Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

What I think is the case is that people object in ideological grounds to the imposition of new taxes/envirofascist greenies/new world order by stealth/leftist rule e.t.c. and then because of that decide that the science must be wrong.

This exposes a cognitive bias on your part by stating that only the right (by implication) makes decisions on the "the science" based on extraneous factors. Apart from the fact that in most cases, people regard these as two separate issues and well capable of discerning one from the other, it ignores that some from the left decide on political grounds (and other extraneous factors) as well.

 

[wayneL]

I rarely agree with Fox's take on things.

On this issue they are spot on IMO

 

[Knobby22]

It must feel good for the reporters to be able to truthfully attack the issue for a change.

 

[derty]

This exposes a cognitive bias on your part by stating that only the right (by implication) makes decisions on the "the science" based on extraneous factors. Apart from the fact that in most cases, people regard these as two separate issues and well capable of discerning one from the other, it ignores that some from the left decide on political grounds (and other extraneous factors) as well.

I could say that this exposes cognitive bias on your part for seeing that I am stating that only the right is implied. Sure, my use of 'envirofacist greenies' and 'leftist rule' are issues with the right, though the addition of taxes and imposition of a new world order are issues for both the left and right. The simple truth of the matter is that the majority of the those that do not subscribe that the Earth is warming and/or humans have a large part in it, have conservative/right wing viewpoints. I think that 'not wanting the science to be true' leads people to accept and champion some of the disingenuous arguments put forward by the likes of Monckton.

As you mentioned there is another side to the coin, those that have propagated predictions of catastrophic doom and those that have swallowed the worst case scenario hook-line-and-sinker. As we are all aware, predictions in the near future are made with reasonable levels of confidence and as we step further into the future the confidence decreases and the possible range of outcomes widens. Cherry picking catastrophic predictions is no different to grabbing the data from 1998 onwards and claiming the world is cooling. It misrepresents the science.

I think the fearmongers fall into two camps.
1. Those that have their fingers in the pie and have set themselves up for gain. I'm sure Gore stands to profit handsomely from the carbon economy and I would not be surprised if nations/governments are seeing this as an opportunity to gain more wealth and control. It is not outside the realms of thought that the 'carbon economy' would be used to strip wealth and place controls over developing nations similar to that facilitated by the IMF and World Bank.

2. Those that are crapping themselves that humanity (or civilisation as we know it) is going to come to a horrible end in the very near future as tipping points are reached and society collapses. They feel it necessary to preach (for want of a better word) the dangers and themselves latch onto data and predictions, often out of context, and promote these as evidence supporting the immanent demise.

So while the two extremes fight for control or to counter claims made, as I said before largely in the popular media and blogosphere, the science is being trashed.

I support the science that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that. I don't think that there will be an immanent global demise, however I support that temperature rise will be detrimental to society as weather does become more extreme and populations are stressed.

I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).

 

[wayneL]

I could say that this exposes cognitive bias on your part...

I've always admitted to bias; I am a human being after all.

I just wonder how many zealots understand this about themselves.

I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).

Agree.

 

[IFocus]

Is that a bit of a fence sit there Ifocus?

Seems to be a good take that money wins over common sense, but common sense wants the money to have the bread and all the other good things as those had before them.

It lets the hysteria balloon down and points out a real problem. A good post derty.

Afraid so Explod I don't hold a strong view but I do think we do have climate change happening now and I think there is a part of it is man made and we should take some kind of action.

Realistically if its true then action will come to late along with saving the environment and earths resources.

 

[IFocus]

I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).

Agree except the time frame is sooner I think

 

[nukz]

How long has the green movement been around and why is it all of a sudden its rammed down our throats that the world is about to end.

First it was bio-fuel... great idea burn food to create fuel that costs more to produce than petroleum.

Then the car makers jumped on board with battery cars that are 'green' but in 10 years when the battery's die we just dump them all in India's water supply or something.

People like George Soros have around a $1 billion invested in green technology and he's not here to help the environment let me tell you.

Energy company's are increasing energy costs all because of this green movement.

Kyoto ... lol

Carbon credit trading, if you have ever seen this its like another Dow jones...

I also found these points online as well(cannot confirm there authenticity though)

* 75% of U.S. meteorologists reject Al Gore’s science on global climate trends.
* 81% reject claims that Gore’s Global Warming models are in any way reliable.
* 55% agree with the statement”–Global Warming is a Scam!”
* 500 scientists support Texas Attorney General Abbott’s lawsuit against EPA and global warming

 

[nukz]

My position on this issue is basically that large sum's of money will be made by certain people and when large sum's of money are involved you can bet saving the environment is not first on the agenda.

 

[So_Cynical]

Well here it is (sugar coated) from Ban Ki Moon , secretary general of the UN http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html.

SC, if using the straw man tactic in an attempt at ridicule, it would be wise to get your facts in order first so-as not to look so ridiculous yourself.

Perhaps in your haste to label people you have indulged in a bit of denial yourself?

