General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

Just addressing one of your points, CMDR: I regularly watch/read media outlets, as many as I have time for on any given day, who's viewpoints are diametrically opposed to my own. I'd go so far as to say I watch/read them a great deal more than outlets with which I'm more aligned with morally or philosophically. I consider it of great importance to consider the other point(s) of view on any given issue.
I think you are just, winding yourself up. Considering and knowing the opinions of those with opposing views is one thing and important. But dedicating too much time, will become an obsession and only give you grey hairs. Do you watch the Arabic channels? Or Chinese news?
 
I think you are just, winding yourself up. Considering and knowing the opinions of those with opposing views is one thing and important. But dedicating too much time, will become an obsession and only give you grey hairs. Do you watch the Arabic channels? Or Chinese news?
Kind of a stretch to assume that I'm "just winding myself up," CMDR. And in a world where the other side of any given argumentative position is typified by people only absorbing their own confirmation biased news outlets, it's simply not giving me enough credit. As to Arabic and Chinese sources, well, not on a regular basis, I don't have the time. I would if I did, though, as my philosophy extends out as far as you care to reach. Like it or not, my opinions do in fact stem from deep personal thought and research on most matters that I bother to comment on with any degree of seriousness.
 
Fires in the Amazonian lung ?

This is false, it's lies of the fanatics of the environment, I deny ! There are no fires currently in the Amazon due to deforestation, intensive agriculture, overexploitation of wood and other resources.

In addition we can very well adapt and live without the Amazon. Our children will only have to wear oxygen masks all day long in their bigs 4X4.

The essential is to over-consume and destroy the planet.

Yes I say it loud and clear ! There is no fire in the Amazon !

I deny it ! I deny it! I deny it !
 
The situation in the Amazon, devastated by deforestation and fires, is "out of control" Brazilian environmental activist Marina Silva denounces, accusing President Jair Bolsonaro's ultra-right-wing government of allowing a "frantic action" that damages a vital ecosystem for the planet.

Marina Silva, visiting Bogota, said in an interview with AFP Thursday that the Latin American giant has the knowledge and the "technology" to control the fires, which devour large areas of jungle because, according to she, from the "negligence" of the Bolsonaro team, a climate-skeptic.
 
The situation in the Amazon, devastated by deforestation and fires, is "out of control" Brazilian environmental activist Marina Silva denounces, accusing President Jair Bolsonaro's ultra-right-wing government of allowing a "frantic action" that damages a vital ecosystem for the planet.

Marina Silva, visiting Bogota, said in an interview with AFP Thursday that the Latin American giant has the knowledge and the "technology" to control the fires, which devour large areas of jungle because, according to she, from the "negligence" of the Bolsonaro team, a climate-skeptic.
Bolsonaro claims (out of the blue with zero evidence) that the fires are false flags started by the NGOs trying to save the rain forrest.

There are basically three types of arguments when you want to prove something. Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is "shaky" because it involves a subjective element, but in this case it still kind of makes sense:

Abductive reasoning "starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations."

Also it's pretty clear that Bolsonaro either haven't understood the ecological consequences of converting the rainforrests into agricultural land, or that or he just doesn't give a dead rat about the future.
 
The bulk of probable outcomes for climate change (as in, the combination of events and impacts which collectively fall in the 90% certainty range as described by the IPCC) are relatively minor
Taking only what is referenced by the IPCC, I do not think the even the soft-side of probable outcomes are minor. Neither do any of the people in the scientific community I've spoken to. Neither does the IPCC itself.

and are actually dwarfed by the other societal and economic challenges which lie ahead of us. (That statement is explicitly made in the IPCC AR5 WGII Chapter 10, so you lot have to live with that statement I'm afraid.)
The primary consequences of climate change, upon humans, will indeed be social and economic. No one who can even pretend to know what they are talking about would claim otherwise.

Trying to separate the societal and economic challenges that climate change will create or exacerbate from the underlying climatological changes is like trying to separate cause and effect. When someone gives a figure as to the cost in lives of climate change, they most certainly are not saying that the bulk of those people are going to drown in rising seas or torrential rains, or succumb to hypothermia or heat stroke. They are talking about the resulting spikes in discontent, erosion of social systems, poverty (including disease and hunger), and violence.

