Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)

Yep, hence my love of your term "greenwashing".

While I'm sure there are worse ways to go, this actually occurred to me while I was making lunch and I should clarify that he's not being lumped by me. He seems very interested in thinking about it, and with an open mind and eyes.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

Yeah, I'll concur with Toose, should he say what Gol guesses he might. I know a fair number of people who have gotten knee-deep in some of this stuff, and have become more skeptical, rather than less. Regardless, I think that's a pretty big generalization, and my own (admittedly anecdotal) evidence suggests otherwise.

I also think there's a small but important distinction between which people have been thinking about this the most, and which people have been talking about it the most. I know a fair number of (mostly younger) people who are pretty worked up about global warming, but not terribly interested in the details. I don't know that talking and thinking about it gets people worried, so much as some of the worried people are constantly talking and thinking about it.

I think an interesting driver of some of the schisms is the eco-leftish 'appeal' of general CC summaries, and the concurrent backlash amongst more 'conservative' thinkers. (Certainly the implications for economy/growth limitation are anathema to the latter)

Add to that the propensity for scientists to be left-leaning athiests, and you've got a recipe for the science getting ignored and strawmen fights to ensue instead.

It is intriguing that no one's cropped up with a 'science-based' objection as yet tho. I know this is a movie forum (honest, i do ), & PW's 'what can/could we do anyway' rejoinder highlights the partially 'academic' nature of these discussions anyway - but still . There are lots of pertinent areas of debate that are still 'up in the air' (and ongoing 'down to earth' government decisions that will impact on us all) - so it's kind of intriguing that they aren't on the tip of people's tongues, in some ways.

---
EDIT
---

PS Yods, did any of your researching-mates give you any reasons for their increased scepticism? What sort of things were turning them off the idea even further?

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I wouldn't attempt to make generalizations about the people you know, Yoda. I don't even known them. I was talking about the bent of the thread.

Well, I think the thread is titled in an appropriately tongue-in-cheek manner, for starters.

I will admit to listening to some sources that out an out deny 'global warming' and/or 'climate change'. I'll also admit to quoting those sources on occasion because it was what I wanted to hear at the time.

Since then, though, I've done a little independent research and I don't think that there really is any question that the climate appears to be shifting.

Now, that said, it's difficult to find a reasonable presentation of fact. People are very passionate about this subject and the research seems to be polarized definitively on one side of the argument or the other. Since hard data is largely unavailable, it would seem that people are polarizing on what they perceive to be probability. This isn't science in any definitive degree beyond the hypothetical.

I hesitate to engage in these discussions because they will consist largely of opinion based upon analysis of available data that may or may not be skewed by the presenter.

Golgot, you have to have your doubts if you've applied any reason at all to your thoughts. If you're already sold on the idea that humans are the root cause then I would only say that you're jumping the gun and that reason hasn't caught up to you yet.

That being said, I can look at your 'evidence' and see a possibility that your viewpoint could be right.

My stance on all of this right now is that I believe that we should clean up our manufacturing processes, work toward cleaner energy sources and do whatever it takes to keep our environment as clean as possible (hey, we have to live in it) whether or not we're causing any trends in warming.

Thanks for not lumping me Sammy

I could launch into a long social commentary diatribe based on that statement. These days, it seems like if something (or someone) has a cool logo, slick packaging, powerful sounding bullet points and not a whole lot of that distracting substance stuff it'll go far.

I am right about there, myself. At a minimum, it's only good sense to curtail pollution and make the most sensible choices for the long term. This will require some education of the public. It will likely also require incentives, because new items are more costly to produce than established, widely used ones. Long term, big picture, should be the watchword. And research needs to continue and if there's any way to de-politicize/commercialize it, that should happen sooner than later. If we're really talking about the future of the planet, we can't have the facts held hostage by shorter term agendas.

Never. Unless you asked very nicely.

(For what it's worth, i wouldn't choose 'root cause' as a way of describing any anthropic effect )

I've been convinced by the concept that our emissions can be influential - and that this influence could provoke significant long-term effects (in terms of CO2's apparent 'longevity'), & potentially serious changes in a much shorter timescale (in terms of 'positive feedback' acceleration etc).

