Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 Next
Comments 22251 to 22300:
-
nigelj at 10:42 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Trump's original position was climate change is a Chinese scam and he was adamant the USA would pull out of the Paris accord. Now Trump says humans are implicated in climate change to "some extent", and he is open minded about Paris. This has been in the news the last couple of days.
I suspect Trump lacks sincerity on this change of mind, and is just trying to be all things to all people. I hope Im wrong of course.
More significant is this. Trump is not going to find it so easy to get what he wants all the time, whatever that may be. He is used to running his family empire and will find government quite different. He has already appointed hard line climate sceptics, and his election has empowered the Republican Congress. Trump simply doesn't have the power to dictate what all these people think and do, and they are mostly all climate denialists. So even if Trump softens his position personally, it will spin out of Trumps control.
Memes do get out in the public, deliberately so. People hear the memes they like, and close their mind to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. So many people are driven by gut feelings and emotions its scary.
-
ubrew12 at 09:39 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Just a heads-up: The UK telegraph is saying the Robert Scott and Earnest Shackleton expeditions of the 1910's prove Antarctic sea ice area has not changed in a century. To quote the article "the levels in the early 1900s were between... 5.3 and 7.4 million square kilometres". The article goes on to suggest the current value is '6 million square kilometres'. Hence the title of the article: "Antarctic sea ice is not shrinking [in]... 100 years". This is all well and good, except the current minimum Antarctic sea ice extent is not 6 million square kilometres, but 3 million square kilometres. A Tamino reconstruction of Antarctic sea ice extent (10^6 km2) over the 20th century is shown here. The Telegraph will probably retract their statement in a week, claiming that they got their units (mi^2 versus km^2) confused. But the 'meme' will be out there, and that will not be retracted: which was the entire point of the article.
-
rkrolph at 09:24 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
I understand what christoz is saying but I am trying to be optimistic and hope Trump comes to his senses regarding climate science. He has already changed his tune some since the election. Does he really want to take the U.S. in a different direction that the rest of the world on this?
-
rkrolph at 09:16 AM on 26 November 2016Global weirding with Katharine Hayhoe: Episode 5
Another fine video from Katharine. And I spelled her name right also.
-
chriskoz at 09:03 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
That is the start of the fallout from this irresponsible presidency by a con man. I'm really worried what will happen to Gavin and his staff. The con man realizes some of the grossest deceitfull and childish promisses that absurdly gave him a White House job (like prossecuting his opponents and building border walls) are getting him nowhere so he backs off with no regrets. But fighting the climate science is not one of them, so in his selfish, abhorrent desire, he will proceed dismantling climate science together with climate regulations. Like a child who does not see the reason the regulations are needed (FF burning -> AGW) trying to find a scapegoats (climate scientists) instead. Is there any way to stop that? Petition/letters of disapproval from world academies of science?
-
nigelj at 07:07 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Excellent article.
"Climate research conducted at NASA had been “heavily politicised”, said Robert Walker, a senior adviser to US President-elect Donald Trump.This has led him to recommend stripping funding for climate"
I think the claim is empty. Walker provides no evidence, because there is none and hopes that bluff will win the day. The media need to start demanding these right wing schills provide hard proof, and it needs to be something more than some trivial rubbish or sophistry.
In my opinion the accusation is also a subtle form of bullying to try to cripple and intimidate the researchers by wearing them down with constant false accusations. We have seen other attacks on scientists documented on this website. Its more off the same.
In contrast the rhetoric of the denialists is full of political statements about liberal scams, Chinese scams, etc, etc, in a gish gallop of click bait designed to inflame people. Yet most in the media are so weak they let people get away with this without challenge.
I agree that climate denail is clearly related to political ideologies opposing government actions and roles. The correlation is striking. The reason is ultimately fear of change or constrraints on personal activities, and letting this reach an unhealthy level.
The consensus is really important, as it shows the climate community is of one mind (apart from a few eccentics that you will always get,) so hence the sceptics attack the consensus. I have emailed this consensus material to local media, and encourage others to do the same. The consensus studies are reasonably recent, and not part of IPCC releases, so many of the mainstream media are likely just not aware of them, and certainly not that there are several consensus studies finding much the same thing.
