A question about climate change/global warming.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1311 of them)
I forgot they found a chromosomally linked gene for aversion to needlework. Silly me.

Laurel, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 19:39 (seventeen years ago) link

My two bits on this:

1. conservative types tend to not believe in systemic/complex causation rather than direct causation. (i.e. you're poor cuz you're lazy and it's your own fault and responsibility, not b/c you're in a system that's fucked)

2. american politics are extremely tribal right now, and agreeing with anything of this stuff is akin to casting your lot in with the dirty hippies. Plus, empiric & objective science has been attacked enough lately so that you can project your political thinking onto scientists, since scientists are all biased and only want a certain political output, and want to silence all dissenting opinions.

It's kinda fun how it's a big shitpile of these folks suddenly seeing the validity of debate, an inability or deliberate decision not to understand how science actually works, and disingeniousness in wanting to put forth a "serious alternative answer," as opposed to trying to scramble around for anything to cudgel the other side.

It's a lot like the intelligent design folks who want their shit taught alongside evolutionary biology as equally valid, yet spend all their money on shit-stirring p.r. instead of actually producing any research(check the budget of Seattle's Discovery Institute), and indeed openly attack those(sincerely interested or not) who want them to publish their research so it can be checked out. The authoritarian folks are now battling the authoritative folks(the ones who actually know their shit and can call others on it).

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

In other words, that traitorous hypocrite Gore and those dirty america-hating hippies are fer it, the Leaders I trust aren't and tell me I shouldn't be either, so i'm agin' it.

That kinda thing.

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

This is becoming less and less of a left vs right wing phenonmenon, as shown by the number of posts on The Corner (like those by Jonah Goldberg) acknowledging that global warming is real. The ones who believe simply distrust Gore-ist alarmism (OMIGOD MILWAUKEE WILL BE UNDERWATER IN 20 YRS).

Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

But there's still plenty of folks who attack Gore just for being Gore, which is a political thing, not with the science of it; see all the increased attacks & talking points in the last two days.

hell, there's some douche on Ed Schultz's show right now going off on him.

kingfish, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:12 (seventeen years ago) link

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c90/gradygillan/gwarming.jpg

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 21:18 (seventeen years ago) link

http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/761536.gif

g®▲Ðұ, Tuesday, 27 February 2007 22:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Things I've heard people say:

"Don't get me started on environmentalists! Soon denying global warming'll be like denying the holocaust. It'll be all "How dare you say it doesn't exist blah blah" (same bloke blamed "this PC world in which we live" for the rise in health and safety measures - my boss blamed lawyers. I think I agree with my boss)

"They ask me to switch off my TV instead of leaving it on standby, saying it saves energy, but have they considered that that so-called "wasted" energy is actually helping to heat my house?"

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:23 (seventeen years ago) link

These are also the kind of people who have an incredibly high suspicion of scientists, doctors and other professionals. "What's he talking about?! These people! He's not a proper scientist!" etc.

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:26 (seventeen years ago) link

"The cost of recycling is actually greater than the damage done"

the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:27 (seventeen years ago) link

Recycling IS very expensive and energy-intensive, though

How about Ken Livingstone, eh??

Cleaning up the Big Smoke: Livingstone plans to cut carbon emissions by 60%

and presumably some of the experience gained with this long-term initiative can be imparted to Venezuela through Ken's expertise-in-exchange-for-cheap-oil-for-poor-Londoners deal he struck with Chavez:

Livingstone seals Venezuelan fuel deal

Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 12:53 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting!

blueski, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 13:08 (seventeen years ago) link

follow up information to all those attacks against Gore over the last two day, from the " Tennessee Center for Policy Research" to every rightwing radio show and blogger out there

kingfish, Thursday, 1 March 2007 00:21 (seventeen years ago) link

I suspect the biggest reason is that too many people have been preaching catastrophe from too many angles for too long. People are incurious about all sorts of subjects that could be deemed vital or essential. Picking "humans cause global warming" as a topic is really kind of pointless, unless you happen to be a big believer in it. If it's your dogma, then it suddenly it's unreasonable that others don't share your enthusiasm, wonder, or abject fear. Abortion, Iraq, Putin whoring himself around the Middle East, poverty, saving the whales...everyone's got a cause that someone else doesn't care about.

And really, you can't blame people for being at least a little bit jaded, non-plussed, or even cynical on this topic.

Dandy Don Weiner, Thursday, 1 March 2007 01:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Ah......sure I can.