As for doubts, hesitancies & suspicions, I've got loads . The tree-loss research I started this thread with, for example, provides a potential example of CC 'greenwash' - there's a 'bandwagon' feel to its readiness to ascribe the changes to drought/warming. (I can't be sure without having a look at the original publication - but who has time for that with every interesting or contentious claim? ). I don't doubt the breadth or impressiveness of their study's scope - but there's a shadow there as to whether they're using the zeitgeist to get their genuine findings heard.

I chose all of the articles I flagged up because they had elements that could be taken as supportive of 'either side' - just wanted to see the reaction really

I'm planning to follow this 'political consensus collapse' argument as it evolves, because the question of how to react to the certainties & gaps in the science as it stands interest me. (I wouldn't normally take an evidence-lite piece like this seriously, but the blog itself is a refreshing 'brokerage house' between climate-alarmism & scientific-pragmatism that I think you might enjoy - altho it's unfortunately a lot more troll-ridden than it used to be. In the past its comments section was a more 'expert-only' affair, with loads of fact-heavy fencing going on that was fun to eavesdrop on ).

So yeah, in short, there's plenty of points on which i'm withholding judgment - and generally i can see the force of the Adaptation camp's arguments, but still have a lot of time for the technical ingenuity of the Mitigation camp (if not always their pragmatic achievements - see the well-meaning flailings of Kyoto etc)

I'm with you & Sammy there (With a slight caveat over the global dimming issues surrounding aerosol pollution reduction )

I think some form of 'global' cap&trade and/or carbon tax may become inevitable if the science remains robust tho (currently i quite like the popularist-possibilities of the 'tax & dividend' approach - but i doubt that'll ever see the light of day)

I'm nowhere near intelligent enough to contribute to this thread (and, if I'm totally honest, that sits rather easily with me) but something has happened over the last few days which has made me acutely embarrassed to come from where I do.

Our Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson, has decided to ban a collection of UK Government adverts exhorting us to cut down on our energy use. He has long held the belief that climate change is not caused by Man and has been less than coy about appearing on TV in the past blaming it on a 'hysterical pseudo-religion'.

Link

Link

Link

If I put my political beliefs to one side (and Wilson is from the other end of the spectrum to me) I still think the man is a publicity seeking clown, content to grandstand and play off a light-hearted (light-hearted for this little cesspit, anyway) image rather than engage in 'real' local politics.

Thoughts?

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I'm thinking that guy has some ocean front property and is hoping for a longer tourist season. Seriously, that's unfortunate. How much of Norn Iron's GNP is energy? I'm wondering if he's worried of a financial collapse if people cut back on energy usage. Failing that, I'd say he's in someone's hip pocket, because it's pretty clear something's up with the environment, and whether the fire is too big to contain or not, he's fiddling.

I think bloodymindedness is the key requirement

The ad featured in the first link is a particuraly pointless one i reckon. (Have you ever met anyone that reduced their revs because of adverts like that? I don't really see that as a likely long-term behavioural change anyway. Most people are never going to be into driving their car like a porpoise to save fuel )

That said, i think the ads that popularise simple but effective 'win-win' acts like the renowned insulation approach are a very cost-effective governmental tactic. Even hard-line Adaptionists like yer man there should struggle to find objections to that. It's a straight-forward public information service.

If anything a lot of the ads we get seem to be designed to be not too alarming - almost reassuring (pretty colours, aspirational-yet-avuncular voice-overs on telly etc). Placating us with the idea that we're all acting collectively and counter-balancing growing emissions etc (which is pretty far from the truth, but kinda cute They counter-act the more hysterical end of GW dialogue - which again, he should appreciate).

Is he on the 'right' of the chart when it comes to politics then? His objections do smack slightly of partisan grudges. Be interesting to see if the party force him to tow the official line. Strange choice of battleground too - does suggest a degree of local-politics grandstanding, as you suggest.

He's not denying climate change is happening, just that we are the main cause of it.

