article and might have been of general interest.
Economic growth is just an increase in economic output, ie the production of goods and services. A big push towards renewable energy certainly has the potential to increase the rate of economic output, just like a big push to build more roads etc. It will also create jobs, and become stimulatory for the economy as a whole.
Your efficiency argument is something completely different. As has been pointed out by others, you have to evaluate that aspect, by considering costs and efficiencies of renewable energy against the full costs of doing nothing, etc.
Moderator Response:[DB] The user to which you are responding to has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
nigelj at 09:27 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
I submit that Linkelau @1 is hugely off topic.
And the heat absorbing properties of C02 are not derived simply from theoretical speculation, and definitely not from modelling the future. They are derived from laboratory experiments:
agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
-
nigelj at 09:06 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
Very well said.
However one criticism, you say "My view is, it would be better for us to leave the agreement so we cannot sabotage it from the inside. But, only time will tell."
Well I thought that initially as well, but America can be pretty obstructionist outside the agreement , maybe even more vocal and critical, and could structure policies to try to sabotage countries within the agreement who are setting a good climate example. I just struggle to see any overall up side to America leaving the agreement.
I think you are right in your summary of reasons for climate denial and how this often relates to politics and social groups. However I think there are also a range of reasons for climate denial that I have observed with various people, and some do operate more at an individual level as well: Sometimes its just lack of knowledge about the science, (as opposed to ideology) and clearly oil companies have vested business interests regardless of the politics of the people involved, and we mostly all have automobilies, so its not unreasonable to want to be convinced that renewable energy is viable. I think the case is proven on the science and renewable energy, and people will come around to this with a little time and explanations.
But there are also reasons for climate denial to do with clear political and ideological dimensions and associated groups that seem to be paramount in the debate, and very divisive and entrenched. This is obvious when you read peoples comments and talk to people, as well as the surveys you mention. It's basically a suspicion of excessive government powers, and divides liberals and conservatives.
Liberals and conservatives are probably equally intelligent. Any big difference would have been identified by now, and if there is some small difference, it doesn't really get us anywhere dwelling on that.
But liberals and conservatives do see the world differently, and I have seen published science claiming this is at a deep possibly genetic level or brain hardwiring level, (but that people are also able to change their world view to some reasonable extent, at least on an intellectual level). Here are a couple of sources:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160331105728.htm
Clearly observations tell us liberals are more open to change, accepting of government rules on business and environmental matters, and acceptance of people who are different. I personaly think liberals also have very flexible world views based more around pragmatism and evidence. Conservatives are clearly more traditionalists, cautious about people who are different, and very sceptical about government rules in respect of environment and business. I have personally observed that conservatives are very "belief focussed".
But when you think about it that way, do you not see merit in both world views? This suggests we are forced towards a middle ground. I think it becomes a case of whether either ideology is getting irrational, or extreme, or damaging. For example government rules often make sense, yet can sometimes become excessive and petty. Yet the suspicion of government rules can become a huge roadblock to things that are desperately and obviously required, like reducing emissions.
The worst thing is happening. In America liberals and conservatives are finding the issues complex to resolve, and dividing into two warring, emotive tribes that over simplify the issues, when what is really needed is more of a consensus that happened earlier last century.
Reducing emissions relates more to the tragedy of the commons problem. This is mainstream economc theory. I would have thought conservatives would accept this means there are solid grounds for action on climate change related to some government level measures.
Unfortunately many conservatives in America are clearly hunkering down in a bunker mentality, where certain beliefs on a range of matters have now become non negotiable. However this is more evident in government perhaps than the population as a whole, and as pointed out many republicans are concerned about climate change.
But the republican politicians are certainly very one sided and mainly sceptical about climate science, and its becoming an entrenced belief (money in politics is probably a factor here as well) but they are also very firmly of a mind on various social and economic "beliefs". But beliefs are beliefs only, and are not at the same level as scientific laws or truth.
