Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,277
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    weatherman27
    Newest Member
    weatherman27
    Joined

Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change


donsutherland1
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, etudiant said:

The discussion was about the difficulty of mobilizing the public to tackle climate change as an imminent danger.

I  was simply pointing out that the actions by the most powerful leaders in the debate undermine the narrative for the broader public.

Most politicians aren't really that serious about climate change anyway. Even the ones who claim they are. There are some exceptions of course. 

But we see something like the Paris accord being touted by politicians as this crucial thing when in reality it is non-binding and even if it wasn't, the commitments through the end of the accord in 2030 would do very little to change the longer term outcome of climate change...especially if one believes that we are closer to the "worst case" scenarios of higher climate sensitivity. The difference is something like a couple tenths of a degree Celsius or even less. If you are generous and make a bunch of assumptions like everyone continues to ramp up their cuts beyond 2030 like I've seen done in some analysis, then you can maybe add several more tenths. But that's a big assumption. 

It comes across as something for politicians to pat eachother on that back about to make them feel as if they are tackling the problem when they really aren't. 

This probably isn't the thread for such discussion, but a far more efficient way to attack the issue would be to invest most of the money into R&D for green energy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

Most politicians aren't really that serious about climate change anyway. Even the ones who claim they are. There are some exceptions of course. 

But we see something like the Paris accord being touted by politicians as this crucial thing when in reality it is non-binding and even if it wasn't, the commitments through the end of the accord in 2030 would do very little to change the longer term outcome of climate change...especially if one believes that we are closer to the "worst case" scenarios of higher climate sensitivity. The difference is something like a couple tenths of a degree Celsius or even less. If you are generous and make a bunch of assumptions like everyone continues to ramp up their cuts beyond 2030 like I've seen done in some analysis, then you can maybe add several more tenths. But that's a big assumption. 

It comes across as something for politicians to pat eachother on that back about to make them feel as if they are tackling the problem when they really aren't. 

This probably isn't the thread for such discussion, but a far more efficient way to attack the issue would be to invest most of the money into R&D for green energy. 

Contrarily you could take the Bill Gates route which is focus on rapid Carbon Sequestration and Nuclear Power. The budget for these sectors should be at minimum around 2 trillion each year (500 billion for R&D and 1.5 trillion for infrastructure development). What I don't understand is the reluctance to throw all of your chips onto the table in a dire situation. In a system like Capitalism this will never happen due to the inherent risk in the for-profit financial model.

We should be scaling down our overhead across the board. Our housing should be efficient and affordable. We should be reducing transportation, grounding all non-essential aviation, etc.

The enemy is the for-profit model, i.e. capitalism. Something like the above could be accomplished in a technocratic civilization. (by necessity demanding the cessation of democracy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Contrarily you could take the Bill Gates route which is focus on rapid Carbon Sequestration and Nuclear Power. The budget for these sectors should be at minimum around 2 trillion each year (500 billion for R&D and 1.5 trillion for infrastructure development). What I don't understand is the reluctance to throw all of your chips onto the table in a dire situation. In a system like Capitalism this will never happen due to the inherent risk in the for-profit financial model.

We should be scaling down our overhead across the board. Our housing should be efficient and affordable. We should be reducing transportation, grounding all non-essential aviation, etc.

The enemy is the for-profit model, i.e. capitalism. Something like the above could be accomplished in a technocratic civilization. (by necessity demanding the cessation of democracy)

I'm not going to go down the political rabbit hole of discussing capitalism vs socialism in this forum but the nuclear energy part is spot on. 

It is hard to take any person or any group seriously that say they believe climate change is a dire emergency and also will not consider nuclear power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm not going to go down the political rabbit hole of discussing capitalism vs socialism in this forum but the nuclear energy part is spot on. 

It is hard to take any person or any group seriously that say they believe climate change is a dire emergency and also will not consider nuclear power. 

As if that was the only dichotomy available? This is doing a unfortunate disservice to our prospects. People always become defensive when capitalism is at stake. It doesn't matter what you want or what I want. Capitalism will be removed voluntarily or involuntarily. A planned transition is always easier than an unplanned transition.

As well nuclear power has real potential to turn the tables in favor of human civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

I'm not going to go down the political rabbit hole of discussing capitalism vs socialism in this forum but the nuclear energy part is spot on. 

It is hard to take any person or any group seriously that say they believe climate change is a dire emergency and also will not consider nuclear power. 

