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.
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.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've always admitted to bias; I am a human being after all.I could say that this exposes cognitive bias on your part...
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).
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.
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).
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?
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.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).
Wayne do you genuinely believe the UN or some group/s behind the UN is trying to take over the world?
Two good posts in a row 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.
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?It has been the goal of men since Adam was a lad. Have a cursory glance at history, it has been attempted several times.
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.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?
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.Would the tax reduce the alleged warming and how long will it take?
These factors are irrelevant to a tax on carbon emissions.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?
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)
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
Already stopped using the stuff for most heating applications, power generation etc once it became too expensive for such uses.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).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?