Golg - I've seen a few of the ads (he's been able to ban them from terrestrial channels but not satellite/Freeview etc) and their main gist seems to be saving money by conserving electricity. The reduction of CO2 emissions is mentioned but in a lighthearted way - ie: the dad telling the kids to unplug the TV to save the environment although all he's really interested in is saving a few pence...

It's interesting that the DUP are distancing themselves from Wilson's remarks (he's usually tolerated as a smart operator, for them, in the chamber) and The Assembly's Environment committee (because we're a voluntary coalition, each department has a cross-party committee monitoring them to keep them in check) has tabled a vote of no confidence. They can't do much more than give him a slap on the wrist, however.

Expect Sammy to be quietly reshuffled in a few months time and faces saved all round.

Of course, Sammy also appears . Words fail me.

Wow, pretty surprised (& happy) the Obama admin opted for a 'cap & refund' version of Cap & Trade (basically the 'cap & dividend' approach i mentioned earlier).

Hasn't there been a hue & cry about this being 'redistribution' State-side tho? (Which it pretty much is, but also seems like quite a promising way of stimulating spending etc - or at least preventing most downturn influences that might emerge from raised energy prices)

He might need to check his stats on the 'green job production' statement he made recently (the Spanish investment programme he cited has been predicted to lose 2.2 normal jobs per green job created if applied in the US). But CO2 emissions are still rising despite GDP drops, which is rather perplexing, and suggests climate change worries are going to stay high on the agenda even during the recession.

Yeah, the whole "green jobs" thing is kind of absurd on its face. If the market could bear these jobs, we wouldn't need government intervention in the first place. And if the market can't bear them out and some sort of incentive (or compulsion) is involved, then those jobs will probably only be around as long as the incentive or compulsion is in place. Those aren't salaries, they're subsidies.

One could theoretically make the case that this is part of a short-term sacrifice that will yield a boost in technological advancement which will benefit everyone long-term (yay!). This is possible, but I see no reason to believe that any given administration is better able to forecast which technologies will yield such a boost better than the far more efficient track record of private industry.

There's plenty of money to be made in cheap, clean energy, and even if there's a fair amount of corruption in the system, or concentration of power, none of it is any match for a truly great idea or technology. I simply don't see even the slightest reason to believe that a handful of politicians can determine which possible future energy source is the best and most viable, but that's literally what they're pretending they can do when they advance these kinds of policies.

Anyway, my mind's still reeling over the fact that carbon -- something that every man, woman, child and farm animal emits naturally -- has been declared a pollutant. I realize this is a matter of degree, but the whole thing feels a little on-its-head. Hell, the whole debate does.

I guess it can be seen as 'stimulus' in that many of so-called 'green jobs' are actually in manufacturing/labour etc (so it's comparable to a modern day New Deal). But agreed that governments aren't who should be guiding market innovation per se. There are perhaps some more obvious areas where prizes/R&D-aid make a certain sense - such as cleaning up & improving existing tech (coal & nuke - although both of these are contentious, within the CC sphere)

I hope that was a facetious argument young man. Nobody's banning breathing (or people, for that matter ) - nor talking about respiration as a source of anthro climate change. Taken on its own, that's no stronger than saying 'marijuana is only a natural herb' etc. We need to look at the context no? Factual cause & effect. Stuff like that

I'm taking it that you're opting for the 'this must be a natural cycle' line of thought on this then?

Yeah, crucial difference there, to be sure. And a lot of these prizes don't specify how certain tasks have to be done, which leaves the innovators free to innovate and all that. But it sounds like we agree on the main point. It all sounds very nice and everything, but the whole slew of policies is based around the assumption that we know what the energy sources of the future are, and that sheer political will is the only thing necessary to push us into the future. I think the whole concept is horribly misguided. As scary as it might be to simply pull back and get out of the way and see what the market bears, it's the clear choice.

But in climates like this, people find it difficult to trust to such nebulous, abstract plans, because they look too much like inaction, and politicians of every party always need to be in motion. So here we are.

Bleh, to say the least.


It's somewhat facetious. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone wants to ban breath, but I am suggesting that declaring carbon as a pollutant feels a little...perverse. A little muddled and confused. That, if the debate has reached the point where this can happen, a lot of people involved have lost sight of things. I realize what I'm saying is extremely fuzzy, but I think there's something to it.