IMO, if the focus is shifted to one of capitalism vs. socialism, that will be a recipe for preserving the status quo. Instead, the emphasis needs to be on addressing the challenge of climate change, not trying to use that challenge to pursue unrelated political goals. Like you, I believe nuclear power will be an important piece of any coherent approach to addressing climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, if the focus is shifted to one of capitalism vs. socialism, that will be a recipe for preserving the status quo. Instead, the emphasis needs to be on addressing the challenge of climate change, not trying to use that challenge to pursue unrelated political goals. Like you, I believe nuclear power will be an important piece of any coherent approach to addressing climate change.

Don, it’s two minutes to midnight on the atomic apocalypse/climate change doomsday clock. While an atomic conflagration, is more immediate and physically frightening I wonder if it and climate change should be linked. Theoretically, even though not likely, if an outbreak of sanity took place in the seats of power and a decision to destroy all existing atomic weapons and the means to make them, the threat would instantly diminish and the clock would roll back. The climate does not work that way. If that same out break of sanity took place regarding climate would the clock appreciably change at all. Sadly a change of mindset, while welcome, can do little to alter the path, if it reaches a point of no return. As always ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, rclab said:

Don, it’s two minutes to midnight on the atomic apocalypse/climate change doomsday clock. While an atomic conflagration, is more immediate and physically frightening I wonder if it and climate change should be linked. Theoretically, even though not likely, if an outbreak of sanity took place in the seats of power and a decision to destroy all existing atomic weapons and the means to make them, the threat would instantly diminish and the clock would roll back. The climate does not work that way. If that same out break of sanity took place regarding climate would the clock appreciably change at all. Sadly a change of mindset, while welcome, can do little to alter the path, if it reaches a point of no return. As always ....

Personally, I think the mechanisms by which policy makers look to the future and devise policy are deeply flawed, untethered from meaningful prioritization (largely ignore the opportunity costs of doing nothing), and confined in at least semi-closed personal belief systems. The new UN synthesis report on climate change shows that dramatic changes need to be made to limit warming to 1.5C or 2.5C. The report also notes carbon emissions are not expected to peak by 2020 or even 2030. Having said that, history is filled with examples of overcome challenges and today's youth movement may well mark the early stages of a restoration of effective political leadership that is capable and willing to address big challenges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect we all underestimate the potential for reform. If people want change, they will get it. With effectively unlimited power from nuclear, even extreme efforts such as carbon capture are feasible.

What is required is a broad recognition that there really is a problem. That has not been achieved, imho partly because the early AGW researchers desperately oversold the immediacy of their findings. The subsequent pause after 1998 put them into the 'boy who cried wolf' category and that has impeded any further consensus action.

Sadly I believe it will now take a climate catastrophe to spur any concerted action. A collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet might force a recognition of the problem, but failing that, business as usual remains the most likely outcome. The best hope for progress is from the renewable energy sector. If it can continue to deliver increasingly economical power, we might buy some additional decades to find a solution to the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change denier dishonesty increases as youth ratchet up pressure for governments to prioritize, tackle climate change...

The Guardian reported:

A hoax photo that claims to show rubbish left behind by Australian climate strike protesters is circulating on Facebook, despite being revealed as fake months ago.

Though it lacks any verification, and was debunked in April, the image and false caption have been shared 19,000 times in 12 hours, and thousands of times from copycats.

On Friday, an estimated 300,000 Australians, and millions of people around the world, took part in protests against inaction on the climate emergency.

Hours later, an Australian pro-coal page reposted the photo, which originated in April. It was captioned: "Look at the mess today’s climate protesters left behind in beautiful Hyde Park."

However, the photo is not from a climate strike, not from Friday and was not taken in Australia. It is from a marijuana-based festival called 420 held in London in April 2019.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/21/climate-strikes-hoax-photo-accusing-australian-protesters-of-leaving-rubbish-behind-goes-viral

Of course, one should not be surprised by this outcome. The scientific evidence for ongoing warming is overwhelming. The conclusion concerning the anthropogenic cause of the ongoing warming is unequivocal. No serious scientist disputes the fundamentals, even as the field recognizes residual uncertainties exist.