-
LinkeLau at 09:04 AM on 3 June 2017Reflections on the politics of climate change
John,
Climate change is real, it is measured, it is factual. But that CO2 is the main cause is more or less a matter of "opinion". It is however an opinion based on theoretical arguments (e.g. Radiative forcing) and data drive models. But there is no such thing as a causal experiment, so causality is still weak from an academic point of view. Although I admire the very extensive and data driven IPCC models there are still too much unknowns to be quit sure that CO2 is the main cause of the warming measured over the past few decades. For example, extremely important greenhouse variables such as cloud formation and humidity are not measured well enough to include in the models and also higher order effects are largely unknown. Furthermore, there is no such thing as THE temperature. Developments of surface temperature, ocean temperature and higher atmosphere temperature might differ and might even show different signs. So, although I "believe" CO2 is a driver I am far from sure when it comes to the magnitude of its effect on temperature as well as its long term effects.
Moderator Response:[JH] Fact-free sloganeering snipped.
-
RedBaron at 08:57 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe,
You said, "For example this forbes article points out that solar employs more people than oil gas and coal combined. How efficient is renewable when it employs more people to produce less than 3% of the electricity and power of gas, coal and oil. GNP goes down, not up, when costs of production go up."
Flawed economics. That's the economics of the plutocrasy. IE The richest man sitting on the pile of excrement. He's happy because even though the rest of the society is going to hell in a hand basket, at least his pile of bull shit is tallest.
The rest of the country is happy as hell to have a good paying job in solar and/or wind. And economically it's far more beneficial to society to have a workforce employed in meaningful jobs like this. Just in reductions of external hidden costs it far exceeds the fat cat sitting on his pile of wealth making sure almost no actual working families gain any benefit at all.
The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER July/August 2014 -
bjchip at 08:46 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Ouch... sorry guys... that link should have been done using the tool here...
-
bjchip at 08:44 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
#19 Joe
What is the comparison base? Are we comparing the economic growth assuming that not only we do nothing to mitigate but also that, in contradiction of every scientific and economic evaluation of what is happening, there will be no climate related damage to the economy?
That is what Forbes and you just did.
The use of CO2 emitting sources of electricity is going to be incredibly un-popular when the consequences start happening. This year we have the State of Georgia in difficulty with its Peach crop, a trend that is just a continuation of the reality that the t-rump and his advisors deny. A trend that is scientifically quite certain.
http://jaybookman.blog.myajc.com/2017/05/31/opinion-georgia-climate-no-longer-very-peachy/
As long as we maintain that "nothing bad will happen" it makes sense to do nothing to prevent it. As soon as we recognize that there is a problem we no longer can use the "status-quo" is the basis for comparison. When the use of Fossil Fuels becomes unacceptable, the alternatives we build now will be orders of magnitude more valuable, and their absence (in comparison with more foresighted nations) will be incredibly costly to our economy.
Basically, your comparison is false because your assumptions going in are false. What is going to happen, is that there will, in 2030 to 2040, be a massive usable energy shortage and a realization that the t-rump, his advisors and the people who paid them were criminally irresponsible fools lacking ethics, logic and common sense, pursuing an ideological goal to the detriment of future generations.
If they are remembered, it will be as criminals. If they are still alive they will be prosecuted, bankrupted and imprisoned... and the only reason that might not happen would be if the destruction being done to the USA as a result of this is more abrupt and complete than I personally expect.
What has been done is effectively treason, and the t-rump, his advisors and his allies in the Senate and House are guilty.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:33 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
joe @19, the Paris Agreement, as its critics are quick to point out, is non-binding. It follows that it is not a treaty. Its' legal standing in the US as a means to constrain government policy has always been non-existent, and that would not have changed even if it was called a treaty and the Senate ratified it because the asperations are non-binding.
What Trump has done is simply told the world that he, as President, will not even aspire to reduce greenhouse emissions. There is reason to question the title of this article, as if a purely symbolic gesture can make his record significantly worse when he as already taken the practical measures that will ensure that, so far as federal legislation goes, he is committed to massively increased emissions. Arguing, however, that a non-binding, asperational statement is a treaty as if such a statement could have legal effect even if ratified is just silly.
-
joe - at 08:17 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Nigelj - Trump provides no evidence renewable energy destroys jobs. Renewable energy has already created jobs, in the governments own statistics, and if anything can get the 3% gdp growth Trumps wants, renewable energy would be that thing.