I had to google straw man from wiki "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Wayne im pretty straight forward and call em as i see em...You and anyone else posting your beliefs about some sort of UN agenda to take over the world, 1 treaty at a time is without doubt going to get ridicule from me and a dozen or so other posters on this forum....sorry dude that's just the way it works.

I have no interest in what people think of me, of course i want to be loved by all ...however if it makes you feel better to think im ridiculous or you feel the need to encourage others to feel the same as you...feel free to go right ahead, knock yourself out.

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

Clearly Mr Moon is talking about governance of the "GHG deal" as of course any global agreement will have to be administered by some sort of global body, otherwise its not much of a global agreement...Assuming the new body would be called something like (WGGRO - The World greenhouse Gas Reduction Organisation) i also assume its governance arm would operate in a similar way to the WTO - the world Trade Organisation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization

Wayne do you genuinely believe the UN or some group/s behind the UN is trying to take over the world?

 

[Julia]

As you mentioned there is another side to the coin, those that have propagated predictions of catastrophic doom and those that have swallowed the worst case scenario hook-line-and-sinker. As we are all aware, predictions in the near future are made with reasonable levels of confidence and as we step further into the future the confidence decreases and the possible range of outcomes widens. Cherry picking catastrophic predictions is no different to grabbing the data from 1998 onwards and claiming the world is cooling. It misrepresents the science.

I think the fearmongers fall into two camps.
1. Those that have their fingers in the pie and have set themselves up for gain. I'm sure Gore stands to profit handsomely from the carbon economy and I would not be surprised if nations/governments are seeing this as an opportunity to gain more wealth and control. It is not outside the realms of thought that the 'carbon economy' would be used to strip wealth and place controls over developing nations similar to that facilitated by the IMF and World Bank.

2. Those that are crapping themselves that humanity (or civilisation as we know it) is going to come to a horrible end in the very near future as tipping points are reached and society collapses. They feel it necessary to preach (for want of a better word) the dangers and themselves latch onto data and predictions, often out of context, and promote these as evidence supporting the immanent demise.

So while the two extremes fight for control or to counter claims made, as I said before largely in the popular media and blogosphere, the science is being trashed.

I support the science that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing to that. I don't think that there will be an immanent global demise, however I support that temperature rise will be detrimental to society as weather does become more extreme and populations are stressed.

I don't think that climate change is our most looming threat. I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).

If we'd had more discussion along such objective and balanced lines, then the extremes on both sides would not have become so entrenched and unrealistic imo.
Neither would so much antagonism have been engendered.

Great post, derty.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

When the carbon tax is implemented will they be able to state how long it will take to be in a state of the tax being scrapped? Would the tax reduce the alleged warming and how long will it take?

Also, to what extent is the heating of the core and the activity of the sun being taken into account? Would these factors make the computation of the tax complicated or would that be easy?

 

[wayneL]

Wayne do you genuinely believe the UN or some group/s behind the UN is trying to take over the world?

It has been the goal of men since Adam was a lad. Have a cursory glance at history, it has been attempted several times.

Just across the road from the UN is this mob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federalist_Movement and their site http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/

It is just one of many.

I'm not saying there is some evil plot by some bald guy stroking a cat, and I suppose some have the best of intentions (avoiding war etc), but anyone who doesn't believe there are some who are working for some form of global government just doesn't have their eyes and ears open.

The problem is that the whole idea is wrapped up in conspiracy theory and paranoia, which polarizes many into a position of denial, such as yourself. On the other hand, much of the work done is with as little publicity as possible which raises suspicion in the minds of many.

Time will tell, but "take over the world" is the wrong phrase as it implied something like the Mongol Hordes rampaging across the planet. It is far more subtle than that.

 

[Logique]

My position on this issue is basically that large sum's of money will be made by certain people and when large sum's of money are involved you can bet saving the environment is not first on the agenda.

Two good posts in a row Nukz.

Carbon tax: how can you have an effective market price signal when the mechanism of political resonance is so hopelessly dysfunctional.

The Gillard govt's carbon tax worksops are probably a political stalling technique, but fair enough let's have the discussion, but an open discussion, with everything on the table. Not with certain categories curtailed by the commissars. It's irrational and undermines credibility, to exclude nuclear, thorium and hydro from the solution set.

Roll on nuclear fusion, which I understand has been achieved, but only at a microscopic scale thus far.

As on SBS last night, even a hydro scheme in Laos on the Mekong is under attack by world greens (WWF). Supporting renewable energy, yeah right.

 

[ghotib]

It has been the goal of men since Adam was a lad. Have a cursory glance at history, it has been attempted several times.

With apologies for going even further off topic, I had a cursory glance at history and I can't think of any case where a small group set out with the goal of conquering the world, and not many where an individual did. Most conquests seem to be an accidental byproduct of ferocious struggles for power within a group. The clearest example of that I know is ancient Rome, but it also seems like a good description of the growth of trade empires in the last couple of centuries. What are you thinking of?