As the rising youth movement for tackling climate change cannot be discredited by scientific evidence, the gradually shrinking pool of climate change deniers has resorted to deception. The resort to such tactics only serves to further illustrate the intellectual and scientific bankruptcy of those who deny climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Personally, I think the mechanisms by which policy makers look to the future and devise policy are deeply flawed, untethered from meaningful prioritization (largely ignore the opportunity costs of doing nothing), and confined in at least semi-closed personal belief systems. The new UN synthesis report on climate change shows that dramatic changes need to be made to limit warming to 1.5C or 2.5C. The report also notes carbon emissions are not expected to peak by 2020 or even 2030.

To change the mindset of power would probably require making the dramatic changes profitable. When will balance assert itself. Will even a catastrophe, such as ice sheet collapse, Greenland glacier disintegration, Gulf Stream interruption, Yellowstone caldera awakening, I wonder.  I think of the extravagant fiction of Art Bells, The Coming Superstorm, than I stand in my Cobble Hill back yard look up and think that today’s, 86 degree, suns rays, a little over 15,000 years ago, glinted off the surface of an ice sheet almost a quarter of a mile above me. All the good intentions and the road that’s paved to, well I fear that (weather) we like it of not, a balance will be reached. I doubt it will be pleasant. As always ....

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rclab said:

Don, it’s two minutes to midnight on the atomic apocalypse/climate change doomsday clock. While an atomic conflagration, is more immediate and physically frightening I wonder if it and climate change should be linked. Theoretically, even though not likely, if an outbreak of sanity took place in the seats of power and a decision to destroy all existing atomic weapons and the means to make them, the threat would instantly diminish and the clock would roll back. The climate does not work that way. If that same out break of sanity took place regarding climate would the clock appreciably change at all. Sadly a change of mindset, while welcome, can do little to alter the path, if it reaches a point of no return. As always ....

Think of it like paying up for past debts. This is ironic because our economy and capitalism are entirely based on debt borrowing and credit in modern times. I believe the national debt is now 2.5 times larger than the annual gross domestic product.

Starting somewhere on the path to changing mindsets and worldviews will help us prepare the world for the few of us that survive the collapse of civilization. (and it stands to reason the most worthy of us - i.e. the least offenders of the crime)

In our case we have borrowed too much debt from the Earth's ecosystem and now we must pay the price.

Quote

To change the mindset of power would probably require making the dramatic changes profitable.

Capitalism is the enemy of our children. The enemy is us. (Anyone older than 35 years)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rising and increasingly vicious personal attacks on Greta Thunberg who has played a pivotal role in building a global youth movement aimed at persuading policy makers to address climate change are contemptible. They also offer fresh indications that science is advancing and those who seek to align public policy with science are making progress. The increasingly unhinged responses of the climate change denial crowd reveal that they are out of anything resembling climate, meteorological, or other scientific ammunition, as their discredited cause is anti-science at its core.

That Ms. Thunberg is now being loosely associated with the Nazis via a conspiracy theory of her being placed in her position via the Left (even as Nazism was on the Far Right) is particularly reprehensible. Yet, it's happening.

JB09222019.jpg

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1175948680253362178

Whether this will prove the low water mark so to speak remains to be seen. After all, the climate change denier movement is frightened with its loss of ability to influence, terrified of a move away from the status quo, naked before science, and desperate for relevance. For now, it has moved into the dark shadows of conspiracy theories (almost certainly the environment in which the remnants of that movement will persist after society has moved on) and it seeks the personal destruction of those who stand for science. Historic experience is not on its side.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Rising and increasingly vicious personal attacks on Greta Thunberg who has played a pivotal role in building a global youth movement aimed at persuading policy makers to address climate change are contemptible. They also offer fresh indications that science is advancing and those who seek to align public policy with science are making progress. The increasingly unhinged responses of the climate change denial crowd reveal that they are out of anything resembling climate, meteorological, or other scientific ammunition, as their discredited cause is anti-science at its core.

That Ms. Thunberg is now being loosely associated with the Nazis via a conspiracy theory of her being placed in her position via the Left (even as Nazism was on the Far Right) is particularly reprehensible. Yet, it's happening.

JB09222019.jpg

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1175948680253362178

Whether this will prove the low water mark so to speak remains to be seen. After all, the climate change denier movement is frightened with its loss of ability to influence, terrified of a move away from the status quo, naked before science, and desperate for relevance. For now, it has moved into the dark shadows of conspiracy theories (almost certainly the environment in which the remnants of that movement will persist after society has moved on) and it seeks the personal destruction of those who stand for science. Historic experience is not on its side.