Nigelj - you brought up a subject which is off topic - However, how do you get an increase in GDP using renewable energy when the man hours is 20-30 times more than to produce the same quanity of energy using coal or gas.
For example this forbes article points out that solar employs more people than oil gas and coal combined. How efficient is renewable when it employs more people to produce less than 3% of the electricity and power of gas, coal and oil. GNP goes down, not up, when costs of production go up. www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#8ce00928000b
-
joe - at 07:39 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Moderator - [DB] First, please provide the appropriate citations requested of you in this comment earlier.
1) I cited Article II Section II of the US constitution. Any first year law student would recognize the citation as valid.
2) The paris agreement is a treated as acknowledged in the first sentence of this very article.
3) your reference to providing a citation in comment #6 dealt with a different subject matter.
Moderator Response:[DB] All parties: This user has recused themselves from further participation here.
-
nigelj at 07:34 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe @15, you have missed the point. Nobody is really criticising Trump for making use of exective powers here today (although this may be raised in due course). They are calling him irresponsible for pulling out of the agreement, because of how this harms both America and global interests.
Are you familiar with the concept the tragedy of the commons? The climate does not recognise international boundaries. When one country acts in a way that alters the climate, everyone potentially suffers. It's "neighbour from hell" material. This scenario has logically lead to the Paris agreement.
In addition, Trump claims America gets a bad deal, and it hurts american business. This doesn't even remotely stand up to scrutiny, for example the study he quotes finding trillions in costs was funded by business and oil industry interests, and is based on all sorts of cherry picked data and assumptions, and has huge vested interests.
Trump provides no evidence renewable energy destroys jobs. Renewable energy has already created jobs, in the governments own statistics, and if anything can get the 3% gdp growth Trumps wants, renewable energy would be that thing.
-
nigelj at 07:12 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Joe @9, you appear to be claiming the paris agreement is really a treaty.
Personaly I feel agreements like this should "ideally" be considered treaties, in an "ideal" world, with a vote in Congress or the senate. Alternatively maybe even a binding public referendum, if that is possible in your American system of government.
However the senate would have obstructed Obama,and so he used executive powers "because he could" just as Trump has made huge use of executive powers, because he could.
There is nothing in the constitution that says international agreements must be treaties. It only says that the president has the power to make treaties if he wishes.
It is also debatable whether the Paris agreement is really a treaty, as has been pointed out by various people above. Given presidents can use executive powers it's all academic.
The real issue here, which you and all your quoted sources have missed, is executive powers. If presidents can use these they probably will (examples Obama and Trump and virtually every president in history) and any criticism is rather impotent. I'm opposed to Trumps policies, and annoyed at the way Trump has used exective powers on some things, but in fairness he is not alone in using these powers. If you realy want to change anything, you have to change the law that governs the extent of executive powers.
-
Evan at 06:39 AM on 3 June 2017SkS Analogy 4 - Ocean Time Lag
No matter where the heat comes from, there will be a lag between the time you apply the heat, and the time at which you see the water heat up to a certain level, as indicated by the thermometer. If the thermometer is in the water, and the heat comes from above, the heat from above still has to warm up the water. Until the water warms up, the thermometer will not respond.
Does that make sense?
-
joe - at 06:32 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
As the opening sentence of this article states :
"In an inexplicable abdication of any semblance of responsibility or leadership, Donald Trump has announced that he will begin the process to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate treaty,
Under Article II, Section II of the US Constitution, all treaties required 2/3 consent of the Senate. All Trump has done is not submit the treaty to the Senate for Ratification. Neither did Obama submit the treaty to the Senate, since neither the 114th Senate or the 115th senate was going to ratify the treaty.
Moderator Response:[DB] First, please provide the appropriate citations requested of you in this comment earlier.
-
Marco at 04:09 AM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Nigelj, your argument that "In effect the system has been proven to be safe by the passage of time." regarding traditional breeding vs GMOs is invalid. For example, in the 1960s a potato was made by traditional breeding techniques (the Lenape), with plenty of good properties for making potato chips. Unfortunately, it was literally much more poisonous than other potatoes. All potatoes contain solanine, but this one had amounts at least 4 times higher, and made several people ill.