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:07 (seventeen years ago) link

......so we're only capable to worry about one cause?

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:09 (seventeen years ago) link

we can have as many causes (and crisis) as we want. Some have many, some have few. People have jammed their heads in the sand for eons for a variety of issues.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:35 (seventeen years ago) link

But then why choosing to jam their heads with such an energetic response against it?

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 15:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Instead of consulting a message board of what amounts to like minded people on this subject, maybe it would be more productive to sit down with these people and ask them why it is they think the way they do. That way, you wouldn't have to speculate. Maybe it's your approach to the subject that makes them wave you off. Maybe they'd be willing to consider your perspective on different terms. Are you out to change their mind or simply expose them because you think they are idiots? How is it "energetic" to merely refuse to consider possibilities of humans causing global warming? Sounds pretty passive to me.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Ouch!

I'm consulting a message board right now, because I'm at home, and the two people who live in this house have questions, and y'all MIGHT have some insight.

I do not argue with these people. I am calm and non-judgemental with them. I ask them questions. The thing that always gets me , though, is a lack of willingness to read something, or watch something, etc. I get along with these people. We talk in a friendly manner about all kinds of things everyday.

I have asked them why they're so bitterly opposed to the concept, and they usually have no answer except "It's a bunch of bull!", as if they'd rather not discuss it unless we're in agreement that it is a bunch of bull.

Dan, please don't project those nasty traits onto me.

(Am I comming across in a nasty way on this thread?)

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:36 (seventeen years ago) link

In other words, I don't bring the topic up. Someone will mention how it's all bunk, and I'd say something like "it seems a reasonable conclusion to come to, given all of the scientific data." And THEY'LL go off. I stay calm, but ask them about their logic, and they'll mention that Al Gore's fat or its cold outside today.

peepee, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:43 (seventeen years ago) link

This is defferent from my own experience, I rarely come across any denial of global warming / climate change. What I do come across is a large amount of indifference. The mental link has yet to be made between ongoing problem/possible solutions I can implement. Still, in a country where our own PM seems to be of the opinion that scientists will come up with something to sort it all out, this is hardly surprising.

Matt, Sunday, 4 March 2007 16:48 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm not trying to project those traits on you peepee and I'm sorry if you thought I was.

I'd say it sounds like the people you are referring to probably think that the issue is more partisan than scientific. They probably don't think much of Al Gore, they may not trust what he has to say, they may resent him being a celebrity for his cause, etc. Like Matt said, they may be predisposed to be indifferent towards climate issues and therefore see environmentalists as a bunch of paranoid scolds. Environmental issues have long been polarizing, with both sides being dismissive of the other to the point of losing any sort of healthy skepticism.

Dandy Don Weiner, Sunday, 4 March 2007 18:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Maria - yes it is hip for boys to darn socks! At least in the circles I run in. Even better if they make their own period clothing. (Alas, I will never win such a boy over with my homemade ball gowns, but I am a pretty good cook for a student!)

I don't know the reasons for totally shutting off to the idea of global warming, and I'm afraid any speculation I could provide would sound horrendously insulting and condescending.

Maria, Monday, 5 March 2007 00:05 (seventeen years ago) link

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0305awj.jpg

Algore is fat lol

kingfish, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 00:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Here's another reason, when the paper of record publishes bullshit hit pieces on Al Gore and his movie, by people who've done the same thing previously and been found wrong for it.

More detail here:
Bill Broad took to the pages of the paper of record to establish that there is significant concern in the scientific community about the accuracy of Gore's movie. To do so, he trotted out scientific outliers, non-scientists, and hacks with discredited arguments. In at least two cases (Pielke Jr. being a scientist and the NAS report contradicting Gore) he made gross factual errors. As for the rest, it's a classic case of journalistic "false balance" -- something I thought we were done with on global warming. I guess when it comes to Al Gore, the press still thinks it can get by on smear, suggestion, and innuendo.
And also what happened when they tried to attack the study Al cites about the 900+ peer-reviewed research papers supporting climate change.

