Climate change policy

[Blackswanwood]

Surely that should be ad-feminem ?

No, ad-hominem means “of the person” so applies equally to both males and females.

 

[Jacob]

I think that is about as much admission of the facts as we are going to get. I think Tony has got in so deep his pride won't let him back down. Maybe we should call it a day here?

Well yes he's nearly there.
Next step for him is to see that if it is man made then it may be possible to man un-make it.

 

[Jacob]

https://www.falmouth-bookseller.co.uk/product/more-and-more-and-more/
Book reviewed in New Scientist No3516: fascinating facts/ideas but over wordy, it says.
Basic idea seems to be that "transitioning" does not reduce previous material consumption but builds upon it.
It's always struck me that all the new tech being discussed does just that (EVs, batteries et al) and that we should be winding back rather than looking for new remedies. This means stopping the use of fossil fuel; not allowing the industry to make future promises which it can't keep. No jam tomorrow, instead start getting used to no jam today.
I'll buy a copy when it's 2nd hand and cheaper!

 

[Scruples]

Is there any doubt that the world's climate is changing? Is there any doubt of the fact that humans are contributing to it? Do the real and, sometimes, professional deniers believe what they write/say or is their agenda/profit more important than the reality?

 

[ey_tony]

Not true.
Everybody recognised the basics (coastal maps and mysterious geological matches across oceans) but nobody, including Wegener, could work out a mechanism to account for the apparent movement. Various hypotheses were advanced.
He was never dismissed as "completely mad".

You do talk some absolute nonsense, pretending you know everything. I've just done a quick search and this came up immediately...Someone else who is wrong too, eh?
https://www.iris.edu/hq/inclass/animation/plate_tectonic_theorya_brief_history#:~:text=The "Father of Plate Tectonics,the concept to be accepted.

 

[Agent_zed]

If we just ignore any thoughts of global warming and continue as we always have then the destination will still be the same, we are not going to change that coome what may and for some it might just be a better but shorter life whilst for others they become extinct. If an end goal is fixed then make life as nice as possible until that endpoint rather than miserable and hard.

That's an interesting concept in itself. What would be the boundaries if this was adopted. Society exists on a set of rules that benefits everyone, If on an individual level people decide to 'make life as nice as possible' for themselves without any consideration of others then society could well collapse. We are already in a period of what seems like selfish behaviour across the board. For example something as simple as schooling we now see that instead of a healthy respect of the teachers by Parents and pupils it is very much a 'you cant tell my kid what to do' mentality.

On a broader scale, if I just want to make my life as nice as possible why would I bother giving consideration to anyone else but my own enjoyment. I could dodge tax, steal things I wanted, dump rubbish, push in front of people, park in disabled spaces. Hmmm perhaps we are already in this 'utopia'

 

[Jacob]

.....

On a broader scale, if I just want to make my life as nice as possible why would I bother giving consideration to anyone else but my own enjoyment. I could dodge tax, steal things I wanted, dump rubbish, push in front of people, park in disabled spaces. Hmmm perhaps we are already in this 'utopia'

Well the "free-market" theory says that if you do much the same in your working life, things will work out for the best for everybody in the end.

 

[Agent_zed]

Why on earth is there so much hysteria on this forum just because I don't subscribe to the global warming god theory?

I'm not denying that there is climate change nor that it isn't in some ways being affected quite possibly by anthropogenic sources and I do have enough knowledge to know that not all the data they throw out is in any way meaningful. Much of the data is vague to say the least and not real science.
Anyway I'll leave it to you guys to discuss the subject among yourselves it as it's pointless trying to even make any headway with indoctrinated minds.

It's always interesting how you frame things. From a previous political thread you say something along the lines of 'I'm not right wing' and then only spout things about 'lefties'.
You say you aren't denying climate change and then spout everything about why it isn't true or is not real science.

Perhaps you aren't as unbiased as you happen to believe

We have recently been discussing the inclusion of Bovaer into animal feeds to reduce methane levels.
The mention of F&M wasn't a teaser, do some internet research for yourself to see how the culling of huge numbers of livestock actually affected the methane levels and then decide for yourself if the food additive will work and give the results as they claim it will.

As for us ending up doing things which will harm our future economy, that is a given if we follow the course and rate at which we are trying to achieve this mystical Net Zero right now.
I'll wager now that when the people who matter finally realise just how it's going to affect our ongoing living standards and economy, there will be a jarring re-think.

I actually agree with you on this specific point, although not in the way you may think. I am incredibly nervous of people trying to 'fix' things and potentially creating a worse outcome. But there is a reason for this... namely people with your view of the financial benefit of ignoring climate change.