The condolence of "small relative to other drivers" doesn't mean much. In most of 1940s Europe, violence was a small contribution to the death rate...relative to other drivers. It is a worthwhile comment on perspective, but the 2014 report may well have undersold the threat...not that it matter much if their recommendations aren't going to be met regardless.

Jason has been talking about the political and media responses to the worst-case scenarios being portrayed by the media and then used as a springboard for political advocacy which he doesn't agree with.
He's also been calling climate change a hoax and suggesting that the scientific community has been manipulated into misleading people...that's not at all the same thing as politicians and media misleading people, or people misleading themselves...which are all givens.

That's true of the "Snowball Earth" phenomena of the 1970s and the "12 years to save the Earth" mentioned on this page.
This was never a thing. Global cooling a few articles in mainstream magazines that drew attention to a very fringe opinion at the time, that was never reflective of anything that could have been mistaken for scientific consensus.

At the peak of the media attention on "global cooling" or anything of the sort, consensus had long been, and would continue to lean heavily toward, identifying a warming trend. Even the author of the paper that was referenced by that infamous 1975 Newsweek article (which was largely responsible for popularizing the idea) didn't claim there was a global cooling trend...he just cited a hypothetical outcome based on what aerosols and particulates were capable of doing.


It doesn't matter that that isn't what the scientists involved actually said or did.
When talking about the reality of the issue, or whether scientists have been manipulated, this is all that matters.
 
Last edited:
Taking only what is referenced by the IPCC, I do not think the even the soft-side of probable outcomes are minor. Neither do any of the people in the scientific community I've spoken to. Neither does the IPCC itself.



The primary consequences of climate change, upon humans, will indeed be social and economic. No one who can even pretend to know what they are talking about would claim otherwise.

Trying to separate the societal and economic challenges that climate change will create or exacerbate from the underlying climatological changes is like trying to separate cause and effect. When someone gives a figure as to the cost in lives of climate change, they most certainly are not saying that the bulk of those people are going to drown in rising seas or torrential rains, or succumb to hypothermia or heat stroke. They are talking about the resulting spikes in discontent, erosion of social systems, poverty (including disease and hunger), and violence.

The condolence of "small relative to other drivers" doesn't mean much. In most of 1940s Europe, violence was a small contribution to the death rate...relative to other drivers. It is a worthwhile comment on perspective, but the 2014 report may well have undersold the threat...not that it matter much if their recommendations aren't going to be met regardless.



He's also been calling climate change a hoax and suggesting that the scientific community has been manipulated into misleading people...that's not at all the same thing as politicians and media misleading people, or people misleading themselves...which are all givens.



This was never a thing. Global cooling a few articles in mainstream magazines that drew attention to a very fringe opinion at the time, that was never reflective of anything that could have been mistaken for scientific consensus.

At the peak of the media attention on "global cooling" or anything of the sort, consensus had long been, and would continue to lean heavily toward, identifying a warming trend. Even the author of the paper that infamous 1975 Newsweek article (which was largely responsible for popularizing the idea) didn't claim there was a global cooling trend...he just cited a hypothetical outcome based on what aerosols and particulates were capable of doing.




When talking about the reality of the issue, or whether scientists have been manipulated, this is all that matters.
Looking at the global system, there seems to be two major problems that both are related to global warming. One is that we are running out of "cheap" energy without an alternative. There are many proposed alternatives, but none that have been implemented, and most of the proposed solutions simply doesn't work if you try and scale up the numbers to a global level. Energy is vital, because we need it to change anything towards a more sustainable system. With energy you can theoretically reorganize the system into anything you want, but without energy you have to do everything by hand. If we use primarily the oil before we have built an more sustainable global energy supply and distribution, then we will be seriously up the creek without a paddle.

