|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 26, 2023 20:02:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 26, 2023 21:07:42 GMT
It doesn't matter what we know - the pro-Net Zero crowd want to make it illegal to say anything but that human activity causes climate change. Science in the 21st Century...  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Oct 27, 2023 6:40:04 GMT
Anyone in the loop knows its alien death rays warming the planet, ready for the invasion of the lizard people.  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2023 8:04:35 GMT
Surely the reality is that even if human or animal activity didn't or doesn't cause climate change, the high level of human produced greenhouse gas is exacerbating the problem.
IMO humans have a responsibility to the planet to clean up their act. Success in this area should prove to be beneficial for the planet and for human life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 8:25:17 GMT
Surely the reality is that even if human or animal activity didn't or doesn't cause climate change, the high level of human produced greenhouse gas is exacerbating the problem. IMO humans have a responsibility to the planet to clean up their act. Success in this area should prove to be beneficial for the planet and for human life. But, as the costs of substantial action are considerable - ie people starving to death, food riots, mass unemployment, societal collapse - the amount of exacerbation is a vital piece of information politically. In my opinion, that we are facing a 'climate emergency' is a political claim not a scientific one. It is un-falsifiable and has political repercussions and so should be treated with skepticism |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 27, 2023 8:30:56 GMT
In situations like this where the science is uncertain, but where the penalty for getting it wrong is potentially catastrophic, isn't it prudent to err on the side of caution?
As a great man once said: 'The ultimate function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils". He could have added 'even if it causes us a little pain and inconvenience in the meantime'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 8:40:19 GMT
In situations like this where the science is uncertain, but where the penalty for getting it wrong is potentially catastrophic, isn't it prudent to err on the side of caution? As a great man once said: 'The ultimate function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils". He could have added 'even if it causes us a little pain and inconvenience in the meantime'. If both sides contain risk and at least one of the risks is very uncertain, then you don't know which option contains the most caution. You could make an argument that continuing as we are is 'erring on the side of caution' I think this is a well known bind called the precautionary principle. For instance, there is also a risk that we will be hit by an asteroid in the future and , if we were, then in hindsight destroying our industrial capacity and technological base merely to reduce CO2 slightly might be the most colossal mistake humanity ever made. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 27, 2023 8:49:53 GMT
I tend to place AGW in the same problem category as mass immigration and 'gay' adoption; something which has never been tried before and which is therefore highly experimental with potentially unknown and perhaps unknowable consequences.
An asteroid strike is a trivial problem to solve in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 8:56:26 GMT
I tend to place AGW in the same problem category as mass immigration and 'gay' adoption; something which has never been tried before and which is therefore highly experimental with potentially unknown and perhaps unknowable consequences. An asteroid strike is a trivial problem to solve in comparison. Sure - and that's reasonable assessment. The trouble is the opposite assessment is also reasonable - that deliberately shutting down our capacity, technology and growth is something that has never really been tried before (outside limited disaster scenarios like Pol Pot) Assessments that are in opposition are both reasonable because we don't know I think asteroids are only trivially swatted away in Hollywood. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2023 9:08:06 GMT
Surely the reality is that even if human or animal activity didn't or doesn't cause climate change, the high level of human produced greenhouse gas is exacerbating the problem. IMO humans have a responsibility to the planet to clean up their act. Success in this area should prove to be beneficial for the planet and for human life. But, as the costs of substantial action are considerable - ie people starving to death, food riots, mass unemployment, societal collapse - the amount of exacerbation is a vital piece of information politically. In my opinion, that we are facing a 'climate emergency' is a political claim not a scientific one. It is un-falsifiable and has political repercussions and so should be treated with skepticism I don't recognise your "costs" I see no reason to make the move into green energy anywhere near as destructive as you seem to suggest. No would either look to take or be allowed to take the country down the pathway you imply. I do see the move into green energy as the right path to take, but clearly with caution. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 27, 2023 9:18:53 GMT
Unfortunately this question has become highly politicised and anyone arguing that we ought to be weaning ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels is considered to be a dangerous radical intent on wrecking western civilisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2023 9:46:37 GMT
Anyone in the loop knows its alien death rays warming the planet, ready for the invasion of the lizard people. And this is where we are at. Follow 'the science' is the call, yet when people follow the science by crunching the numbers provided by 'the science' they come up with a conclusion that does not gel with the 'consensus' then they are held to be charlatans, deniers and broadly flat earthers. Science used to be and should be better than that but it has been overtaken by political will and it is not a good look. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 27, 2023 9:49:58 GMT
It has. The “populists” needed an agenda to “show” the masses that they were being oppressed by “the elite” and have been prepared to sacrifice future generations well being to seek power today. The gullible have fallen for it. For the second time today the old adage springs to mind - democracy is the worst form of government (apart from all the others).
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2023 9:50:51 GMT
But, as the costs of substantial action are considerable - ie people starving to death, food riots, mass unemployment, societal collapse - the amount of exacerbation is a vital piece of information politically. In my opinion, that we are facing a 'climate emergency' is a political claim not a scientific one. It is un-falsifiable and has political repercussions and so should be treated with skepticism I don't recognise your "costs" I see no reason to make the move into green energy anywhere near as destructive as you seem to suggest. No would either look to take or be allowed to take the country down the pathway you imply. I do see the move into green energy as the right path to take, but clearly with caution. Have you outlined your plan to reduce global carbon emissions to 1850 levels without mass starvation? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2023 9:51:16 GMT
Unfortunately this question has become highly politicised and anyone arguing that we ought to be weaning ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels is considered to be a dangerous radical intent on wrecking western civilisation. We all know we should be weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. It is the speed and urgency that is in question and even worse the lies that are spread as regards making us compliant. That is not ignoring preventable evils because the destruction of our economy in the name of AGW is very much a preventable evil. |
|