You believe it is economically unsound to achieve a more sustainable world. So instead of doing what is the easiest and best course of action with things like improved public transport, reducing car sizes, increasing home efficiency, circular economy etc etc you allow big companies to push back on anything that would move us forward. These companies actively campaign against even the simplest of things that might threaten a tiny bit of profit and spread disinformation as much as possibe. So instead of doing things that might require a small modification to the way we do things we end up having to look for ways to cheat the system. Why eat less meat if you can bio-engineer cows to produce less methane! Except nature doesn't like being messed with.

Ultimately it comes down to money. You seem to be putting your faith in companies telling you that climate change isnt a thing or is not a problem (even when their own research says it is) when their ultimate goal is to make the maximum amount of profit, I'd rather put my faith in scientists who's ultimate goal is to find out what is going on and how to minimise it's impact on the nature.

Do scientists always get it right? no. Do some have vested interests in certain outcomes? sure. But compared to Exxon, Shell, Ford, GM, Monsanto etc etc I know who I'd rather believe.



(Seeing as it appears important to know peoples qualifications, I have a B.Sc. in Environmental Science and M.Sc. in the Science of Natural Hazards. Doesn't mean everything I say is right though.)

 

[DrPhill]

I am incredibly nervous of people trying to 'fix' things and potentially creating a worse outcome

Science is very good at finding solutions to the problems caused by the previous solutions.

 

[Spectric]

That's an interesting concept in itself. What would be the boundaries if this was adopted. Society exists on a set of rules that benefits everyone, If on an individual level people decide to 'make life as nice as possible' for themselves without any consideration of others then society could well collapse. We are already in a period of what seems like selfish behaviour across the board. For example something as simple as schooling we now see that instead of a healthy respect of the teachers by Parents and pupils it is very much a 'you cant tell my kid what to do' mentality.

I was looking at more of a global perspective, everyone gets on with it and we do our best whilst waiting to see the final destination because whats going to happen whatever that is will happen because we do know that we cannot work as a global collective because that would require both trust and putting the whole planets needs higher than any individual country. In other words we don't pursue anything that has a negative impact on people like EV's, heatpumps or taxation to fund pointless energy dreams which will not have any impact globally.

I believe that there has been a step change in peoples behavior post Covid, maybe we would have got there anyway but Covid just accelerated the process. As for parents well just too selective when it comes to most things, don't want others telling there kids what to do yet something goes wrong and they are the last to take any responsibility, it will be everyone elses fault. What is definate is that without the right attitude towards education that delivers results which will need a change from parents & society whereby being thick is looked down upon and then for the government to waive education fees in certain subjects to make them attractive to all so we deliver the people our country needs in order to be anything.

 

[DrPhill]

I was looking at more of a global perspective, everyone gets on with it and we do our best whilst waiting to see the final destination because whats going to happen whatever that is will happen because we do know that we cannot work as a global collective because that would require both trust and putting the whole planets needs higher than any individual country.

You might get a more positive view if you watched this video on game theory. Nations have cooperated before to their mutual benefit even without trust.

 

[Blackswanwood]

I was looking at more of a global perspective, everyone gets on with it and we do our best whilst waiting to see the final destination because whats going to happen whatever that is will happen because we do know that we cannot work as a global collective because that would require both trust and putting the whole planets needs higher than any individual country. In other words we don't pursue anything that has a negative impact on people like EV's, heatpumps or taxation to fund pointless energy dreams which will not have any impact globally.

I believe that there has been a step change in peoples behavior post Covid, maybe we would have got there anyway but Covid just accelerated the process. As for parents well just too selective when it comes to most things, don't want others telling there kids what to do yet something goes wrong and they are the last to take any responsibility, it will be everyone elses fault. What is definate is that without the right attitude towards education that delivers results which will need a change from parents & society whereby being thick is looked down upon and then for the government to waive education fees in certain subjects to make them attractive to all so we deliver the people our country needs in order to be anything.

I’m guessing you’ve never been accused of being glass half full?

 

[John Brown]

It's always interesting how you frame things. From a previous political thread you say something along the lines of 'I'm not right wing' and then only spout things about 'lefties'.
You say you aren't denying climate change and then spout everything about why it isn't true or is not real science.

Perhaps you aren't as unbiased as you happen to believe


I actually agree with you on this specific point, although not in the way you may think. I am incredibly nervous of people trying to 'fix' things and potentially creating a worse outcome. But there is a reason for this... namely people with your view of the financial benefit of ignoring climate change.