That's the thing; b/c it's so political now, plenty of people have such vested stakes in their positions, and absolutely cannot admit that those Dirty Fucking Hippies are right, and that fat communist Algore actually knows his shit. So they cannot accept actual facts and cling to any life raft that keeps them from drowning in their own sewage, e.g. "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Facts alone don't set you free, since humans are so easily able to reject them.

kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting evangelical split on this issue - story up on CNN about it

Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 15 March 2007 19:52 (seventeen years ago) link

thing i don't get is wtf do the global-warming-is-bullshit people think the global-warming-is-fucking-us-all-and-mostly-done-by-humangs people are getting out of it? by denying it the former get to live their lives seeing the world as a resource and no more, get richer, whatever, but what do the latter get out of not denying it? some obv retorts - not answers - spring to mind but first, what do you think?

emsk, Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:43 (seventeen years ago) link

that we're communists who hate america and capitalism and the free market and want us all to live in sod huts and covered wagons and eat tofu. This is more or less what rightwinger columnists say, almost verbatim.

kingfish, Thursday, 15 March 2007 23:46 (seventeen years ago) link

Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.
The world was created in six days, less than 7000 years ago.
Tax cuts are a cure for deficits.

Clearly, these people are hard-to-convince skeptics.

M.V., Friday, 16 March 2007 00:15 (seventeen years ago) link

In fact, when some of 'em are pushed hard enough(like the CEI/AEI folks on that Thom Hartmann has on his show), they almost all revert to talking about how Kyoto will bankrupt the U.S. The equation comes down to that particular instance, as if there was one and only one particular way to go about it, and that way would be Bad for America, so we can't do anything. It almost always comes down to them holding that it's not economically possible to change how fucked up the system is right now, so status quo uber alles.

That and inertia is a bitch to overcome with people and industrial types not known for their adaptability or openness to new ideas.

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

"Market idolatry" is another good term for it.

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 00:42 (seventeen years ago) link

jeezus, kingfish. you sound pretty reactionary and defensive.

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 01:37 (seventeen years ago) link

You're projecting again, and using the problems you have with a few of the adherents to try to discredit the phenomenom itself. Using religious language on people who don't hold the knowledge thru relegious teachings is the same shit that fundie creationists do, screeching around about "Darwinists."

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 06:18 (seventeen years ago) link

who's doing the projecting here?

Nice try.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:45 (seventeen years ago) link

i think "what more can i do?" a lot of the time. I find it hard not to be smug, coz i look down the list of things in the "how to be greener" list and I think "well, i'm doing ALL of those already and have been for years".

like use yr less for example. I have no driver's licence; I will never have a driver's licence, end of.

i could fly less I suppose, but the most I've ever flown in a year is three return trips in 2005, last year it was two, likely to be two this year. From 1970-1990 inclusive it was none at all, same again from 1992 to 1995 inlcusive.

Grandpont Genie, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:50 (seventeen years ago) link

emsk - that's exactly what I've been wondering; there seems to be a bit of a backlash at the moment, that C4 documentary has meant a few tabloids feeling bold enough to run pieces trashing the whole idea. Admittedly I don't really rate the intellectual credentials of the Mail, Brian Reade and Richard Madeley but the worrying thing is that these twats have an audience. The one which really got me was a Mail leader article about how "they" want "us" to change "our lifestyles" for "no good reason." It's like refusing to go out of your way to buy dinosaur repellent when there's a herd of Apatosaurs bearing down on you.

The thing is, I'm not going to pretend to understand the situation fully, I doubt I am well-enough informed to win a debate with a hard-core climate change denier (purely because I don't have any facts at my disposal to counter their cherry-picked ones); but there's clearly enough evidence to convince me to alter my lifestyle as much as I can. I'm not being particularly inconvenienced, and I'm certainly not doing any more harm, so where's the problem?

Matt, Friday, 16 March 2007 11:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Matt, you could always start here. A critique written by Sir John Houghton, ex Met Office Chief Exec who campaigns against climate change from a Christian viewpoint.

http://www.jri.org.uk/news/Critique_Channel4_Global_Warming_Swindle.doc

Billy Dods, Friday, 16 March 2007 12:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Ta, I was listening to their arguments and think that it sounded like absolute rubbish but I couldn't prove why. See, I don't doubt the existence of climate change, and I don't doubt the magnitude of the problem. I remember when that documentary was screened a channel 4 rep got torn aprt on the radio (Today, I think), and the main thrust of his argument was a somewhat lame "well it's a different viewpoint and needs hearing" as opposed to the more honest "it's grossly irresponsible but will nevertheless generate media attention. Ker-ching!"

Matt, Friday, 16 March 2007 13:18 (seventeen years ago) link

I thought this was mainly a US phenomenon and everyone over here was resigned to global warming's existence (while not actually doing anything about it) except maybe for a tiny, tiny minority of the desperately stupid, but a very smart friend saw that Great Global Warming Swindle programme and the next day he was absolutely sold that everything he saw in it was FACT and we had been LIED to and it was all a conspiracy by anti-capitalists who hate oil companies for no good reason or something. I've since seen a newspaper TV review of it in a paper I just about trust enough to buy also saying "makes you think, doesn't it?" etc bla.