I’m not sure if using children, in the manner shown is wise, regardless of intention. The action becomes clouded by media hype and the true purpose compromised. The adult individual identified as closest to the movement becomes a very appealing target for negative comparison. More political back and forth, nicely avoiding the point into non discussion/action. “From the mouths of babes” is a spontaneous reaction to something not right or comfortable in a child’s mind. When the children start asking; “why doesn’t it snow here anymore” or later on “what is snow” the sorrowful parent/guardian will beg the question. The correct answer will already have been given by Nature, then, of course, it will be too late. As always .....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Joe Bastardi...he is listed on Principia Scientific International's member page. This brings us full circle to another topic that was discussed in this thread; namely the litigation of Mann vs. FCPP/Ball. See, it was John O'Sullivan's article posted on July 4th, 2017 on the PSI's website in which the claim that Mann refused to release his data regarding MBH98 first appeared. John O'Sullivan, it turns out, is the CEO and operator of PSI. He also happens to be an associate of Ball via their authorship of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon and had, at least until Ball ditched him, a mutual agreement that he would act as legal counsel for Ball. Except...that O'Sullivan is neither an expert in climate science nor a lawyer. But, in a strange twist, he did happen to find himself involved in the Mann vs. FCPP/Ball case anyway. I'll let you guys read the relevant court documents here and here and make your own judgement regarding Mr. O'Sullivan and Bastardi's support of him and his site.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately for the world ... there is no logical correlation whatsoever - even in a politicized climate debate, which in its self is absurd to begin with .. - where Nazi-ism has any iota of relationship in the mathematical justification vs denial of the greater climate debate/truth... That entire exchange (abv) could not be more patently absurd, and is entirely contrived nonsense. 

come on man...  is anyone in here modestly intelligent - 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to go OT but Trump's family is the most profound Nazi cohort ever conceived in America. People like JB and his conservative leanings don't even understand who they voted for.  That about sums up democracy in 2019. An absolute crap-shoot founded on ignorance and lobbyists (money incentives).

I may not be a leftist but at least I understand why the far-right has never gained any traction for a sustained amount of time. Nobody likes bigots and nobody likes self-righteous nationalists who don't serve the interests of the common and peaceful folk. Most people who seek positions of authority and power are psychopathic.

JB is completely out of control. I tried to talk some sense into him via his Youtube page. I wonder if he is being payed to spout this horseshit. He's putting his reputation and life into the shredder. There must be a reason.

People keep dieing and suffering on behalf of these war criminals. They never self-correct or bite the hand that feeds them poison. Look at how many people died for Hitler, Stalin, and FDR combined. Trump is just the latest installment of these stains on our beautiful humanity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Lindzen, among others, has written a letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Secretary-General, in a bid to divert the UN's attention from the issue of climate change. The Secretary-General should ignore it. 

Those who wrote the letter argued, "Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power."

They provided no hyperlinks or references to evidence to support such a claim. Absent credible evidence, this claim is uninformed noise. At its worst, it is hysterical exaggeration, a charge deniers often hurl at climate scientists.

Trying to invoke a sense of balance, albeit an undeserved one, they wrote, "We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020."

Translation: Climate change deniers should have a seat at the table and be treated as equals. Not mentioned is the absence of published research cited by those who wrote the letter that suggests that their beliefs--I used the term "beliefs," because scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence--have credibility. In contrast, contemporary evidence for the anthropogenic nature of the ongoing warming is overwhelming. Just as the invited climate scientists rejected the Heartland Institute's attempts to set up a "debate" that would have served only to elevate the standing of climate science deniers and illuminate their inaccurate claims, the UN Secretary-General should not accommodate the letter writers' demand.

They added, "A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific."

Claims to authority, alone, don't overcome an absence of research to back the belief system held by those who signed the letter. Further, insisting that uncorroborated beliefs should carry equal weight to published peer-reviewed work is what would politicize climate science and crowd out the science from political discussion of climate-related policies. By rejecting science, the appeals to authority of these letter writers ring hollow.

They continued, "The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic."

This is the old, 'earth has warmed, earth has cooled, therefore humanity can have no role in climate' argument. In reality, the existence of natural drivers for past changes in climate do not in any way preclude anthropogenic drivers today. Indeed, there's no difference in the physical impact of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere whether the greenhouse gases reach that atmosphere via nature processes or are emitted by human activities. Can Lindzen et al., explain by CO2 released via natural processes from under the earth or the very same CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels should somehow be different?