You believe it is economically unsound to achieve a more sustainable world. So instead of doing what is the easiest and best course of action with things like improved public transport, reducing car sizes, increasing home efficiency, circular economy etc etc you allow big companies to push back on anything that would move us forward. These companies actively campaign against even the simplest of things that might threaten a tiny bit of profit and spread disinformation as much as possibe. So instead of doing things that might require a small modification to the way we do things we end up having to look for ways to cheat the system. Why eat less meat if you can bio-engineer cows to produce less methane! Except nature doesn't like being messed with.

Ultimately it comes down to money. You seem to be putting your faith in companies telling you that climate change isnt a thing or is not a problem (even when their own research says it is) when their ultimate goal is to make the maximum amount of profit, I'd rather put my faith in scientists who's ultimate goal is to find out what is going on and how to minimise it's impact on the nature.

Do scientists always get it right? no. Do some have vested interests in certain outcomes? sure. But compared to Exxon, Shell, Ford, GM, Monsanto etc etc I know who I'd rather believe.



(Seeing as it appears important to know peoples qualifications, I have a B.Sc. in Environmental Science and M.Sc. in the Science of Natural Hazards. Doesn't mean everything I say is right though.)

I have no formal qualifications apart from a handful of O levels from the :'60s, but I can still spot that ey_tony is just a troll who likes to wind people up.

 

[Spectric]

No just a realist because hiding or trying to ignore facts will not give a true outcome, good or bad and knowing is much better because you don't get any surprises.

 

[John Brown]

No just a realist because hiding or trying to ignore facts will not give a true outcome, good or bad and knowing is much better because you don't get any surprises.

I've no idea how you reached that conclusion, or what is has to do with anything.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That's an interesting concept in itself. What would be the boundaries if this was adopted. Society exists on a set of rules that benefits everyone, If on an individual level people decide to 'make life as nice as possible' for themselves without any consideration of others then society could well collapse. We are already in a period of what seems like selfish behaviour across the board. For example something as simple as schooling we now see that instead of a healthy respect of the teachers by Parents and pupils it is very much a 'you cant tell my kid what to do' mentality.

On a broader scale, if I just want to make my life as nice as possible why would I bother giving consideration to anyone else but my own enjoyment. I could dodge tax, steal things I wanted, dump rubbish, push in front of people, park in disabled spaces. Hmmm perhaps we are already in this 'utopia'

Might be interesting to consider whether hierarchies in Ancient Egypt, Greece, Roman Empire, the actions of Atilla, Genghis, and more recently the slave traders and empire builders were motivated by personal ambition and greed, or the needs of society as a whole.

IMHO the desire of individuals to optimise personal well being at the expense of others has been embedded in human behaviour for 5,000 years - and probably longer.

This is not a defence of such behaviours, more a pragmatic acceptance of reality. That occasionally it was in the interests of those at the top of the "food chain" to do that which would benefit those further down is not pure altruism but pure self interest.

Cynicism at its worst!!

 

[John Brown]

People have argued or discussed for ages whether there is such a thing as pure altruism. If it makes you look noble, is that a reward? If it makes you feel virtuous, is that a reward? If you believe you'll secure your place in your version of heaven? And so on.
Sometimes cooperation produces the better outcome overall, Prisoners' Dilemma etc., but in most cases the ruthless, selfish person "wins".

 

[Jacob]

....

IMHO the desire of individuals to optimise personal well being at the expense of others has been embedded in human behaviour for 5,000 years - and probably longer.

Appalling nonsense.
Homosapiens* could not have survived without cooperation and action in groups, all working for the common good.
It's fundamental to human nature and how most people live most of the time.
What you describe is aberrant behaviour, which unfortunately may sometimes lead to the enrichment of the few but always at great cost to the many.
The ones who do enrich themselves at everybody elses expense tend to convince themselves that they are getting what they deserve through personal ability, but it is a delusion and they find themselves living in an unstable society and may even come to a sticky end.
It's nothing to do with altruism or elevated moral standards, it's normal intelligent animal pack behaviour; "one for all, all for one".
*spell checker doesn't allow homosapiens spelt normally with a space.

 

[Jacob]

People have argued or discussed for ages whether there is such a thing as pure altruism.

Have they? Self sacrifice for others is usually seen as highly commendable, there is no argument about it as far as I know.

If it makes you look noble, is that a reward? If it makes you feel virtuous, is that a reward? If you believe you'll secure your place in your version of heaven? And so on.

The pack gets the reward; it may be your family, tribe, group. And the altruist may get the credit on earth, if not killed in the process!

Sometimes cooperation produces the better outcome overall, Prisoners' Dilemma etc., but in most cases the ruthless, selfish person "wins".

Quite the reverse.

 

[ey_tony]

I have no formal qualifications apart from a handful of O levels from the :'60s,

...and it shows!