There is a more unclear story from New Zealand about 15 years ago with zucchinis, where some were possibly so much inbred that they produced very high levels of cucurbitacin, yet another toxin (and a similar potential issue in the 1980s in the US and Australia). This was not discovered until people got sick.
Also, I need to repeat that you cannot use the "but Monsanto behaves bad!" as an argument against GMOs. Monsanto, like all the other large ag businesses, also uses traditional breeding techniques. Ban GMOs, and you still have the exact same 'problem': large companies that hold the rights to the seeds of those plants that farmers really, really want, because they give higher yields for lower prices, and a product with more desirable properties - with the one challenge that you have to buy new seeds every year, because hybrids usually don't work very well anymore when going to the next generation. From an IPR point of view it really does not matter whether you are dealing with a patent for a GMO, or the plant variety (or breeding) rights of a new hybrid - although the latter actually last longer.
We thus end up with a completely different argument, where "GMO" can be replaced by literally anything: the fear of large corporations possibly controlling certain aspects of our life.
-
Paul D at 03:55 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
BTW hurray for the hero of America, Elon Musk, he is reality and a true pioneer, unlike Trump who just sells his name as a gold franchise.
-
Paul D at 03:51 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Re 2: Lancifer.
Individual nations have to take responsibility for their per capita carbon emissions. It frankly does not matter if another nation emits more than your nation, a nation takes the high moral ground by doing better than others, once you are doing better (emitting less carbon) then you can justify campaigning to get others to reduce theirs.
Fact (World bank Stats emissions per capita data):
China = 7.6 tons
UK = 7.1
US = 16.4
EU = 6.7Basically this also implies inefficient use of energy, or wasted use of energy. You get a low emission rating by also using energy efficiently and hence spending less of burn fuels. Trump will drag the US into being less effective and efficient, whilst it's competitors develop new technology and exploit it.
Alternatively US states and businesses will just ignore Trumps swamp and just carry on developing modern electric technology and renewable energy systems and the US coal industry will fade away as it should do and be replaced by real modern systems.
-
SirCharles at 03:23 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Good summary => https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-reaction-trump-pulls-us-out-paris-agreement-climate-change
That's where Trump was getting some advice from => https://www.ecowatch.com/kimberly-guilfoyle-fox-2430248852.html
In briefing, White House official responds to question about whether Trump thinks climate change is real: "Can we stay on topic?" => https://twitter.com/AmyAHarder/status/870384194580623360
-
Jonbo69 at 02:30 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Does anyone have any ideas as to how this decision might affect future projections for 2050 and 2100 - will there be a revised estimate?
-
kmoyd at 01:48 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Country commitments should be expressed in per capita amounts as well as total. If China were split into North China and South China, the US would regain its position as the largest emitter.
-
joe - at 01:00 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
CB - the Paris accord is a treaty. www.nationalreview.com/article/448156/paris-agreement-treaty-requiring-two-thirds-senate-vote
The Volohk conspiracy ( a libertain law blog) has several good articles explaining why the Paris accord is a Treaty under the US Constitution.
Article II , section II of the US Constitution.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:51 AM on 3 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
There are generally two major objections to GMOs;
1: 'They are dangerous and untested and will kill us all!'
2: 'Large corporations are attempting to use GMOs to build agricultural, drug, and even human genetics monopolies which could be economically and culturally devastating.'
The first is nonsense of the same sort as anti-vax and global warming denial. The second is quite valid.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:41 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
joe, both of your points are false.
First - The Paris Agreement is not a treaty. Rather, it is an agreement amongst the signatories of the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty... which the U.S. senate ratified in 1992.
Here is the statement President Bush made when signing the ratification
Second - The 'only 0.2 C' canard is based on the initial reduction pledges. Those pledges are intended to be revised every five years... and thus greater reductions are not only possible under the Paris agreement, but likely. In any case, 0.2 C reduction in planetary temperature is not a "rounding error".
-
ubrew12 at 00:30 AM on 3 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
British Petroleum estimates there are 1.7 trillion barrels of oil left underground. At $48/barrel that's about $80 trillion. All of that could be rendered worthless if what China and Europe have begun catches fire globally (hint: China now subsidizes the purchasers of electric vehicles). I don't think any formal agreement is needed to know that the owners of $80 trillion in assets, at existential risk of being declared worthless, will find a way to express their gratitude to Trump and the Republicans who support him (BTW: that $80 trillion is just oil. It doesn't include the value of natural gas and coal currently underground).