Human activities explains the rising concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases. It is that development that provides the radiative forcing responsible for most or all of the ongoing warming.

Solar Irradiance:

IPCC-Solar-Irradiance.jpg

Source: IPCC

Why have global temperatures decoupled from solar irradiance? Lindzen et al., have no answer. Instead, they expect the UN Secretary-General to take it on blind faith, alone, that today's warming is of natural origins. It isn't.

Changes in radiative forcing (1750-2011):

IPCC-Forcings.jpg

Source: IPCC

Why won't Lindzen et al., explain what it means that the overwhelming increase in radiative forcing results from anthropogenic causes? Because it would shatter their belief system.

Finally, if one runs a literature search, even using Google Scholar with its limitations, one finds the vast majority of papers in the past decade have indicated that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions explain most or all of the recent warming. To suggest that "very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic" suggests that one has either stopped reading the research for at least the last decade or is deliberately ignoring the research.

In sum, the UN Secretary-General should ignore the letter. That 500 individuals have signed a letter seeking to divert the UN's attention from the overwhelming consensus of climate science today means little. That they have tried to establish standing by proclaiming themselves "knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields" also means little when they bring no evidence to back their claims while ignoring the enormous body of evidence that establishes that much or all of today's warming is the result of anthropogenic factors.

What matters is the empirical evidence.  The letter comes without evidence, because there is no serious evidence any longer that puts the fundamental conclusion related to anthropogenic warming in doubt. Residual uncertainties remain, but they also do not put into question the fundamental understanding of climate science today.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What matters is context. You need to be willing to kill people indiscriminately in order to sustain capitalism in the 21st century and civilization for that matter. Capitalism is incompatible with environmental reform. There is no rising tide floats all boats. Richard Lindzen is provoking a false dichotomy. Either we shut off the electricity or AGW and peak oil will do it for us. I don't understand trolls like Lindzen and they need to go crawl back under the rock they came out of.

The solar argument is still a thing in 2019? How is that possible. Ad-infinitum until it's your family that is thrown under the proverbial bus for the greater good of capitalism.

All of this wall to wall chaos in the modern world need not happen or perhaps I am falling victim to wishful thinking. Perhaps this was our destiny. I would like to find out but we may never know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If awards were granted to the individuals who display the greatest ignorance on climate and climate change, perhaps this individual's "contribution" would make him a strong candidate. In an op-ed published by the Washington Times, Anthony J. Sadar, wrote:

[C]rowding into an expansive metropolis, no matter how enticing it may be, just adds to the problem of long-term climate change.

People have thrived in their own custom-built climate change for centuries. Today, there are numerous locations across the globe where manmade outdoor temperatures consistently exceed natural ambient conditions by 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit...

Nobody is overly concerned with the heat island effect...

He then goes on to mock today's concerns about climate change tying those concerns to discredited past warnings about overpopulation and mass starvation that did not come to pass.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/24/the-trouble-with-the-political-push-for-climate-ch/

His message: 2.8°C -5.6°C (the equivalent temperatures of those he cited for urban heat islands) is not bad. People have demonstrated the ability to 'thrive' in such environments. Moreover, "nobody is overly concerned" with such environments, thus, a similar indifferent attitude should be taken with respect to anthropogenic climate change.

Even as the individual self-identifies as a meteorologist, it is clear he knows little or nothing about climate and climate change. His perspective is grossly simplified and is not applicable to a world that includes land masses (not just cities), oceans and water bodies, ice sheets, and the atmosphere.

A few quick things: First, the increase in radiative forcing from rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has a global impact. Second, warming oceans experience themal expansion. Third, melting glaciers, along with the Greenland and Antrarctic ice sheets are increasing sea levels. Fourth, rising sea levels mean more flooding/flood events in coastal regions, some of which are also experiencing subsidence. Fifth, rising global temperatures have led to an increase in heat extremes. Sixth, rising global temperatures are leading to a shift in flora, and not all areas will have optimal soil for the changes taking place. Seventh, absorption of heat by the oceans has led to an increasing incidence of marine heat waves.

In short, the article is the equivalent of a medical diagnosis offered by a 17th century witch doctor rather than a highly-skilled, highly-educated 21st century medical professional. It is pseudoscience in which the localized phenomenon of the urban heat island effect is stretched beyond repair to a global conclusion.