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

When the carbon tax is implemented will they be able to state how long it will take to be in a state of the tax being scrapped?

Good question. The intent should be that the tax would become unnecessary as better technologies become cost effective, but the history of tobacco taxes doesn't promise well.

Would the tax reduce the alleged warming and how long will it take?

A tax is one possible system for including the price of carbon emissions in the cost of goods and services. Warming will continue after carbon emissions (more accurately, carbon emissions from fossil fuels) go to zero. For how long depends on many other factors.

Also, to what extent is the heating of the core and the activity of the sun being taken into account? Would these factors make the computation of the tax complicated or would that be easy?

These factors are irrelevant to a tax on carbon emissions.

Ghoti

 

[spooly74]

Unfotunatley it's all about policy now. As Derty pointed out, the science is being trashed, the well is poisioned, and a debate on future predictions is largely irrelevant.
I know I'd rather cut off my left one than argue any point on the Earth's Climate.

An Evaluation of the Targets and Timetables of the Proposed Australian Emissions Trading Scheme

For carbon dioxide emissions relationship of forces leading to carbon dioxide emissions has been called the Kaya Identity, and it can be used
to decompose the factors that lead to carbon dioxide emissions from the production and use of energy in the global economy.
..
Together the four factors of the Kaya Identity explain the various influences that contribute to increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, as follows:

(1) Carbon Dioxide Emissions= Population * Per Capita GDP * Energy Intensity *Carbon Intensity

(2) P = Total Population

(3) GDP/P = Per capita GDP

a. GDP = Economic Growth (Contraction) = P * GDP/P = GDP

(4) Energy Intensity (EI) = TE/GDP = Total Energy (TE) consumption/GDP

b. Carbon Intensity (CI) = C/TE=Carbon emissions/Total Energy consumption

(5) EI X CI = "Carbon Intensity of the Economy" = TE/GDP * C/TE = C/GDP

Thus, according to the logic of these relationships, carbon accumulating in the atmosphere can be reduced only by reducing (a) population, (b) per capita GDP, or (c) carbon intensity of the economy.

A risk of proposing aspirational goals is that policy makers will look for ways to avoid meeting the objectives while maintaining the appearance of accountability to formal goals, at least during their time in office. Stanford’s David Victor explains, “setting binding emission targets through treaties is wrongheaded because it ‘forces’ governments to do things they don’t know how to do. And that puts them in a box, from which they escape using accounting tricks (e.g., offsets) rather than real effort.” (Victor, 2009)

 

[wayneL]

With apologies for going even further off topic, I had a cursory glance at history and I can't think of any case where a small group set out with the goal of conquering the world, and not many where an individual did. Most conquests seem to be an accidental byproduct of ferocious struggles for power within a group. The clearest example of that I know is ancient Rome, but it also seems like a good description of the growth of trade empires in the last couple of centuries. What are you thinking of?

Ghoti

The list is subjective so debate will be taking this further OT, but I have already provided one current group with designs on some form of global governance.

 

[Smurf1976]

I think that peak oil is our most immediate issue. That really has the potential to produce economic devastation and global conflict in the near term IMHO (next 10-20 years, maybe earlier).

Already stopped using the stuff for most heating applications, power generation etc once it became too expensive for such uses.

Various wars which just happen to break out on places with large remaining oil reserves.

2008 price spike and global economic troubles immediately afterward.

Converting human food into liquid fuel.

Drilling incredibly deep wells in incredibly deep water because that's all that remains. Then it goes wrong and we spill the stuff in the water.

I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see trouble due to cheap, easily accessible oil no longer being sufficiently plentiful to meet "business as usual" demand growth. In my opinion, this along with the dwindling supply of phosphate fertilizers is by far the most urgent issue facing the world today.

 

[sails]

Below (in blue) is Grade 5 (Qld) notes for an essay that was unfinished at school and sent home to finish it. Teacher's handwriting was quite messy, so student has copied as best she could.

I find the headings the most disturbing. Some of the solutions are OK, but some are a bit far fetched as well, IMO.

Seems unbelievable to me that 10 year olds are being taught only one side of the climate change debate. The child that brought this home thought it was factual information. She was talking about closing factories down. When I explained the implications of loss of jobs, more dependency on the dole, etc, she saw there was another side to this.

Surely curriculum should include both sides of the debate instead of potentially brainwashing young, impressionable minds on something that even scientists are divided?

Maybe it's just an over zealous greenie teacher and not part of the curriculum.

Thoughts anyone?

Title: Take a Stand Save Our Planet.

Persuasive Text:

1. Save the planet global warming and climate change
Solutions:
• Stop using cars
• electrical consumption
• think about factory usage


2. Humans are their own enemies.
Solutions:
• wasteful
• overusing natural resources
• litter in landfills


3. Technology and this earth don’t mix
Solutions:
• energy over-use
• cost of repairing vs. reproduction.
• nature is technology