Now I haven't seen this programme (I probably should before I rant, it's on u|<n0v4 but I'm out of disk space, maybe this weekend), but the bits he was quoting as absolute proof it didn't exist were fairly well, er, if not refuted then at least contradicted in both the Gore film and the Planet Earth (?) episode about future climate change, but I didn't have any facts or figures in my head.

Any Britishers here seen it? Anyone else surprised at smart people being convinced by it? I'm a little surprised and disappointed at C4 for putting it on.

a passing spacecadet, Friday, 16 March 2007 13:24 (seventeen years ago) link

this issue is absolute dogma for some people, a nearly prophetic belief where anyone who's not on board with the apocalypse is a "denier." Is that what science has become?

I think the problem here, is that you move from "some people" to "Is that what science has become?"

Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 16 March 2007 13:38 (seventeen years ago) link

[i] "Bergeron's epitaph for the planet, I remember, which he said should be carved in big letters in a wall of the Grand Canyon for the flying-saucer people to find, was this:

WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT
BUT WE WERE TOO DOGGONE CHEAP

Only he didn't say 'doggone.'"
- KV, _Hocus Pocus_[i]

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 17:41 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't understand anyone who says the scientific community's evidence is inconclusive when every major peer-reviewed science journal, international study team, and independent scientific authority has either verified it or expressed major concern about it. They may not be able accurately predict all the effects - the global system is too complex for that kind of prognostication - but the fact that human activity is impacting the temperature and weather systems of the planet is indisputable.

Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 16 March 2007 17:56 (seventeen years ago) link

B/c when you finally admit that a problem is happening, it kind of behooves you to do something about it. Any why make the effort to change when things are going so well for this quarter?

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 18:02 (seventeen years ago) link

The argument isn't whether or not humans impact the earth. It's how much.

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 18:04 (seventeen years ago) link

About $5 billion worth just in grain crops.

Leee, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:21 (seventeen years ago) link

"Not every scientist agrees that agriculture is suffering from warmer temperatures."

We like to call these so-called scientists "deniers."

Dandy Don Weiner, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:44 (seventeen years ago) link

Who are the scientists? Are they gunna pull from a political scientist & statistician like the dude did in the NYT thing?

kingfish, Friday, 16 March 2007 19:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Global South is getting the worst of it for sure but we are going to see bigger effects in Europe pretty fast. All bets are off if water and food supplies are fucked.

xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 19 April 2023 08:07 (one year ago) link

four months pass...

Lol @ this climate scientist. Does he have a mansion on the hill with solar panels?

I hope I am wrong and others may see things differently, but I am expecting effective societal collapse by mid-century, and planning - for my partner and I and our kids - accordingly.https://t.co/ZkZyaR9uBh

— Bill McGuire (@ProfBillMcGuire) September 13, 2023

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 08:45 (seven months ago) link

It all depends on what you imagine "effective societal collapse" looks like. If you imagine it looks like the zombie apocalypse, then 'planning accordingly' feels like a joke. If it looks like the breakdown of globalism, food shortages, crumbling infrastructure, electrical brownouts, an increase in regional wars, high unemployment, more poverty and scavenging, increased but not universal violence, corrupt police states flourishing, and other similar outcomes, then some measure of planning and adaptation cold be very helpful, if only to set correct expectations and strengthen one's mental resilience and skill set.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 17 September 2023 17:53 (seven months ago) link

Yeah. I guess so. I interpreted this as the Wikipedia definition so I don’t understand his use of “societal collapse” to describe the possible consequence of a global problem. What society is he talking about?

Allen (etaeoe), Sunday, 17 September 2023 18:21 (seven months ago) link

FWIW, I think Damian Carrington, author of the article Bill McGuire quotes, uses the more accurate description: “extinction.”

Allen (etaeoe), Sunday, 17 September 2023 18:27 (seven months ago) link

Extinction at "mid-century" seems far too rapid by even the most alarmist standards, so whatever McGuire thinks "effective societal collapse" means, it feels like it's probably not "extinction". The physical fact of 8,000,000,000 living humans constitute a formidable barrier to extinction within a few decades from climate change alone.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 17 September 2023 18:45 (seven months ago) link

"then some measure of planning and adaptation cold be very helpful, if only to set correct expectations and strengthen one's mental resilience and skill set."