All credible scientific evidence suggests that a 2.8°C -5.6°C warming on a global basis would be highly damaging to ecosystems and human society. Artifacts of pseudoscience such as the one advanced in the opinion piece should be ignored. They carry no meaningful insight when it comes to climate and climate change. They only distract from science and understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well light dawns on marble heads ...

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-convince.html

In my own proclivities to lament the short-comings of the climate -crisis forefather communication's shimmering gallery of what not to do ( go about attacking the fundamental scaffold of society's make up ), I'm also quotable as mentioning concerns to that/this affect.  Those mistakes of yesteryear started this chain-work, where earlier defensive posturing led inexorably to a culture of denialism, and carte-blanche to be creative in the way people go about doing it because there's no moral culpability/sense of consequence for actually submitting one to a delusion and believing it... It's as much a psychological problem ( integrating sociologically) as a geo-physical one now, set into motion decades ago by bad diplomacy and dissemination of an impending crisis.  And it's consequentially very bad now, because this is a present day reality where we have to move quicker, than the time it will take to convince the world it is in trouble.  The earlier warning tact ...it really created a different sort of climate crisis, one that is just as pernicious and seemingly insurmountable as the environmental one, itself ... and thus, there two wars going on: one against ignorance and enlightenment about the ways and means of profligate Humanity, and the disparate cultural design against that enlightenment - the latter of which is an ingrained cultural climate of distrust and vitriol ( to mention, morality ), one that is multi-generational too. 

To be fair, not all of which is the climate-frontiersmen fault, either - there seems to be an entirely separate post -Industrial Revolution - ramification that is timed exquisitely badly but I won't get into that. 

It's not a novel for anyone of us to have mentioned this concern at the various "water cooler depots of the social-media," less than compendium ...no.  Most know ...or have suspected for some time, that this is a sociological issue.  However, the problem was not going away?  And over the years, we are not seeing a very sophisticated ( if at all )  gap/diplomatic control measure being adopted by disseminators - other than misinformation and misuse for a special interest group's gain, but that's another digression..  There needs to be art in research exposure to the masses.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the deniers get even more desperate, they have continued to attack Greta Thunberg. New attacks include a recycled dishonest claim by Anthony Watts that Greta Thunberg claimd that she can "see" carbon dioxide.

Joe Bastardi is the latest to recycle the dishonest Watts claim.

JBTweet09262019.jpg

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/1177031514728685568

Back on May 2, Watts wrote a blog entry entitled, "Quote of the Week: Greta Thunberg claims to be able to 'see' carbon dioxide in the air." The blog entry then goes on to quote her mother, not Greta Thunberg. Greta Thunberg is quoted nowhere in the blog entry. Nevertheless, the headline proclaims that Greta Thunberg "claims" the ability.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/02/quote-of-the-week-greta-thunberg-claims-to-be-able-to-see-carbon-dioxide-in-the-air/

In any case, the source of the quote comes from a website. On May 4, Greta Thunberg responded on Facebook:

Of course the ongoing hate campaigns never rests…

There is at least one new conspiracy theory a day.

The latest - and perhaps most entertaining - spin is that "I can see CO2 with my own eyes".

This is of course a metaphor from a book taken out of it's context, taken from a German newspaper.

No one has said that I can literally see CO2… that is beyond stupid.

This should of course not be necessary to mention but since some respected newspapers have written about this without realizing that this is a fake news campaign I thought it was best to point this out.

While I am at it I also want to point out that when I say that "our civilisation is almost like a castle built in the sand" or that "our house on fire" these are metaphors too:)

https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/of-course-the-ongoing-hate-campaigns-never-rests-there-is-at-least-one-new-consp/823189474715541/

And from the website on which Watts based his claim that quoted the book:

But does the mother mean that literally or only figuratively? That cannot be precisely determined from the excerpt – which we present below in its entirety.

That is why we contacted the publisher of the book in Sweden. “I was shocked by the commotion in Germany, Belgium and now also in Italy,” he says. “I can assure you that it is a metaphor; if you read the entire passage, end it with the tale of “The New Emperor’s Clothes” by Christian Anderson. So it is certainly not literal.” In a text message, the mother also says that it is only about imagery.

https://www.afrinik.com/gretas-mother-creates-clarity-passage-about-seeing-co2-was-figuratively-intended/

Did Watts take down his misleading blog entry? No.

Did Watts even bother to correct the headline attributing the quote to Thunberg? No.

Did Watts even acknowledge Thunberg's response? No.

