Climate Change......

[TobyC]

The next step looks to be the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP26, to be held in Glasgow from 1 to 12 November 2021 under the presidency of the UK Government. This conference is the first time that Parties are expected to commit to enhanced ambition since COP21. Parties are required to do every five years, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, a process colloquially known as the 'ratchet mechanism'. Sponsors for the UN's COP26 climate talks in Glasgow will also need to have strong climate credentials.

After the shock of a world pandemic, maybe this particular conference will see a coming together of countries in a common purpose. And hopefully a meaningful final accord.

You have drowned in the Kool-Aid, you can no longer think for yourself.

 

[les24preludes]

As Bob says in a previous post:

"My POV is that there has always been climate change but since industrialisation mankind has had an ever larger role in pushing the rate at which change is occurring. Who is polluting more is changing as the economic landscape changes. China's rapid industrial growth since the 1990s has also greatly increased the pollution they generate while other nations have reduced the amount they pollute. I doubt one cancels the other out as the earth is still warming at an ever increasing rate."

China's position is interesting. On the one hand pollution has indeed greatly increased. On the other hand China is making significant contributions to renewable energy. China sees renewables as a source of energy security. Unlike oil, coal and gas, the supplies of which are finite and subject to geopolitical tensions, renewable energy systems can be built and used wherever there is sufficient water, wind, and sun. As Chinese renewable manufacturing has grown, the costs of renewable energy technologies have dropped dramatically.

 

[Steve]

The current climate change warriors are politically driven, they manipulate or flat out create the numbers to manipulate, regulate, and control the global economy. Money, control, and power, that's the agenda, and you can either submit or fight back. I am no sheep.

Ooo Rah!

 

[les24preludes]

I think a little differentiation might be helpful. Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them. Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

 

[Wayne]

I think a little differentiation might be helpful. Scientific skepticism advocates for testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them. Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

It's simply because we have absolutely NO Idea what happened before the saviours of the Modern World, Scientists, decided the planet was warming. What happened for the millions of years previous to these Boffins deciding it is because we use Oil? Any Ideas welcomed.

 

[owlman]

Instead, changing minds in this day and age often takes a spirit of amity and respect where openness can unfold and a willingness to listen and internalise can emerge.

I think part of the problem is that we try to explain the world in the same way we have come to understand it. If we see human interaction as a power struggle and a zero-sum game, we fight every restriction because it must mean someone else gains from our loss. If we see human interaction as a collaborative endeavour, we appeal to a common goal and try to find ways to contribute to it. One group can't see how (especially forceful) restraint could possibly be to one's benefit, and views any attempt towards it as foolish at best and an attack at the worst. The other can't see how something identified as a "common good" isn't enough in itself to persuade voluntary constraint, and suspects a lack of comprehension at best and pure selfishness or ill will at the worst.

 

[les24preludes]

If you want a quick visual demonstration of this, look at Richard Dawkins' Prisoner's Dilemma. Solid Game Theory.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr6lsTgZKAQ

 

[Wayne]

I think part of the problem is that we try to explain the world in the same way we have come to understand it. If we see human interaction as a power struggle and a zero-sum game, we fight every restriction because it must mean someone else gains from our loss. If we see human interaction as a collaborative endeavour, we appeal to a common goal and try to find ways to contribute to it. One group can't see how (especially forceful) restraint could possibly be to one's benefit, and views any attempt towards it as foolish at best and an attack at the worst. The other can't see how something identified as a "common good" isn't enough in itself to persuade voluntary constraint, and suspects a lack of comprehension at best and pure selfishness or ill will at the worst.

The reason the majority of people on the planet do not believe climate change is harmful, not that it isn't happening, but isn't harmful is that we simply do not have the historical evidence which is needed to provide the proof it is not just the natural cycle of the planet. Simply saying "The World is warming and it's really bad" isn't enough to make people sit up and take notice regardless of what a bunch of Vegan, Carrot munching, Piers Corbyn, luvvie, middle class London centric dinner party set say.

 

[Charcoal]

Climate change deniers have nothing to back their claims. They only spout off free choice, skeptical mindset and fear as a defense to their willful ignorance. Free choice and skepticism is a non issue and already included in the fundamentals of science so agreeing is simple. How we face our fear of change is the difference. The appearance of no factual data or proof of their claims hit the heart of the matter. The “I believe what I want” attitude is willfully ignorant especially when driven by the fear of being controlled by the facts presented. To me it’s not politically at all BUT to a denier it’s at the core of what drives em and makes it political for everyone.