-
ubrew12 at 01:42 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
If the climate scientists are conducting a hoax, it could devastate the fossil fuels industry. Is the richest industry in the history of capitalism just unable to find the money to 'fact check' the climate scientists, and make sure this isn't a hoax? Yet, instead of the clamor of directly-fossil-funded scientific opinion challenging the IPCC, its the silence that is deafening here. It's the absence of directly-fossil-funded climate science, countering the standard viewpoint, that informs us more than the presence of fossil-funded doubt-mongerers. In fact, if you ask Exxon its direct opinion, you'll get a weak admission that the scientists are right and we should be preparing for warming.
So, of course the climate science is 'political'. Exxon just finds it more effective to 'make it political' than to do its own science, which it knows would just add more evidence to what scientists have compiled. There are two incidences in history, that I'm aware of, when fossil fuels directly funded science to challenge the standard viewpoint. In both cases, those efforts did little more than confirm the standard viewpoint. So, for the fossil fuels industry, it's Plan B, first elucidated by WC Fields: 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull'.
-
mbryson at 00:50 AM on 26 November 2016Trump or NASA – who's really politicising climate science?
Singer, eh? Why am I not surprised. Multiple real surveys are obviously biased, but the mere opinion of a washed-up right-wing scientist who has a long history of getting things wrong ('Star Wars,' anyone?) is obviously reliable. That way madness lies (in truth we're already there).
-
Tom Curtis at 11:55 AM on 25 November 2016The simple, cheap instruments measuring global warming in the oceans
chriskoz @4, opposition to free speech was implied by plato525's insistence that this website should be banned in a post that has since been deleted for sloganeering. His/her attitude was more "la la la la I can't hear you, and I don't want anybody else to be allowed to hear you either".
-
chriskoz at 11:04 AM on 25 November 2016The simple, cheap instruments measuring global warming in the oceans
Tom@2,
plato525's argument is precisely this:
Or more figuratively, an ostrich picture in "Climate Change Denial" book by Cook/Washington on the right margin. Opposition to free speech may be associated but is not implied in his/her desperate plea.
-
Larry E at 05:09 AM on 25 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
How about an item #13 to deal with travel, especially long-distance travel?
-
Erwin at 01:23 AM on 25 November 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
The Hanson 1988 paper link is dead. I think it is:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
Hope this is right!
Moderator Response:[PS] Link activated. Thanks for that.
-
DSL at 00:49 AM on 25 November 2016The simple, cheap instruments measuring global warming in the oceans
It's thanksgiving in the US. I think I can give thanks that plato525 didn't stick around to spew a bunch of anti-science garbage and put me off my mashed potatoes.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:20 AM on 25 November 2016The simple, cheap instruments measuring global warming in the oceans
I see that plato525 reveals himself to be, in addition to free from rational thought, an opponent of free speech.
-
plato525 at 23:52 PM on 24 November 2016The simple, cheap instruments measuring global warming in the oceans
How do I delete myself from this site or can you do it for me?
Please. I can't take anymore.
Moderator Response:[DB] Request granted.
-
sauerj at 12:09 PM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
Wol @4 & nigel @6: When I said P&C costs, I meant these sorts of insurance costs to the entire economy. But, your points are valid, in that private business will not bear the direct brunt of the non-industrial portion of these costs; they will in an indirect way, but not a direct way. So, the totality of these costs won't ever show up directly on business (private only) balance sheets.
Another fallacy w/ my thinking is that it is ridiculous to think that an individual business could model true, long-term operating costs for an array of project options based on how each option might impact their future climate change (or operating) costs. Obviously, a single business is way too small for different project options to make a difference to their operating costs due to CC impacts. Total lapse of thinking on my part.
I therefore fall back on the need of carbon taxes to force these operating costs onto private & public endeavors. The tax has to 1) have enough bite to it (high enough operating cost) to make sustainable projects more profitable than non-sustainable options when conducting fully distributed cost evaluations (for either new projects, deciding when to abandon old plants, and for R/D investments), 2) ramped up at a brisk but economically tolerable rate & the ramp rate should be held firm to stablilize business planning, and 3) Be re-distributed in equitable and optimum ways for both economic stability and carbon cessation. Subsidies and regs could be used, if needed, for back-up support; i.e. a multi-prong set of forces.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 11:29 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
Just an update to the article. Hazelwood wont maybe close in 2017, it will close. It is being shutdown at the end of March.