Now, the dishonest claim is being recycled on Social Media, likely to dampen the growing attention climate change is currently receiving. Watts bears direct responsibility for this outcome whenever his misleading blog entry is cited, as those citing or linking to his claim often don't undertake the due diligence that they should to verify the claims he made. In general, when claims are sensational, due diligence is especially important.

As one looks at the climate denial movement's growing panic in the face of its shrinking influence, the nature of that movement becomes ever more apparent. The climate denial movement is not about integrity or truth. It is about dishonesty and deception, as it has no credible scientific basis on which to stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don posted excerpts from a letter to the U.N. general several posts ago...  This caught my eye immediately - this particular sentiment, which I've heard repeated in the "cost vs consequence" mantra quite often and it's irritating. 

"Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power....

It's wrong for multiple reason.  

One, it is not pointless - the fact that the author of this sentence doesn't see the point, or has difficulty with connecting with the truth and reality of what climate crisis actually means does not mean the point does not exist. It simply means... he/she is either lacking the capacity to see it, or [ perhaps ] is/are too predisposed to other ideologies, so much so that they block the perception of truth and reality in the first place. 

Two, Tough shit!  Related to one, this "concern" is rooted in a mentality that either doesn't understand and/or appreciate the magnitude of what the f climate "apocalypse" means, or is incapable to perceptions that take the "longer view". 

Clue:  There is no economy in a future that cannot support an economy - thus, the author(s) question and concern is  rendered void and irrelevant.   I mean, this idiot cares about the economics and guess what... economics is based on a human construct.  I conceit of value that is just a shared delusion - turn out the lights.  It's gone.  It's not, gravity or electromagnetism, or chemistry rules of nature that we all are compelled to abide by or we die.  Economy, and the ways and means by which humanity stuffs meaning and value into it, is an abuse of the former natural laws - think long and hard about that. Those abuses, leading to the consequences we now face, are consequences precipitating out of bad practices before fully exploring what it would mean to do the things history has done - that will mean the demise of economy as we know it.  These people among us ... it just begins suspect they are genetically lacking some make-up in the very wiring of their minds and are incapably connect the dots - ..little frustration here, admittedly. but Jesus -  In a whimsy euphemism, we've ignored the gravity of our actions and went about profligate chemistry, and now... we have an electromagnetic problem.  

When I read this opening statement by the author, they lost all credibility in my mind and I can't abide - it actually makes it difficult to even want to endure reading further. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Don posted excerpts from a letter to the U.N. general several posts ago...  This caught my eye immediately - this particular sentiment, which I've heard repeated in the "cost vs consequence" mantra quite often and it's irritating. 

"Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power....

It's wrong for multiple reason.  

One, it is not pointless - the fact that the author of this sentence doesn't see the point, or has difficulty with connecting with the truth and reality of what climate crisis actually means does not mean the point does not exist. It simply means... he/she is either lacking the capacity to see it, or [ perhaps ] is/are too predisposed to other ideologies, so much so that they block the perception of truth and reality in the first place. 

Two, Tough shit!  Related to one, this "concern" is rooted in a mentality that either doesn't understand and/or appreciate the magnitude of what the f climate "apocalypse" means, or is incapable to perceptions that take the "longer view". 

Clue:  There is no economy in a future that cannot support an economy - thus, the author(s) question and concern is  rendered void and irrelevant.   I mean, this idiot cares about the economics and guess what... economics is based on a human construct.  I conceit of value that is just a shared delusion - turn out the lights.  It's gone.  It's not, gravity or electromagnetism, or chemistry rules of nature that we all are compelled to abide by or we die.  Economy, and the ways and means by which humanity stuffs meaning and value into it, is an abuse of the former natural laws - think long and hard about that. Those abuses, leading to the consequences we now face, are consequences precipitating out of bad practices before fully exploring what it would mean to do the things history has done - that will mean the demise of economy as we know it.  These people among us ... it just begins suspect they are genetically lacking some make-up in the very wiring of their minds and are incapably connect the dots - ..little frustration here, admittedly. but Jesus -  In a whimsy euphemism, we've ignored the gravity of our actions and went about profligate chemistry, and now... we have an electromagnetic problem.  

When I read this opening statement by the author, they lost all credibility in my mind and I can't abide - it actually makes it difficult to even want to endure reading further. 

 

Lindzen et al., who wrote the letter, have no defensible scientific basis to make requests of the UN Secretary-General as it relates to climate change. What you've highlighted reaffirms that reality. Hopefully, the UN Secretary-General will not act upon their request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2019 at 8:06 AM, ORH_wxman said:

Most politicians aren't really that serious about climate change anyway. Even the ones who claim they are. There are some exceptions of course. 