Not sure what form this takes. Name things you can do on your own.

Agree "extinction" in twenty years is alarmist.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:05 (seven months ago) link

I don't know about extinction, and none of this is my area of expertise at all, but personally I'm expecting some form of collapse within the next 10-15 years. Considering how fast climate change has moved in the past decade, and how much it's accelerating from year to year, and how fragile all of our interconnected systems are, plus the potential for catastrophic events like the collapse of the insect population or the Gulf Stream stopping, it seems unlikely that we'll make it to mid-century with anything like the civilization we have now. Don't really see any way to plan for it, though. I haven't given much thought to saving for retirement because I don't expect to get there.

Lily Dale, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:27 (seven months ago) link

I feel that we will probably see in the next five years in the UK:

- Certain types of food shortages
- A fairly catastrophic flood event
- More 40 degree days, more deaths due to heat among the old and poor
- Potential energy crisis, affecting ability to fan and cool your space. So this affects everyone.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:34 (seven months ago) link

That last one is pure speculation. The first three are based on current trends.

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 17 September 2023 19:36 (seven months ago) link

Name things you can do on your own.

Learn how to sew and repair clothes.
Acquire some simple non-power hand tools.
Get to know your neighbors.
Practice walking longer distances than you usually walk.
Acquire a bicycle and know how to maintain it.
Know what you'd do in a catastrophic flood, fire, or similar event.
Keep thinking clearly.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Sunday, 17 September 2023 22:37 (seven months ago) link

all good suggestions, would also add farming/plant skills there

out-of-print LaserDisc edition (sleeve), Sunday, 17 September 2023 23:41 (seven months ago) link

stolen from lucifer's hammer: get a hardcover copy of 'the way things work' and keep it in a ziploc bag

mookieproof, Sunday, 17 September 2023 23:46 (seven months ago) link

hardcover copy of 'the way things work'

Practical skills and tools are very worthwhile acquisitions, but for me the most important item on my list is keep thinking clearly.

As I understand the world, humans survive very poorly in the absence of a stable shared society of some kind. As the stability of our very large social organization breaks down and can no longer solve the immediate problems of survival, it will elevate the necessity of forming new, more reliable (if smaller and more local) social alliances and finding new modes of stability.

The more quickly the older social contract is shattered, the more drastically those new social compacts will be stressed and the more likely they'll atomize into smaller and smaller groupings. Having practical skills and tools will make things not just easier for yourself, but make you a far more valuable ally in any group you join, but thinking clearly in the face of those stresses will help even more.

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Monday, 18 September 2023 00:58 (seven months ago) link

One takeway from Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry For The Future that stood out to me was that even after millions of people dying in climate-related events, nothing really began to pick up until Crash Day - when in the 2030s 60 passenger jets are crashed by drones, then container ships and meat farming are targeted until in the 2040s air travel ends and meat eating declines.

Elvis Telecom, Monday, 18 September 2023 01:55 (seven months ago) link

i honestly didn't get past the first chapter, which is harrowing as fuck

mookieproof, Monday, 18 September 2023 01:57 (seven months ago) link

It is harrowing as fuck, but the book is somewhat hopeful and offers some kind of pathway that isn't exercises in prepping and doomerism.

Elvis Telecom, Monday, 18 September 2023 04:17 (seven months ago) link

iirc that book makes a pretty convincing argument that "adaptation" to climate change will not be an option for millions and millions of people

Tracer Hand, Monday, 18 September 2023 07:12 (seven months ago) link

KSR sounds amazing. Have to read that book.

xyzzzz__, Monday, 18 September 2023 07:49 (seven months ago) link

I also didn't make it much past the first chapter, though I skimmed ahead some. It hadn't been that long since the heat dome in the PNW when I tried to read it, so it was all horrifyingly easy to imagine.

Lily Dale, Tuesday, 19 September 2023 03:32 (seven months ago) link

four months pass...
two months pass...

We are getting our answers

Burundi’s capital has been under heavy flood and landslide for over a week now. Many areas affected include Kibenga, Gatumba, Kajaga and so on. Thousands of people forced to flee their homes fearing for their lives. The govt of Burundi & the @UN launched a call for financial aid. pic.twitter.com/4vPyEsjfe7

— African News feed. (@africansinnews) April 21, 2024

xyzzzz__, Sunday, 21 April 2024 08:59 (two days ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.