Even manual labor also demands energy but in the form of food, and food is the other major problem. We have raised the human carrying capacity of the planet considerably by industrializing the agriculture, using fossil energy, pesticides and fertilizers. Today we can almost feed a population of 7.7 billion, but before the intensive farming we couldn't even feed a population of 1.6 billion in 1900. It goes even further back. 12.000 years ago the population was 1-4 million spread over the planet, and many scientists agree that that was the carrying capacity for a population living as hunter gatherers. The food security for a population growing towards 10 billion in 2050 is currently only possible continuing the farming systems, which ruin the ecosystems and lead to increased temperatures. Furthermore we will definitely see a peak production of both oil and phosphate rock within this century.

The obvious solution is to reduce our consumption of energy and other resources as much as possible, while we move towards a more sustainable global system, but that is considered problematic for the growth economy. Without growth the modern economy will collapse. On the other hand, the transition we need towards sustainability is a mindblowingly huge task, which should leave plenty of room for earning "a few" $.
 
@Morbad - well done. You managed to misunderstand or ignore everything I wrote.
Alright, let me try again and just cut to the jist of things.

He isn't talking about the scientists.
If it seems I'm ignoring or misunderstanding what you've written, it's because I'm having difficulty reconciling what you've written with what you seem to be referring to over the last few pages.

He's repeatedly referenced the scientists. It seemed clear to me that he doubts the scientific consensus, or what he perceived to be the scientific consensus, believing it to be the result of manipulation itself and part of a hoax. Perhaps this is not what he meant, but this is what he'd frequently been saying.

If someone says "Am I really the only person in the world who thinks that the scientific community can be manipulated into misleading us?", when they really mean "I think statements by the scientific community can be manipulated to mislead us", which have totally different meanings, it should be no wonder that it prompts confusion and conflict.

If someone then says, in reference to the above individual, "He isn't talking about the scientists", it should be no wonder that it prompts confusion and conflict.

I would have sought clarification, but in both cases the meaning seemed clear.

As you mention the Berkeley Earth project, I assume you're familiar with Richard Muller (one of the founders of the project). He had this to say in 2016 when asked what he would tell a child about climate change:



Gosh, it sounds like something I would say.
While I agree with most of Muller's statement (though the reference to Trump's polices now seem comically optimistic, in hindsight) a few of his points are misleading to the point of being demonstrably incorrect. Namely, when he stated, "People who claim that they can see climate change are actually disagreeing with science, which measures the change as quite small, so far."

Plenty of places do actually have readily and overtly apparent effects of climate change that could not possibly go unnoticed by people who have lived in or repeatedly visited the areas.

100-to-1 if I ask Muller if he thinks certain lakes or glaciers might still be present without human induced climate change, he would have to answer in the affirmative. If I then ask if the thinks someone might notice a lake or glacier going missing, or their atoll being flooded half of the year, or insects that had never been endemic to an area suddenly becoming so, he'd also have to agree. No doubt he'd point out that more lakes have been lost, and greater desertification has been caused, by things not directly related to climate change, or that most claims about noticing climate change are , and he'd be right, but the assertion that no one can notice the direct effects of modern climate change is quite clearly false.
 
If it seems I'm ignoring or misunderstanding what you've written, it's because I'm having difficulty reconciling what you've written with what you seem to be referring to over the last few pages.

He's repeatedly referenced the scientists. It seemed clear to me that he doubts the scientific consensus, or what he perceived to be the scientific consensus, believing it to be the result of manipulation itself and part of a hoax. Perhaps this is not what he meant, but this is what he'd frequently been saying.

If someone says "Am I really the only person in the world who thinks that the scientific community can be manipulated into misleading us?", when they really mean "I think statements by the scientific community can be manipulated to mislead us", which have totally different meanings, it should be no wonder that it prompts confusion and conflict.
Yep, now we're on the same page. But you're certainly mis-characterising at least recent posts of his. Going back to page 70 of the thread; his position has been utterly consistent about his complaints/concerns being about fear promotion and the subsequent erosion of civil liberties.