It's rather like the whole "paying farmers not to grow a certain crop" business. There are convoluted reasons that may sound semi-reasonable for doing such things from time to time (not that I agree), but at its core the idea is plainly ridiculous to even the least informed person. It's the kind of mistake that not thinking would never produce -- only someone who has thought a tremendous amount about the issue, and consequently lost perspective, could advocate such a thing.

Maybe this is of a similar vein (I'm guessing you feel otherwise), and maybe not, but it does have a tinge of the "is this what it's come to?" feel to it.

I'm not sure, but probably. The argument keeps mutating, and somehow humanity is always at fault: global cooling (I know you've downplayed this, but it had a significant popularity spike for a bit), overpopulation, global warming, and now climate change, for which both high and low temperatures can serve as evidence. And every time, the next few years are "crucial."

Technically speaking, changing the blame around every few years and big swaths of the environmental movement overstating the danger doesn't invalidate what might be some valid truths underneath...but there's certainly a Boy Who Cried Wolf aspect to this that is worth thinking about. When large groups of people are adamant about a problem, only to see it evolve, delayed, or mutated in some way, it naturally leads us to doubt the latest claim. It's not entirely fair to considerate souls like yourself, Gol, but I'm sure you realize you keep some very kooky company on this side of the issue. Whether or not their presence says something about the base idea, or is merely an unfortunate coincidence, I don't know.

Obviously larger philosophies trickle down and influence one's overall feeling about things, too. I tend to regard the Earth as durable, and humanity as having an inflated sense of importance about the problems of its present, whenever that may be, so I bring an inherent skepticism to anything which claims we're capable of basically destroying the ecosystem. Perhaps that colors my views a bit.

More than any specific skepticism, though, it's about burden of proof. Trillions of dollars hang in the balance. Jobs, lives, technological progression...they're all going to swing any which way depending on whether or not we willingly curb certain economic advancements and policies. Indirectly, it's even a matter of life and death. Things will be invented in the future that will save lives, and they can happen sooner or later, depending on the business climate. Sounds silly, but it's true, be it because of medication, more portable defibrillators, etc.

The burden of proof for such a shift should be outrageously high, in other words. Not just the burden of proof that such things are happening, but that we can fix them. AND, given that, that we know how to. Given all that, does anyone here really think we've genuinely met these burdens, given the mind-blowing costs?

[EDIT - Ah, i see you're referring to the EPA decision to tag green house gases as pollutants. I think that's just a matter of political expediency - the EPA study was already well under way and provides an immediate platform for Federal action, if required etc]

Well to argue back on a similar 'gut call' level, it seems fuzzy and perverse to dismiss the correlations between the onset of carbon-powered industrialisation and the warming trend, for example

But as you mention later, you have a predilection for seeing the earth as durable & humanity as liable to overstate their influence, whereas i'm from the worry-about-human-influences-on-ecosystems camp. Seeing as we both recognise our biases though, it make sense to leave gut-calls aside somewhat, and try and assess what the facts & arguments actually are.

I don't think the 'Global Warming' argument has mutated a huge amount - although public/media perceptions have certainly gone through shifts. The 'Global Cooling' 'period' is far from significant, for example. One group that investigated its prevalence in the sci literature found this breakdown:

Between 1965 and 1979:

• 7 articles predicting cooling
• 44 predicting warming
• 20 that were neutral

[EDITED - You can see in the study that there's no spike in publication etc. The only 'spike' exists in the media (& selective present-day quoting by the likes of Senator Inhofe). Also, the 'cooling' science being undertaken was exploring strands that are still viable today (interglacial periods, volcanic & aerosol cooling effects, changes in orbital cycles etc), and these papers often go out of their way to say their modelling is stand-alone, and needs to be integrated with anthropic effects to make multi-discipline predictions etc etc]

Beyond that 'Global Warming' & 'Climate Change' are the same thing, just 'rebrandings' of the same underlying physics argument and ongoing attempts to understand its real-world applications. And low temperatures certainly don't count as 'evidence' for CC per se, they just don't discredit it, as many laymen seem to think [one of the reasons I feel, that the CC 'rebranding' took place]. The very problems of separating (long-term) weather variations from long-term climate trends is exactly why 'global warming' is assessed over long periods .