-
scaddenp at 11:13 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
" From past experience in Australia, the carbon tax revenue mostly went into building bigger government and subsidizing low income families",
Ohh, the right-wing deadly sins! And compensating polluters for higher prices, did you mention that?? Terrible thing to try and help people affected by higher energy prices isnt it?
How exactly was government made bigger by the spend in carbox tax?
I prefer pigovian tax myself but seems to me that government was trying to achieve much the same outcome.
-
Art Vandelay at 10:22 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
A tax on carbon is great, as long as the revenue generated is used to subsidize or develop clean energy. From past experience in Australia, the carbon tax revenue mostly went into building bigger government and subsidizing low income families, as well as tv and media advertising to tell the population how great the carbon tax was.
In a country like Australia with a relatively small population that generates about 1% of global emissions, mitigation measures make us all feel good but can't ever make a measureable impact on the climate at any level.
For that reason, I think it's best to transition sensibly to low carbon generation with a broad environmental focus and with the expectation that emerging technologies will make many of today's green energy solutions obsolete within 20 years.
To that end, a country like Australia might be best served investing in clean energy R&D and putting carbon tax dollars into clean energy projects in developing nations where they'll achieve maximum carbon abatement.
-
nigelj at 09:56 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
More variable weather, and more storms etc will impact on companies, but whether they insure against this is their business just like fire insurance. They will do it when the risks start to hurt their bottom line.
Given climate change is longer term, compared to the risk of fire for example, this could take some time. However smart companies should be thinking about it, especially where they build factories in relation to sea level for example.
Externalities are different. Companies damaging the environment do indeed cost the public, and so this becomes everyones problem. Companies historically have a poor record of any initiative in resolution of the problem. The only thing that has changed behaviour is government legislation, from bodies like the EPA in the United States. Right now they are the only body doing much, although they often seem to stop short of forcing companies to pay costs. And it appears Trump is determined to undo the EPA if possible.
But who would know. Trump has talked in so many contradictions I give up making sense of it.
However a carbon tax is one method of forcing companies to pay the cost of their polluting relating to climate change. This is certainly economically sound.
-
Wol at 08:20 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
william @2: I'm increasingly of the opinion that economic arguments are a bit of a red herring in the context of global warming.
If a denier will not accept the fact of the earth's energy budget then no arguments over the economics of fossil fuel and renewables is going to make headway.
On a statistical basis, insuring your house and contents makes no sense for an individual since he is far more likely to spend tens of thousands over the years on premiums than he is to get back in claims. It's the risk factor that is ignored in that argument, and the same one that's ignored in the warming "debate".
-
Wol at 08:12 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
sauerj @1: I would take issue with you on P & C premiums and taxes as being externalities. They are part of an industry's budget and fully accounted for.
The real externalities, the "phantom" ones and actually far more significant in the present context, are those costs which are borne by individuals, consumers and the public sector in mitigation of the consequences of the industry - industrial blight, waste, emissions and so on. Those are the costs which the budgets ignore but which are increasingly apparent.
-
scaddenp at 06:17 AM on 24 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
Always an extremely complicated question. What doesnt go down in developing nations, is being told that you cant develop by using the same cheap fossil fuel resources as rich nations used to become what they are. Since rich nations are responsible for virtually all of the problems and the poor nations taking most of the consequences, then that is certainly a sticking point. There a need for rich to help poor develop sustainably - the trick is how to do that without just lining the pockets of corrupt officials.
-
RedBaron at 06:07 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
Good article. However when you said, "This list is by no means complete" I wonder why you left off the largest of all, BCCS?
Dr. Christine Jones has one answer.
Of the estimated 3060 gigatonnes of
carbon in the terrestrial biosphere, 82 per
cent is in soils.2 That’s over four times the
amount of carbon stored in the world’s
vegetation. Dr Jones asks, ‘If only 18 per
cent is stored in vegetation, why all the
emphasis on biomass, rather than soil, as a
carbon sink?