But we see something like the Paris accord being touted by politicians as this crucial thing when in reality it is non-binding and even if it wasn't, the commitments through the end of the accord in 2030 would do very little to change the longer term outcome of climate change...especially if one believes that we are closer to the "worst case" scenarios of higher climate sensitivity. The difference is something like a couple tenths of a degree Celsius or even less. If you are generous and make a bunch of assumptions like everyone continues to ramp up their cuts beyond 2030 like I've seen done in some analysis, then you can maybe add several more tenths. But that's a big assumption. 

It comes across as something for politicians to pat eachother on that back about to make them feel as if they are tackling the problem when they really aren't. 

This probably isn't the thread for such discussion, but a far more efficient way to attack the issue would be to invest most of the money into R&D for green energy. 

Even John Kerry said that the Paris accord didn't go far enough- we need to reach net Carbon zero by 2050.  I think the car companies may get there, they are making far more electric vehicles now and may well reach the goal of two thirds by 2030.  The red states are suffering from climate change too, with farms in the nations heartland underwater.  We've ceased all new gas and oil installations in NY and I see they've done the same in FL, which is a red state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 10:59 PM, psv88 said:

Nobody out there claims that the sea shores will be under water in the next 20 years. The timeline for mass coastal inundation starts around 2100. Before then, coastal areas will cede land to the sea, but mainly in already vulnerable areas.

You ever been to Martha’s Vineyard where Obama bought his house? Many areas have massive dunes and hills, it’s not really a low lying island. Same as California. It’s not like they bought property on Key Largo. 

Further,The imminent danger may not exist for everyone’s backyard today, but the imminent danger will come at different times for everyone. In the Pacific Ocean it’s already happening, in some areas it may be invasion of diseases carrying insects. 

The idea that a liberal buying a house on a beach disproves or sheds doubt on climate change is absurd.

 

exactly- we're seeing the rise of tropical diseases already as well as much higher asthma rates and air pollution from fossil fuel emissions.  The central of the country is getting hit with much more flooding and loses numbering billions of dollars per year and trillions per decade.  corporations are now divesting themselves from the fossil fuel industry- they all know the cost of not doing anything is far greater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Don posted excerpts from a letter to the U.N. general several posts ago...  This caught my eye immediately - this particular sentiment, which I've heard repeated in the "cost vs consequence" mantra quite often and it's irritating. 

"Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power....

It's wrong for multiple reason.  

One, it is not pointless - the fact that the author of this sentence doesn't see the point, or has difficulty with connecting with the truth and reality of what climate crisis actually means does not mean the point does not exist. It simply means... he/she is either lacking the capacity to see it, or [ perhaps ] is/are too predisposed to other ideologies, so much so that they block the perception of truth and reality in the first place. 

Two, Tough shit!  Related to one, this "concern" is rooted in a mentality that either doesn't understand and/or appreciate the magnitude of what the f climate "apocalypse" means, or is incapable to perceptions that take the "longer view". 

Clue:  There is no economy in a future that cannot support an economy - thus, the author(s) question and concern is  rendered void and irrelevant.   I mean, this idiot cares about the economics and guess what... economics is based on a human construct.  I conceit of value that is just a shared delusion - turn out the lights.  It's gone.  It's not, gravity or electromagnetism, or chemistry rules of nature that we all are compelled to abide by or we die.  Economy, and the ways and means by which humanity stuffs meaning and value into it, is an abuse of the former natural laws - think long and hard about that. Those abuses, leading to the consequences we now face, are consequences precipitating out of bad practices before fully exploring what it would mean to do the things history has done - that will mean the demise of economy as we know it.  These people among us ... it just begins suspect they are genetically lacking some make-up in the very wiring of their minds and are incapably connect the dots - ..little frustration here, admittedly. but Jesus -  In a whimsy euphemism, we've ignored the gravity of our actions and went about profligate chemistry, and now... we have an electromagnetic problem.  

When I read this opening statement by the author, they lost all credibility in my mind and I can't abide - it actually makes it difficult to even want to endure reading further. 

 

sounds like what a fossil fuel industry person would say.  I can guarantee you that other industries, including the automobile industry, see the light and are getting out of the dirty fossil fuel business.

The fossil fuel industry has cost us trillions of dollars and killed millions of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...