He has referred to the "scientific community", but in the context that's clearly meant to be wider than "the scientists" (as if they were a single unified body, which they aren't anyway). I'm sure if you really try hard enough you might find instances where he has directly referenced the scientists, but that's not what he means and not the source of his objections. If you want to persuade him, you're going to have to make the case that the media and politicians are not overblowing the messaging. Good luck with that. ;)

The thing is that people are in such a hurry to argue back with "but the scientists said" that they're not digesting what's actually being said and why. If you want an actual discussion, people need to learn to empathise as best they can with the others' points. If you're just trying to "win" and browbeat those that disagree then it's not really a discussion worth having, is it?

While I agree with most of Muller's statement (though the reference to Trump's polices now seem comically optimistic, in hindsight) a few of his points are misleading to the point of being demonstrably incorrect. Namely, when he stated, "People who claim that they can see climate change are actually disagreeing with science, which measures the change as quite small, so far."

Plenty of places do actually have readily and overtly apparent effects of climate change that could not possibly go unnoticed by people who have lived in or repeatedly visited the areas.

100-to-1 if I ask Muller if he thinks certain lakes or glaciers might still be present without human induced climate change, he would have to answer in the affirmative. If I then ask if the thinks someone might notice a lake or glacier going missing, or their atoll being flooded half of the year, or insects that had never been endemic to an area suddenly becoming so, he'd also have to agree. No doubt he'd point out that more lakes have been lost, and greater desertification has been caused, by things not directly related to climate change, or that most claims about noticing climate change are , and he'd be right, but the assertion that no one can notice the direct effects of modern climate change is quite clearly false.
I don't really have any reason to disagree, but emphasise that the main point I wanted to highlight when I quoted that was that Muller was very aware that various interests are over-hyping the disaster scenarios. Ironically, exactly what Jasonbarron is concerned about too.
 
Bolsonaro claims (out of the blue with zero evidence) that the fires are false flags started by the NGOs trying to save the rain forrest.

There are basically three types of arguments when you want to prove something. Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is "shaky" because it involves a subjective element, but in this case it still kind of makes sense:

Abductive reasoning "starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations."

Also it's pretty clear that Bolsonaro either haven't understood the ecological consequences of converting the rainforrests into agricultural land, or that or he just doesn't give a dead rat about the future.
In front of an Amazon forest ravaged by the flames, the european leaders hits fists on the table on Friday, Emmanuel Macron accusing his Brazilian counterpart Jair Bolsonaro of "lying" on his environmental commitments.

"In front of Jair Bolsonaro’s inaction on climate change, including the fires, France will say "NO" to the free trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur", warned the French Presidency, on the eve of the G7 summit in Biarritz, which takes place from Saturday to Sunday in the south-west of France.
 
Bolsonaro claims (out of the blue with zero evidence) that the fires are false flags started by the NGOs trying to save the rain forrest.

There are basically three types of arguments when you want to prove something. Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning. Abductive reasoning is "shaky" because it involves a subjective element, but in this case it still kind of makes sense:

Abductive reasoning "starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations."

Also it's pretty clear that Bolsonaro either haven't understood the ecological consequences of converting the rainforrests into agricultural land, or that or he just doesn't give a dead rat about the future.
The basic premise that he's even trying to prove anything seems shaky to me.

He doesn't need to prove anything to create doubts that could rationalize inaction. He just needs to say something vaguely plausible, and say it with conviction, to make sure it's taken seriously enough to get his way, at least keep the issue from getting in his way.

He has referred to the "scientific community", but in the context that's clearly meant to be wider than "the scientists" (as if they were a single unified body, which they aren't anyway).
I'm not quite sure who would be referred to if not for people qualified to form meaningful (in the terms of identifying facts and setting policy) opinions on the topic. Any definition of 'scientific community' that includes sensationalist third-hand journalism, or anything that has ever dripped out of a politician's mouth or pen, is a crappy definition.

And they don't need to be a unified body for there to be a clear consensus...that's simply what a broad majority of qualified people in the field believe and can support. There are always dissenting opinions, and usually quite a few of them.

If you want to persuade him, you're going to have to make the case that the media and politicians are not overblowing the messaging. Good luck with that. ;)
That the media and politicians (on both sides of the argument) have alternately, cherry picked, ignored, distorted, and overblown facts to suit their positions and interests was never in contention here.