 

[les24preludes]

One group can't see how (especially forceful) restraint could possibly be to one's benefit, and views any attempt towards it as foolish at best and an attack at the worst. The other can't see how something identified as a "common good" isn't enough in itself to persuade voluntary constraint, and suspects a lack of comprehension at best and pure selfishness or ill will at the worst.

I think when assessing "common good" there are further factors at play. It's possible to rise above the binary of lack of comprehension or attribution of selfishness/ill will. And indeed we have to. The Prisoners Dilemma is one way - in a society that is intoxicated by gaming, maybe game theory can make some inroads, particularly with younger generations. I think another growing avenue is Futurology, or Future Studies. This is a very interesting movement that has been growing for some time and has had spinoffs in Science-Fiction for a long while. On a human level, though, we as a race don't seem to be very good at assessing consequences. We bet endlessly on lotteries where the chances of success are many times worse than being struck by lightening. OK, that's a banal analogy, and there is much more consequential research. But the fact remains that our biological survival skills don't seem to have evolved into any futurology skills at a time when we really, really need it.

 

[Wayne]

The term Climate change deniers is insulting and wrong. I believe the planet is warming, no argument there from me. Have we contributed to it? Possibly. Are we involved in a massive knee jerk reaction with zero proof our actions will do any good? Probably. Until anyone can tell me and others what the tempratures on the Planet were before let's say 1700 to the creation then all you are telling people is the Planet is warming and it's all your fault and you have to give up the lifestyle science has provided for absolutely no reason other than the statement "The Planet is warming." Who is to say it doesn't happen every 500 years then cools down again after 50 and just gets on with it and it is the natural cycle of Planet Earth.
The insults thrown about by the "so called" intellegent believers just goes to shown that they need the insults to shut down debate in order to push their agenda at all costs.

 

[Charcoal]

The term Climate change deniers is insulting and wrong. I believe the planet is warming, no argument there from me. Have we contributed to it? Possibly. Are we involved in a massive knee jerk reaction with zero proof our actions will do any good? Probably. Until anyone can tell me and others what the tempratures on the Planet were before let's say 1700 to the creation then all you are telling people is the Planet is warming and it's all your fault and you have to give up the lifestyle science has provided for absolutely no reason other than the statement "The Planet is warming." Who is to say it doesn't happen every 500 years then cools down again after 50 and just gets on with it and it is the natural cycle of Planet Earth.
The insults thrown about by the "so called" intellegent believers just goes to shown that they need the insults to shut down debate in order to push their agenda at all costs.

If the name doesn’t apply to you why do you respond? You’re just trying a new way to defend your willful ignorance by shifting the focus. You ignore science because you fear the facts and your ego gets in the way of listening to others.

 

[Wayne]

If the name doesn’t apply to you why do you respond? You’re just trying a new way to defend your willful ignorance by shifting the focus. You ignore science because you fear the facts and your ego gets in the way of listening to others.

I respond because I refuse to give in to bullies. You spout science but show nothing of substance. All you can say is The World is warming and expect everyone to jump to your tune. Not me. I will not be labelled by others and silenced by bullies.

 

[Steve]

The term Climate change deniers is insulting and wrong. I believe the planet is warming, no argument there from me. Have we contributed to it? Possibly. Are we involved in a massive knee jerk reaction with zero proof our actions will do any good? Probably. Until anyone can tell me and others what the tempratures on the Planet were before let's say 1700 to the creation then all you are telling people is the Planet is warming and it's all your fault and you have to give up the lifestyle science has provided for absolutely no reason other than the statement "The Planet is warming." Who is to say it doesn't happen every 500 years then cools down again after 50 and just gets on with it and it is the natural cycle of Planet Earth.
The insults thrown about by the "so called" intellegent believers just goes to shown that they need the insults to shut down debate in order to push their agenda at all costs.

If we can be 'climate change deniers', they can be 'Millennial douche-bags.'

 

[Charcoal]

I respond because I refuse to give in to bullies. You spout science but show nothing of substance. All you can say is The World is warming and expect everyone to jump to your tune. Not me. I will not be labelled by others and silenced by bullies.

Honestly I wasn’t talking to deniers like yourself. I’m talking to everyone else explaining the deniers craziness.