-
joe - at 23:40 PM on 2 June 2017Donald Trump just cemented his legacy as America’s worst-ever president
Two points
First - The paris accord is a treaty. The reality is that the worst Trump has done is to not submit the treaty to the senate for ratification. The senate is not going to ratify the treaty any more than the senate was not going to ratify the treaty under Obama. Same reason on why Kyoto was never submitted to the senate. Very simply, the question of whether Trump did the right thing or the wrong thing is moot.
Second - The best the paris accord was going to accomplish was less than .1c / or .2c ) by 2030 / 2100 vs the RCP 8.5 estimate. Those amounts are way below the rounding error. So tell us again, what the paris accord was really going to accomplish, other than symbolism?
Moderator Response:[DB] "The best the paris accord was going to accomplish was less than .1c / or .2c ) by 2030 / 2100 vs the RCP 8.5 estimate. Those amounts are way below the rounding error"
Please provide a citation to a credible source for these claims.
-
Digby Scorgie at 12:28 PM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
Perhaps the problem commenters have with GMOs is the fact that they form a subsystem of a larger system. One does not have this with climate science. Studies of the planetary climate must perforce take into account the fact that it is a system in itself. Similarly, vaccines have been studied from the point of view of their effect on complete populations.
GMOs, by comparison, are part of a wider system that includes different farming methods, different crops (GMO and non-GMO), different economic conditions, different nutritional requirements, different local climatic conditions, and so on and so on. (This is all off the top of my head. I'm sure somebody else can do much better.)
The essence of the problem is that the complete farming system might be better or it might be worse with a GMO subsystem. I have no idea if there are studies of complete farming systems with and without GMOs. Perhaps this concern has already been put to rest. If not, however, then this might be the cause of the general disquiet over GMOs.
However, the foregoing does not affect the general thrust of the article. There are many topics that have been studied to death by scientists, who have produced mountains of evidence to back their consensus conclusions regarding these topics — and you still get people who reject the evidence for purely ideological reasons.
What occurs to me is that there must be a correlation between the author's list of fallacious arguments and the FLICC acronym from Denial 101x. Has anyone considered a comparison of the two?
-
blueislandgirl at 10:25 AM on 2 June 2017Anti-vaccers, climate change deniers, and anti-GMO activists are all the same
I think you are wrong to lump people against GMOs in with anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Here's why.
I am very anti-GMO because GMO crops require so much more herbicide and pesticide use, because pests and weed so quickly become resistant to chemicals (Roundup-ready crops as an example - and yes, I realize Roundup-ready corps are not the only GMO crops out there).
So in my mind, GMO = vast overuse of chemicals, many of which we know are neurotoxins or otherwise very unhealthy. Recently, for example, the EPA approved a chemical, chlorpyrifos, that had been slated to be banned under the previous administration, and some farm workers got very sick. There are countless stories from Argentina where people exposed to very high levels of glyphosate because they live near GMO soy fields are getting very sick.
So, be careful. Some of us are very against GMOs not necessarily because they are modified, but rather because of how they are modified (e.g. crops that have pesticides built-in) or because of the tremendous amount of chemicals used on the crops.
It is very clear that chemicals are at least partly responsible for the decline in bee and butterfly populations, and it is also very clear that large tracts of mono-agriculture, which GMO crops are used in (especially corn, wheat, and soy), are incredibly bad for our environment. "Big ag" is responsible for a big chunk of CO2 emissions.
So if you talk more to people who are anti-GMO you may find that there are many reasons beyond what you might expect as to why we are anti-GMO, some of which you may even agree with.
Moderator Response:[RH] Please provide citations for your claims.
[PS] I put warnings on claims that need cites. And please avoid irony by ensuring your citations/evidence are not on the referenced table. As has been stated, this is not place for a GMO or vaccine argument, but you could show that anti-GMO arguments do not conform the science denier list of the article. Further offtopic posts will be deleted.
Prev 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 Next
