And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
stand@desk
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:40 pm

And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by stand@desk » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:05 pm

Found this article just now..a more reasonable assessment of what Climate Change actually involves..

(Saying were probably toast anyway but we'll just keep trying to work on cliamte change as we go. Taxing oil too heavily is impossible politically to make any difference.)

Refreshing to read an article where the writer respects the reader.

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:39 am

Margaret Wente is a director of the Energy Probe Research Foundation, a non-governmental organisation know for denying climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Probe

There are a log of people with an agenda, they have no interest in a "reasonable assessment"
After its separation and incorporation, and led from then on by Lawrence Solomon, EPRF began to accept funding from the oil and gas industry, and, in 1983, began a campaign "to educate Canadians to the social, environmental and economic benefits of less regulation in the petroleum field."[13] In the 1980s, the organization was also responsible for a proposal to dismantle the province of Ontario's publicly owned electricity utility, Ontario Hydro, in favour of privatization.[

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by daylen » Sat Dec 15, 2018 8:42 am


stand@desk
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by stand@desk » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:18 pm


tonyedgecombe
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:35 am

It's important to know when someone has an agenda.

stand@desk
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by stand@desk » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:42 am

Let's keep going! Why not eh?
This article is "Everything we need to know about the new UN Climate Agreement"

Great headline! Another tidy, complete article I can post on the wall and have all my climate agreement questions known to me.

"The UN celebrated the Katowice Climate Package as the beginning of a “new era of global climate change action..” -- Ok, so there was an achievement made to celebrate. However..

"Large oil exporters like the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait successfully blocked an attempt to include language about weaning the world off fossil fuels in the agreement. The final text of the agreement also lacks specific 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction targets."

Guess my question (which was not brought up in the article) is that if there is no agreement on "greenhouse gas reduction targets" and no specific language about "weaning off fossil fuels" which are probably very specific causes of the "global warming or climate change." Was there pressure just to have a politcal agreement and win from the countries in attendance instead of actually making an agreement that will stop climate change? Is this another Kyoto or Paris? Did we agree to the easy stuff and not the hard stuff and is this really a Climate Change non-agreement when we (earthlings) can not agree to the major causes of said climate change.

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by daylen » Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:55 am

The problems we face extend far beyond emissions. Before we can start addressing these problems we need to reconsider our relationship to all other life.
Last edited by daylen on Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by daylen » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:01 am

"We" is a dangerous word, though. Charge starts with individuals.

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by Bankai » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:21 am

daylen wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:01 am
Charge starts with individuals.
At what point can an individual say "I'm not a part of this problem" though?

We know that the biggest impact has: having child(ren), driving a car, flying, eating animals & spending a lot.

Is someone who's childfree, carfree, vegan, not flying much & spending <= 1 JAFI still obliged to do more (i.e. preach to others)? Or can the person assume that since "If everyone was like me, this problem would not exist", responsibility ends here?

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by daylen » Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:32 am

I disagree that those are necessarily the biggest factors. I also do not think that ranking individuals in this respect is worthwhile.

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by Bankai » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:03 am

@ daylen - what then is the biggest factor in your opinion?

Also, do you mean that responsibility never ends, even if proportionally one's impact is so small, that if adopted universally, the problem would be solved?

Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by Gilberto de Piento » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:28 am

Why does this site attract people who are deperate for a fight over climate change? Anyone else remember the huge threads on this in the past? It was exactly the same, one person trying to keep an argument going forever. It's just odd.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11226
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by jacob » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:51 am

@GdP - I think it's because FIRE tends to attract a [much] larger than average fraction of people with libertarian leanings. In those circles climate change or dealing with externalities in general is somewhat of a no-no(*). So if you mainly get your world-view from those circles, you'll be presented with various levels denial/explanation along the [moving] goal post progression:
  1. CO2 is not rising.
  2. Okay, so CO2 is rising, but other things like water vapor or clouds are more important.
  3. Okay, so CO2 is the most important but the temperature is not rising, because in 1998 ...
  4. Okay, so the temperature is rising but it's natural and not humans' fault.
  5. Okay, so humans are responsible for 100% of the temperature rise since 1950, but CO2 is good for plants.
  6. Okay, so it's pretty bad, but technology will solve the problem for us thanks to human ingenuity.
  7. Okay, so technology will not solve the problem for us and politicians will have to come to an agreement on necessary change, but that will never happen.
  8. Okay, so politicians came to an agreement, but it's too expensive for the economy and therefore we need oil and coal, etc.
  9. Okay, so it's actually possible to afford it, but it's not too late to wait and see and then pay later.
  10. Okay, so it's too late now, but humans have always been able to adapt.
(*) Fingers in ears going lalalala while declaring that it's not a problem or that the market will fix the problem it caused if simply given more freedom.

So to answer your question... the "fighting" (psychological bargaining) happens in terms of developing/resolving an internal logical consistency between a deeply ingrained ideology (which goes deeper than just economic beliefs but also involves complete faith in technology and progress as a benign force of good) and actual reality. It also so happens that on this forum the reality-side punches pretty hard so it's not just "in my opinion"-arguments---that's why they drag on forever (until I stop them.) In any case, this is why the most recent slew of CC posts looks like a Kuebler-Ross worksheet. We're currently at the "bargaining" stage wrt this thread. This is moving pretty fast.

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by daylen » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:54 am

@Bankai I think that thinking in this way about this issue is meaningless. Treating humans as separate from the "environment" is ultimately a death sentence. All this finger pointing is deluding us to the fact that earth is one great big interconnected system. The science is focused on what is measurable, but there is so much that we cannot measure.