While I won't claim to have read this gargantuan thread in detail or to be intimately aware of everyone's opinions, I'm not specifically aware of anyone who takes the claims jason and a few others bring up as examples of hysteria or hoaxes seriously, or anyone who is basing their opinions on such information; that's why they come off as strawmen.
 
Considering the age of the planet..... isn't our sample size of temperature recording ( a few hundred years) a drop of water in the history of natural temperature shifts over millions of years?

Also has there not been historically a major temperature shift every 10k years.
As others have mentioned, we have quite good scientific data going back much longer (tens of thousands plus) than the post industrial era (those last few hundred years). This is what scientists use to balance against the speed of change we are currently seeing, and what is behind a large part of the vast majority of scientists claims over their concern of climate change in our modern era.

---------------------

As an aside, i go away for a two week holiday (ferry to Brittany) leaving news of the Artic regions in russia ablaze, to come back to news of widespread forrest fires all across south america! It was not me, just in case anyone wants to point a finger ;)

'G7 leaders to hold emergency talks over Amazon wildfires crisis':

 
I'm not quite sure who would be referred to if not for people qualified to form meaningful (in the terms of identifying facts and setting policy) opinions on the topic. Any definition of 'scientific community' that includes sensationalist third-hand journalism, or anything that has ever dripped out of a politician's mouth or pen, is a crappy definition.
Your opinion of the definition isn't really important (and, with all due respect, that attitude frankly just makes you come across as a pedant). It's the point that he's - and others, including me from time to time - are driving at. The science itself and political/advocacy/media reaction are frequently disproportionate - see my earlier post on the frequent use of RCP8.5 and the deconstruction of the probabilities involved to reach the scenarios described for my take on it.

That the media and politicians (on both sides of the argument) have alternately, cherry picked, ignored, distorted, and overblown facts to suit their positions and interests was never in contention here.

While I won't claim to have read this gargantuan thread in detail or to be intimately aware of everyone's opinions, I'm not specifically aware of anyone who takes the claims jason and a few others bring up as examples of hysteria or hoaxes seriously, or anyone who is basing their opinions on such information; that's why they come off as strawmen.
Political action as described in the US as the New Green Deal? The media portrayal of the worst case scenarios of the IPCC SR1.5? The resulting Guardian call for a national mobilisation to deconstruct the fossil fuel industry? The Guardian (again) suggesting that the entire surface ice sheet of Greenland could melt and raise sea levels by tens of metres? Hell, even on the first page of this thread Zak inadvertently suggested that because of climate change full VAT should be applied to fuel bills in the UK (because, apparently, energy companies make too much money) and it's been frequently suggested that mankind is doomed within a handful of generations if we don't change our wicked ways.

These are all things that have been discussed or brought up in this thread, so I can't see how you'd reach the conclusion that people don't take these claims seriously, or more relevantly, how you'd conclude that other people don't and so others also shouldn't argue about them.
 
'G7 leaders to hold emergency talks over Amazon wildfires crisis':
It has become an international problem..

Like the climate change, water pollution, air pollution etc...

Begins to emerge the idea of a global government dedicated to climate change and that would abolish physical borders and authorize the right of interference in all the countries.
 
The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results.[1]
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community

Clearly that does not include mainstream media nor politicians speeches.
 
It has become an international problem..

Like the climate change, water pollution, air pollution etc...

Begins to emerge the idea of a global government dedicated to climate change and that would abolish physical borders and authorize the right of interference in all the countries.
And people wonder why I draw attention to advocates of climate alarmism also advocating for the institution of totalitarian regimes. @Senzafine, I never mentioned Pol Pot but you did, after I led you to the evidence. Do you start to see now what I'm talking about my friend? The ecosystem simply isn't worth saving for any of us if we have to offer ourselves up for enslavement in order to "fix it," and if what Patrick is advocating for doesn't send a chill down your spine I don't know what would; it's the road to a literal Hell on Earth that makes the threat of climate change pale in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom