Climate change can be good and open up new opportunities. — Kasperanza

Okay, this is sort of delusional, lol. Can you find a single fact to back that up?

He already said he's not denying climate change. — Matt E

Climate denial takes many forms.

But who are you and why are you commenting on something written a year ago? Very strange.

No relation to any of his points. A clear sign of plugging your ears and serving only as a mouthpiece for your echo chamber. — Matt E

What a bizarre thing to say.

First, he had no points to respond to besides the following:

Climate change can be good and open up new opportunities.
— Kasperanza

To which YOUR response was:

Okay, this is sort of delusional, lol. Can you find a single fact to back that up? — Matt E

I suppose this wasn’t “plugging your ears”, eh? Calling someone delusional?

Not a great way to begin on this forum.

It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.

People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.

What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve? — Benj96

What if there is no good solution? Not every problem has a solution.

But ok, raising awareness and moral outrage generally does matter and can help in solving a problem, I'll meet you halfway on that. The issue here I think is that people don't like the solution, not that they are not aware of the problem. At some point (after 30 years or so) you got to think things like climate denial or minimizing of the consequences of climate change is not a matter of people not being informed, but a matter of people not wanting to know... because they don't like what it entails. And so they back-create a story that saves them from cognitive dissonance.

There is no good solution because fossil fuels, and especially oil, are the backbone of our economy. It's the thing that made the industrial revolution possible and makes the economy tick, because it's a cheap, easy to use and an energy-dense source of energy. Add to that there are whole industries build on derivatives of oil and natural gas.

None of the energy sources that could replace them quite have the same set of properties, and all have their various problems. Wind and solar for instance are only intermittent, actually not that cheap when you'd build them outside of a fossil fueled economy, are also an environmental liability if you scale them up and we'd probably run out rare earth materials if you'd try it as a main energy source world wide.

Nuclear and deep geothermal, if we could solve the issues with drilling, are probably our best bet as a replacement on a large enough scale, but those also do require time to build and/or develop... and we are running out of time as we speak. But that would be a start of a solution, the US and Chinese government (and Europe too) throwing huge amounts of money at research and development, and at building those. Once you have enough carbon-free energy you could power carbon capture technologies and EV's and/or hydrogen-production for things like transport.

And then these rich developed countries would need to enforce carbon-free trade and actively help the rest of the world with their energy-transition, which is probably a big ask with geo-political tensions as they are.

Anyway, needless to say these are huge transformations which require a lot of time and focussed effort.... in a messy world. It's not that it is theoretically impossible, but it's still very difficult and at the end of the day people typically can't be bothered that much with a problem that will have it's full impact only decades into the future.

Emission gap report: You Fucktards Aren't Doing Enough.

Climate scientists are unequivocal: time is running out to transition away from fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal and instead power our cars, heat our homes and grow our food using renewable energy sources and sustainable farming practices. Most voters agree: two thirds of Americans want the federal government to do more to tackle the climate crisis, according to one recent poll.

Despite this urgency, the climate crisis has not been a campaigning focal point for Democrats or Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections, with inflation, abortion and immigration gaining far more attention from candidates. Worryingly for Joe Biden and the Democrats, who are forecast to lose control of both Houses, 60% of voters know nothing or little about the historical climate bill (the Inflation Reduction Act) passed this summer. And 139 fossil fuel friendly members of the current (117th) Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change, accounting for more than half of Republicans.

https://apple.news/ArATBcdxqSPehBvMuMbGwGg

There is no good solution because fossil fuels, and especially oil, are the backbone of our economy. It's the thing that made the industrial revolution possible and makes the economy tick, because it's a cheap, easy to use and an energy-dense source of energy. Add to that there are whole industries build on derivatives of oil and natural gas. — ChatteringMonkey

The story is that the economy progresses to improve life for us all, and science provides the best solutions to all human problems. It now appears that science and the economy have produced an existential threat to humans. And you want a "good" solution? Time to change what we think is good, I'd say.

Endless growth is cancerous.

Endless growth is cancerous. — unenlightened

Perfect use of the term cancerous imo.
A healthy cell recognises that it can't have it all without being a cancer to the others, and ironically ignoring those natural laws to its existence (the immune system) will end in ultimately killing its host. And nobody is a winner in that case.

I think our current global capitalist regime has elements of this toxic or "cancerous" insistance that economy can grow indefinitely in a finite space (the earth - our organism).

I don't think we fully recognise that we are guests of mother nature. Not her owners. We can't come into her house (be born) and trample around rampaging, pillaging and plundering her resources to find some form of happiness, meaning or satisfaction.

She has house rules. Like any good mother, and she'll sweat us out with the AC if she has to. She will put manners on us if we don't put manners on ourselves. The fever is rising. The planet is ill. We can be medicine or toxin. The choice is ours.

The story is that the economy progresses to improve life for us all, and science provides the best solutions to all human problems. It now appears that science and the economy have produced an existential threat to humans. And you want a "good" solution? Time to change what we think is good, I'd say.

Endless growth is cancerous. — unenlightened

I agree unenlightened, at least in principle, I have no particular love for current society based on economic growth. If we were to turn back time a couple of centuries, i'd say let's not start on this particular track.

Problem is that I think we kindof trapped ourselves at this point. Fossil fuels and technologies build on them enabled us to soar high above what is sustainable.

If we were to cut all of that back however I think we would have some serious problems, because we are with that many, because the whole global economy is so integrated, because a certain amount of climate warming and ecosystems collapse is already locked in for the next century even if we would stop right away etc etc...

All of that means we cannot merely stop what we are doing I think. We need an exit strategy that ideally doesn't involve total collapse of our systems (and lots of people dying), a strategy that people could get behind politically also, and at the same time it would need to get us to some place in the future that is sustainable and gives us some perspective going forward.

People will focus on some small subset of the problem, point fingers, play the blame game, come up with simplistic solutions... or on the opposite side people will deny the problem altogether or at least the severity of the consequences of the problem. I see very few actually trying to integrate multiple aspects of the problem in a coherent solution, maybe because it is very difficult... lets at least acknowledge that much.

I don't think we fully recognise that we are guests of mother nature. Not her owners. We can't come into her house (be born) and trample around rampaging, pillaging and plundering her resources to find some form of happiness, meaning or satisfaction.

She has house rules. Like any good mother, and she'll sweat us out with the AC if she has to. She will put manners on us if we don't put manners on ourselves. The fever is rising. The planet is ill. We can be medicine or toxin. The choice is ours. — Benj96

Mother nature is a bitch, because she never told us the rules, but she will still enforce them just the same.... And the only house rule is, if you go to far, you die.

Any biological organism is looking for surplus energy to propagate it's particular form. That is what is selected for in evolutionary terms. Did we really have a choice to leave free energy in the ground collectively?

Typically, competition among organisms is fierce and adaptive enough so that no single one can take the upper hand for long. We broke genetic evolution however with our ability for cultural evolution. While the rest of the natural world is stuck evolving claws and teeth over millennia, we can create a gun in a couple of centuries.

Unfortunately, our success is also our downfall... yeast. We did everything right to succeed in your game and now you punish us for it, thanks a lot mother nature!

With the ease at how we can now buy goods online, there's exponential increase in packaging (layers of materials and big boxes disproportionate in size to the goods we buy), production of goods (mostly non-essentials), trucks delivery (fuel, exhaust, traffic, and of course vehicle maintenance), warehouses to house these good, and of course, landfill wastes.

Just found this great website: https://goodonyou.eco/

Not quite sure what to make of this...

Opinion: The Parliamentary Budget Officer just debunked climate alarmism
^{— Ross McKitrick · Financial Post · Dec 7, 2022}

Either way...
Don't panic :up:
Get your (our) act together :up:

Not quite sure what to make of this... — jorndoe

Not much change by 2100. :up:

Yeah, because both of you have shown a real understanding of climatology. :roll:

Keep reading the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world.

For those not deluded by economists’ models and the “It’s a problem but nothing to panic about” attitude of the intellectual giants we find on Internet forums, I suggest reading several sources — written by climate scientists. You’ll get the facts, and decide for yourself whether “alarm” is warranted.

Spoiler alert: it definitely, definitely is. We’re not panicked enough, in fact.

, bit trigger happy there?
I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking.

I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking — jorndoe

His statements are in line with the mainstream view. There's a delayed effect with CO2 emissions. Some of the warming from the CO2 put out in the 22nd Century won't be felt till later.

The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic.

We’re not panicked enough, in fact — Mikie

Just what the world needs: more panic. That'll do it.

Just what the world needs: more panic. That'll do it. — jgill

Yeah, you’re right. Being calm and collected has worked wonders so far.

The forecast for this century is increased weather volatility. Nothing drastic. — frank

:lol:

Again, for those truly interested: read climate scientists, not Internet buffoons.

I'd question McKitrick's take on the matter, hence asking. — jorndoe

You’d be right to. McKitrick is a moron. Not only does he misrepresent the IPCC, notice that he also quotes from the 2013 report. Can’t even take the time to misrepresent the latest version.

Economic models are — and have been shown to be— complete garbage on this matter.

Again— We can listen to the Bjorn Lomborgs of the world, and feel great because we have “special knowledge” and are so very much “outside the mainstream” (thus conveniently relieved of actually learning about the subject), and then proudly proclaim it’s “No big deal”— or we can ask if maybe, just maybe, climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words.

Climate denial is much easier. Just “weather volatility,” after all. So we can rest our little heads about it.

. . . . climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words — Mikie

Probably better not to use this archaic word. When I studied climatology at the U of Chi eons ago it was the post-graduate basket-weaving course in meteorology, in contrast to atmospheric science and fluid dynamics which were much more rigorous. These days more legitimate scientists are involved in climate science.

Some oldtimers (conservative Repubs?) still think of "climatology" the way it used to be - not very good at specifics and mostly just descriptive.

Being alarmed is the modern equivalent of buying an indulgence.

Climate change. What's the latest? COP26 was a hot topic around 6 moons ago ... the fire fizzled out in a about a week. If climate change is true and going by how much good quality data is available saying that it is, I'd say something really weird is going on.

Probably better not to use this archaic word. — jgill

Eh. I use it interchangeably with climate science myself— but I understand your point.



No, that’s denial— which is rampant.

If climate change is true — Agent Smith

The amount of ignorance on this very forum about climate change is itself evidence that we should ignore 90% of what’s written on “philosophical” matters.

If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time.

If philosophy hobbyists can’t even get climate science right, they’re simply not worth the time. — Mikie

What else do you have planned before myopia extinguishes our species? It is rather sad, certainly that even amongst these intelligent friends, it is a struggle all the day long just to establish that there is something to be concerned about. Of course in relation to recent posts, one has to understand that Canada is one place that might become more hospitable to human life with Global warming. And that is the myopia once again, as if all the migrants from the tropics, the floodplains, the expanding deserts and ecological disaster zones won't be bothering all the nice Canadians at all.

I used to be interested in Ecosophy back in the day, but those were the days when philosophy departments in Universities were being defunded because they could not show the value of their product. Well you get what you pay for, I suppose. You pay peanuts, you get snake oil.

Anyway, the problem remains that even now, the only appeal that anyone can even understand is to naked self-interest. "Hey, we're all going to die. " Perhaps you and I are the stupid apes that cannot see that that must be a good thing for the poor planet, and the sooner the better.

we can ask if maybe, just maybe, climatologists have thoughts on these arguments, and spend 30 minutes on their words. — Mikie

Why would we ask climatologists about economic impacts?

The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. Also, you might wanna review the claim scientifically. In other words, climate scientists havta get their act together. Sorry if this offends you, not really my style. It's 11^thDecember and where I am, it's unusually warm this year. :chin:

The arguments for climate change aren't watertight - that's the problem. — Agent Smith

Come on now. If climate change isn’t watertight, what is?

The problem isn’t that it isn’t watertight, it’s that there has been a deliberate push to confuse and delay. Frontline had a 3-part series on this a few months back — worth checking out. It’s about big oil but Exxon especially.

Look no further for why it’s controversial. Anything factual becomes controversial if it threatens powerful interests. That’s been true since Galileo, at least.

:up:

It does get tiresome.