‘The answer is that people – including
most of our top scientists – simply don’t
understand soil carbon sequestration or
the role of the microbial bridge and have
therefore overlooked it.Some more information:
-
william5331 at 05:03 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
The one break through that we need to make all forms of renewable energy completely practical is energy storage. When we crack that one, the last argument against renewables will crumble and then we will only have vested interests to fight against. They will be defeated by simple economics. Their energy will be more expensive than renewable energy.
-
sauerj at 02:17 AM on 24 November 2016Mitigation in Australia
What is missing from today's business economic planning (private or public) is the correct operating cost. Because businesses use an incorrect operating cost (that does not include future CC external costs), when they evaluate project options based on fully distributed cost accounting, they are therefore not picking the most profitable option. If they would use the correct operating cost, then the mitigation efforts listed here would be the most profitable and the economic motivation would be 'naturally' in place to push their implementation.
Businesses mistakenly think that these future external costs are some sort of phantom cost or else costs that they will be able to escape (forever) & let that some other entity shoulder them. What they don't realize is that, no, these costs are not an academic exercise, some phantom number on paper that they, in the real world, won't ever come to ever bear. Wrong! These costs will become real costs, that will show up as real debits, increasingly so, on their balance sheets.
These costs will show up as 1) increased P&C insurance premiums (Property & Casualty damage), and 2) taxes (as military costs rise in order to maintain geo-political stability). For the first one, P&C premium costs are essentially 1:1 equal to the climate impact costs (floods, droughts, storms). To be clear on this statement, the CC impact costs that economists forecast, will show up to the global businesses (1:1) equal to all the P&C insurance costs that are incrementally more than a baseline, after scaling-up for %GDP rise.
One way to make these true operatings costs as immediately transparent & direct as possible (sooner than later) is to implement a carbon tax (inserted at the source). A revenue-neutral carbon tax, where the revenue is equitably re-distributed, is the least burdensome approach economically (link).
All of these mitigation efforts (listed in this article) would fall into place (economically) if businesses (private & public) used the correct operating costs (either voluntarily, unlikely to happen, or involuntarily, carbon tax). Then businesses (& consumers) would do the right (sustainble) thing, because the right thing would be the most profitable thing. The sooner we re-calibrate our thinking to think how business thinks (private & public), i.e. in terms of most profit (& based on correct operating cost, all of it), then the easier it is to talk with them on a common platform and get the business world to see & accept the right, ethical mitigation efforts.
There are solutions that we haven't even dreamt of. If positive-sustainable economics were in place, then investors would be coming out of the wall for R&D to uncover, more & more, better & better solutions; again, all because these R&D efforts would be highly profitable. Again, this is the "talk" , the "language" that moves business (profit), but make sure they understand that they need to use the correct operating cost. They will get it. They will intellectually understand & relate to this, and will also understand that the real costs (not phantom ones) will come to bear sooner or later, and that it is prudently profitable sooner than later to "make the books right".
Therefore, the top thing on the list should be a carbon tax, and then all of this (& more) will start to domino into place. Other approaches may help (subsidies, regulations, etc) & can be included if needed for backup support, but the carbon tax is the most effective means to move us off of status quo & toward the best sustainble solution efforts.
-
MA Rodger at 19:23 PM on 23 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
Tom Curtis @3,
You may not recall plato525's previous visit to SkS a three months back in which the "video experiment with the black color solution that was added to water in a glass container to show the amount of CO2" was sought. It appears plato525 found the demonstration unconvincing.
And as plato525 is not what you'd call chatty, establishing why he remains unconvinced, or indeed the reasons for his apparent doubt on there being rising global temperatures @1 or his branding AGW as "hoax" @2; all this may remain unresolved.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:40 PM on 23 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
plato525 @1 and @2 shows all the commitment to clear reasoning we have come to expect from AGW deniers /sarc.
With regard to his post @2, taking a different angle - Iron represents 670 ppmv of the human body. By plato525's implicity reasoning, changes in its proportion in the human body can make no difference. Much of that iron, however, is found in various globulins, of which the best known is haemoglobin. Without iron, there is no haemoglobin, and hence no transport of oxygen from the lungs to the muscles. Without iron in the body, that is, we would suffocate in seconds.
Of course, with too much iron (50 ppm by mass) in your dietary intake will result in severe iron poisoning. If sustained, it will you will suffer acute pain as you vomit blood more or less continuously untill you eventually die of kidney failure.
This is just one more example among thousands in which plato525's "reasoning" simply fails. In fact, the counterexamples to his claim are so numerous, and so well known that his claim is not entitled to the claim of reasoning. It is, most likely, empty rhetoric; and quite possibly a belief siezed on desperately to avoid thinking clearing on the topic.
-
plato525 at 15:11 PM on 23 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
Every 2500 molecules in the air has only one CO2 molecule.
And you think it will make a change. Hoax.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
[PS] This discussion belongs on "CO2 is just a trace gas" myth. I wonder if Plato would enter a room with only 1 in 2500 molecules being HCN?
-
plato525 at 14:56 PM on 23 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #47
If there is global warming then CO2 is not the cause.
Go and look elsewhere.
Moderator Response:[JH] This comment is pure, unadulterated sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Haze at 14:45 PM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
This report from Reuters"My only worry is the money," said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of Democratic Republic of Congo, who heads a group of the 48 least developed nations. "It’s worrying when you know that Trump is a climate change skeptic," (in.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange-nations-idINKBN1370BD). At first glance this doesn't come across at all well. Is the cooperation of developing nations entirely dependent upon cash from the developed nations? Will climate change sceptics seize on this and use it to claim it is money not reduction of carbon dioxide emissions that is the force driving action against change?
-
jdeutsch at 13:13 PM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
Factoring in increasingy apparent feedbacks (not all included in IPCC models), the carbon budget may have already been spent. Taxing carbon and giving rebates does not give people the choices they need, e.g., efficient and fast public transit and long-distance rail. Cap and trade, as noted above, does not cap in the real world, which is immediately necessary.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 10:09 AM on 23 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
nigelj@49, I do not grant excuses or benefit of the doubt to any wealthy or powerful person. None of them have an excuse to not be reasonably well informed. Saying that Trump is unaware of climate science is like saying he is unaware of the unacceptable attitudes Steve Bannon deliberately appeals to. I believe Trump is very aware of the fundamental unacceptability of his desires and claim-making. He is even on record recently denying that he was aware that his campaign marketing appealed to a past grand wizard of the KKK, a person he is on record knowing years ago, a person he denied knowing during the campaign when specifically asked. He seems to like to lie like Reagan, by claiming to not be aware of or recall stuff.
-
nigelj at 10:00 AM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
So Trump says: "September 13: There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.”
Interesting that there are strong rumours on the internet that the Trump Administration wants to cut NASAs climate funding.
-
Stranger8170 at 08:36 AM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
Maybe there's a ray of hope? Mother Jones put this together.
2012: The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
2014:Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense.
2015: Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and ... a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax, a lot of it.
January 18, 2016: I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change.
August 11: I would say it goes up, it goes down, and I think it’s very much like this over the years. We’ll see what happens. I mean, we’ll see what happens. ... Certainly, climate has changed.
September 13: There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.”
September 26: I do not say that [climate change is a hoax].
Today: "I think there is some connectivity" between humans and climate change, Trump says.
My head is exploding!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Leto at 07:31 AM on 23 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
-
Leto at 07:31 AM on 23 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
scaddenp@46
A boycott of Red States does sound fairer, and is attractive in theory. I am not sure how possible it is in practice, given that most corporations are distributed. Perhaps a general boycott would be apprpropriate, with exemptions for Blue State companies that are clearly small and localised, such as cottage industries, and so on.
I too have undergone a major change in sentiment towards America, though not to individual Americans. My brother lives in America and I have American nieces and nephew, and many Americans are truly inspiring... But my image of a typical American had undergone a shift. Only about 25% of Americans actively voted to keep Trump out of office, and he was clearly unsuitable for office on a number of fronts, including climate change. I am appalled at the country's collective stupidity.
If I am feeling this way, others must be as well. Some prominent Australians are voicing the need to rethink our relationship with America, and Europe is discussing the same issue.I just hope the rest of the world can step up on the climate change issue in a way that makes it in America's interest to follow. (Of course, my own country Australia has nothing to be proud of in this regard, either, having put Tony Abbott in place as PM - but we did have bipartisan support for carbon-trading until just before Abbott took over, and I live in hope.)
The election has left me disappointed with humanity, to be honest, and I know others feel the same. I think this election will consitute a line in history for the American nation and its place in the world.
-
nigelj at 07:28 AM on 23 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
One Planet only @48, I agree with most of that, especially on what motivates some people and how they put personal desires above the long term good of humanity. Most people I know strike a balance, but some people are very short term thinking. Maybe the recent discussion in the media relating to "narcissists" has some bearing on the issue.
However it creates a difficult problem to solve, other than somehow shaming these people or trying to show them that longer term and wider thinking is often in their own interests, or the interests of their children.
However I honestly think Donald Trump probably does think climate change is a conspiracy. Remember some perfectly well educated people genuinely believe in creationism as well.
Ebell probably knows better, but the point is its hard to say and people are all different. However leaked documents certainly show oil industry interests knew of the climate issue for decades, while publicly denying it. Such is the power of the profit motive etc.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:02 AM on 23 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
nigelj@43, My current best understanding of what is going on is not as generic as being critical of wealthy people. My criticism is of everyone who chooses to put a higher priority on pursuing personal desires than they do on participating in helping to advance humanity to a lasting better future for all. I understand the appeal of climate science denial to such people, not just rich ones. The obvious required changes of ways of living mean that many developed perceptions of prosperity and perceptions of opportunity for increased personal perceptions of prosperity are undeniably unjustified.
That callous selfishness is not restricted to wealthy people. And not all wealthy people choose to think and behave that selfishly. However, the ones who get away with the least acceptable behavior can temporarily have a competitive advantage (for as long as they are able to get away with what could be understood is unacceptable).
So my criticism is of the wealthy and powerful who choose to deny climate science. They cannot claim to be uninformed (unlike less fortunate people who are more desperate and have that driving their willingness to accept a misleading appealing message). The likes of Trump, Inhofe and Ebell are almost certain to have become aware of the facts of climate science. They are simply choosing to fight against the obviously required change of the way things are going, a change that would make all the people who gambled on getting away with less acceptable pursuit of benefit become the losers they undeniably deserve to be.
And those wealthy powerful denial promoters are more despicable when they deliberately drum up support with misleading messages targeting the easily impressed among the population. And the most despicable among that group will also try to drum up even more support by deliberately appealing to social supremacists like White or Christian or English Speaking or Male supremacists.
It must be noted that the gathering up if the callous greedy and intolerant into a power block is more than a grouping up of people who have various reasons to deny climate science. Each subcategory of people in that tent will have different things they desire that they can understand are actually unacceptable. They share the understanding of the importance of defending each others understandably unacceptable desires, when acceptability is determined by the governing principle of advancing humanity to a lasting better future as part of a robust diversity of all life on this amazing planet.
-
william5331 at 04:04 AM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
So the GOP thinks that climate change is so much greenwash. Fine. There are so many other compelling reasons to reduce the use of fossil fuel that will appeal to the thought processes of your typical Republican. Retreat, regroup and come at them from a different angle.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
-
Remco van Ek at 01:07 AM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
The clock : https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-only-five-years-left-before-one-point-five-c-budget-is-blown
-
Remco van Ek at 00:16 AM on 23 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
From realclimate.org: In order to avoid exceeding a very disruptive warming of 1.5 oC with 66% probability, humanity can release approximately 220 gigatons of CO2 after January, 2017 (IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report, Table 2.2, corrected for emissions since 2011). Global CO2 emission rates are now about 36 gigatons of CO2 per year, giving a time horizon of only about six years of business-as-usual (!) before we cross the line. To reach the catastrophic 2 oC, about 1000 gigatons of CO2 remain (about 20 years of business as usual). Note that these estimates were done before global temperatures spiked since 2014 — we are currently at 1.2 oC! So these temperature boundaries may be closer than was recently thought.
This makes me pretty depressed. I just do not see it happen in time, with or without Trump.
-
scaddenp at 07:59 AM on 22 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
Unfortunately, there appears to be a hard core of Republicans/liberatarians that think that taxes should only support armed forces, justice system and police. Anything else is an imposition on liberty. Sigh.
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all." GK Chesterton
-
nigelj at 06:50 AM on 22 November 2016Groups working with Republicans on climate are discouraged, but see a glimmer of hope
A revenue neutral carbon tax seems to me like an excellent suggestion on so many levels. It seems to resolve a number of problems within this one idea. The tax would have strong economic foundations that would reduce emissions, but would also be clear and upfront, and also politically acceptable to a range of interests. The revenue could be cordoned off and returned as a general rebate or alternatively put into renewable energy, although I appreciate this is not strictly revenue neutral. However the money could be in its own account, and not siphoned off for all sorts of general spending, and this should be attractive to many people.
The American constitution has explicit clauses that give the government the power to tax. Republicans appear to strongly support the constitution, so should find a carbon tax acceptable. I have seen the public in my country support taxes where there is a strongly compelling and clear case that is well explained.
Cap and Trade is another market idea that makes sense in theory, but appears to run into some problems when applied in the real world. This is a shame as the scheme has some compelling features, but politics is about the art of the possible.
-
nigelj at 06:31 AM on 21 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
I woke up after the election of Trump with a deep dislike of America and the American people. It wasnt just the red states, it was everyone. However we have to pull back from that reaction, because its not healthy.
We can however boycott things from Trump supporting red states. We also can make our opinions and general displeasure clear. Things do eventually get through. Silence would be taken as a mandate supporting Trump.
Donald Trump also need to realise starting trade wars goes both ways. There are no winners in trade wars. They were a large factor causing the 1930s economic slump.
But obviously readers of this website are particularly concerned about climate change. We have to be very solid and firm in our views on this issue. You can't compromise on science.
-
scaddenp at 06:04 AM on 21 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Leto, when I am now dealing with someone from US, I suddeny find myself asking "is this person someone who might have voted for Trump". I no longer feel comfortable even offering board to visiting post-docs/fellows. It colours my view. Suddenly a part of the US that we thought long gone is shown to be very much still there.
However, I think a boycott of only only Red state goods is appropriate.
-
MA Rodger at 20:56 PM on 20 November 2016Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
jpalombarini @69.
The analogies you present to explain yourself are as dire as your understanding of the operation of greenhouse gases.
Newton's laws act across the entire known universe so do indeed apply to "the whole picture." You are wrong to assert otherwise. The failing of Newton's laws is solely that they need amending in certain circumastances, eg by relativity when speeds or accelerations are high.
Your suggestion that Svensmark's hypothesising in some way over-rules greenhouse gas physics is most odd. The exotic nature of cosmic rays has no impact on the evaluation of the physics. And the science you place such faith in shows "that cosmic rays play a minor role in cloud formation, and have not contributed in any significant way to the global warming over the past 50 years," to quote another SkS article you would do well to read.
-
Leto at 18:27 PM on 20 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
I intend to stop buying any American goods until they elect someone who will act on climate change. I will be urging others to do the same. I regret that this policy, if adopted widely, will hurt some Americans who are entirely blameless. Hopefully it will only be a 4-year boycott.
-
Tom Curtis at 16:18 PM on 20 November 2016Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
jpalombarini @69, the emperical evidence that there is a greenhouse effect is the fact that the IR emission to space from the Earth is significantly distorted from that of a black body, and more importantly, from that of the surface - as shown in this graph from a 1970 paper:
(Details here, particularly the last two sections).
Since 1970 numerous observations have shown the same effect, and provided detailed confirmation of the theory:
Caption: Figure 1. Scatterplot of 134,862 measured values of OLR against OLR calculated by the Fu-Liou model, both in units of W/m2. The solid line is the one-to-one line. (Details)
Were you claim "there are no experimental proofs" there are in fact well over 130,000 direct observations showing unequivocally that it exists. Further, that is no surprise given that its existence is a directly predicted consequence of the laws of radiation together with the laws of thermodynamics and the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Claims that "there are no experimental proofs" of the existence of the greenhouse effect fall into the same category as claims that "there is no experimental proof" that the Earth orbits (a point within the surface of) the Sun.
-
AverageJon at 11:58 AM on 20 November 2016It hasn't warmed since 1998
Deniers have been cherry picking both the starting date (the 1997/8 el Nino) and the data set (the RSS satellite data).
The RSS satellite data said there was a cooling trend if you start with 1998 data. LINK
There was a warming trend if you picked 2000 as the starting date instead of 1998. LINK
As of November 2016, there is a warming trend, even if you cherry pick 1998 as your starting date. LINKModerator Response:[RH] Shortened links.
Prev 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 Next