@Gilberto I think it makes perfect sense if you consider debate as a way to expose false assumptions and personal truth. Observing a debate from an external perspective is not the same. The science behind this topic is particularly complex with lots of bias.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11226
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by jacob » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:07 am

daylen wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:54 am
Treating humans as separate from the "environment" is ultimately a death sentence. All this finger pointing is deluding us to the fact that earth is one great big interconnected system. The science is focused on what is measurable, but there is so much that we cannot measure.
Yeah, but you're making your argument at a level(*) that most humans don't operate on or relate to. What people want to know is what they can specifically do and what has the most impact given the current system. In that regard, the presented list (childfree, no flying, car free, meatless, ...) is in the correct order. Its purpose is so that first world people don't focus their efforts on switching to LED lights and recycling plastic bags.

(*) If you're interested in this level, you need to go to the dark mountain project or similar where the focus is in terms of one's ultimate position in the big interconnected system. I fear that is way to abstract/imaginative for people whose main priority in life might be how they commute to their jobs if they can't afford their car payment, etc.

suomalainen
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by suomalainen » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:14 am

I've been waiting for someone to go on an antinatalism rant on one of these CC threads, but I haven't see any yet.

tonyedgecombe
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun Dec 16, 2018 11:53 am

Gilberto de Piento wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:28 am
Why does this site attract people who are deperate for a fight over climate change? Anyone else remember the huge threads on this in the past? It was exactly the same, one person trying to keep an argument going forever. It's just odd.
It is a bit strange, deep down they must know their arguments will be demolished. Perhaps they get a confirming response when they do the same thing elsewhere. Perhaps it's just trolling.

User avatar
Bankai
Posts: 539
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:28 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by Bankai » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:28 pm

daylen wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:54 am
@Bankai I think that thinking in this way about this issue is meaningless. Treating humans as separate from the "environment" is ultimately a death sentence. All this finger pointing is deluding us to the fact that earth is one great big interconnected system. The science is focused on what is measurable, but there is so much that we cannot measure.
If thinking about the issue in this way (i.e. by identifying and eliminating elements in one's behaviour that contribute the most to the problem, until one is no longer a part of the problem), is meaningless, then I assume your position is that of total responsibility, i.e. no matter how much one does on an individual level, one is still responsible for what other humans do.

Do you then feel the same about all other burning issues (hunger in Africa, human trafficking, factory farming and many more) and which do you prioritise your life energy to fight?

daylen
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by daylen » Sun Dec 16, 2018 12:56 pm

More like I am done fighting and just want to understand better. I suppose you could say that I am taking on total responsibility. If that is the case, then it only makes sense for me to try to understand those other things you mention as well. The prioritization issue is tricky. I think the best thing for me to do going forward is to be continuously revising my priorities.

BRUTE
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: And now for an actually reasonable article on climate change.

Post by BRUTE » Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:07 pm

jacob wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:51 am
I think it's because FIRE tends to attract a [much] larger than average fraction of people with libertarian leanings. In those circles climate change or dealing with externalities in general is somewhat of a no-no.
lol. might brute suggest an alternative hypothesis?

libertarians rally around 2 topics, human rights and economics. they typically all agree on human rights and so spend their entire time fighting and debating over economic issues.

thus, compared with the average population (and scientists), libertarians are vastly over-equipped when thinking about externalities. essentially most libertarians are probably a 2-5 on the Wheaton scale in economics (brute has out-debated many economics majors over the years on various issues), with some of them being literal thought leaders (e.g. Murphy's day job is the economics of energy, his Wheaton level there is equivalent to that of DLj in physics).

being mentally equipped in a field also reduces one's ability to simply accept the easy solutions ("2+ levels below look like idiots"). so libertarians don't fall for the cheap emotional shots like "there is a cost to X so X must be stopped!" or "authority says X must be stopped!". most climate change issues are phrased for Wheaton levels 0-1, sometimes 2. thus 95% of the debate seems to be on the level of idiots to most libertarians.

very rarely do the 2 opposing sides ever interact on a Wheaton level higher than 3 - to be honest, brute hasn't really seen it even though he's been following the debate for about a decade now. a few of the posts in the IPCC thread approach a level 3 or so, where the libertarian side (i.e. brute) acknowledges that the physicists are probably right about the physics of it, and the concerned side (i.e. DLj et al) admit that there is such a thing as discounted present value and opportunity cost, and just because X has a cost associated with it does not mean X must be prevented.

[edit]

brute just thought of something else.

in both the Austrian and Chicago tradition of economics, vigorous debate, which would seem insulting/combative to many humans, is seen as a respectful and time-tested way of arriving at better results. there is a certain intellectual no-holds-barred mentality to it, with libertarians debating each other very intensely, over and over again. this strikes brute as a certain old-school scientific mentality, maybe deriving from the ancient greeks.

brute does not know if a similar mentality exists in higher-Wheaton-level climate science, but at the lower Wheaton levels of pretty much any doctrine, skepticism and debate is seen not as a positive, but as heresy to the faith of the tribe. skeptics are not engaged to be proven wrong, they are excommunicated. this has even happened on this forum, with members calling brute a "denier" and "not dissimilar to what Republicans would say" (rofl how that's even a pejorative).

in all fairness it happens the other way around, too, e.g. all the "herp derp socialism" posts that libertarians love to ridicule instead of engage.

Post Reply