I think you're slightly conflating other 'green' issues here with CC. Certainly Malthusian population fears were averted by the 'green revolution' (which, in the absence of funding, is now stuttering again somewhat, and has come with some other downsides which need rectifying, such as energy/water requirements, nitrogen run off etc). I could conflate 'anthropic' green successes with CC, such as spotting the Ozone issue, or highlighting the clear impact of over-fishing, but again, feel this isn't necessarily helpful.

Again, the same could be said about 'your side' . There's plenty of 'commie conspiracy' style commentary that abounds from the kookier end of the sceptic scale, for example.

I absolutely agree here. The burden of proof is massive, and the potential negative impact of acting and being and wrong is huge. The reason the ball is still rolling politically in favour of action though is because the burden of proof has partially been met. The physics of 'green house gas' effects is well understood and solid for the most part - the current examinations of how this plays out in the world points more towards exacerbating 'feedback effects' rather than limiting feedbacks. We're then in the slightly murkier territory of the 'physics-style' modelling, tallying past knowns with future possibilities, but again, the most robust models suggest changes that will impact negatively on economies & lives. It's understandable then that action is being considered, despite existing doubts in certain areas (modelling accuracies, continuing unknowns, whether it's better to 'adapt or mitigate' etc)

As long as the science continues to point towards significant economic & life impacts, & calls for swift action to prevent C02 output breaching certain concentrations, there is nearly as large a burden of proof on sceptics for justifying inaction. I recognise many aspects seem Cassandra-ish (the 'hurry hurry' side, and the doom & glooming, but to be fair to them, they have been saying it for several decades ). It seems to me though that the best form of scepticism is that which engages with the science, and therefore increases our understanding of best action

Don't quite get this bit. Are you suggesting that money/R&D etc will get drawn off into areas which may turn out to be unnecessary, and hence detract from medical studies etc that could have benefited in the meantime?

Thought this was all very well said and I'd hazard that you won't be seeing any data anytime soon against this issue.

Been watching a lot of documentaries on various subjects and its interesting to see a lot of the things I've been thinking about get addressed somewhat in here and in other threads.

Still not sure what I can really do by myself to change the world. We are planning a garden this year and hope to build a chicken coop. Not sure I'll ever be able to afford an electric car... but maybe someday. I deep down just don't believe the world "wants" to change.

What's really interesting to me is how resistant America is to changes in general. Especially if it involves big business. Why do companies that are responsible for things like this always forced only through the courts to help people they've harmed?

A lot of other countries aren't like this, but it's always, always tooth and nail here.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but thought I'd revive the thread as it needs more input.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

People don't like change. As for "the world" I think most of the world are screaming for change. Both their populations (well, those who are rich enough to think above their immediate needs anyway) and governments. The West and the other first world countries, however, are not. Those at the top are worried about those who are coming up and both are looking to exploit those who are greedy enough or can't afford to resist.

People, self interest and $$$$

$$$$

$$$$

Money works as an explanation as to why a specific person or business doesn't want change. But it doesn't work as an explanation for an entire industry, because the same drive for money that compels people to fight changes exists on the other side of the issue.

There are billions upon billions to be made in "green" technologies, too. Our government keeps sinking money into solar and electric cars and other things, only to see company after company go belly-up. Solyndra was worthless. Nobody bought the Chevy Volt. It's been bad investment after bad investment, which is precisely what you should expect when investments are made for political reasons. Because if they were such great investments, government wouldn't need to make them for us.

So, it's reasonable to suggest that we have hyper-ambitious businesspeople who want more money at all costs. But you can't posit this cutthroat atmosphere and then restrict it to one side. If it's really as simple as using some existing technology, or just having the willpower to produce something different, then the same cutthroat attitude you're positing would have new investors descending on these situations with the same fervor. Since that's not happening, there must be other reasons.