News2 mins ago
Why Is "climate Change" Discussed In The Same Way As A Theist/atheist Might Argue About The Existence Of God?
Recently the language of the "debate" on climate change has struck me as quite absurd.
This morning on the BBC they had two commentators, one from each "side" and they argued about the idea of climate change, whether it existed...
... but it doesn't matter!
They argued about how it doesn't matter what we do because if we stripped back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 emissions, that "saving" would be wiped out in one year at China's current growth rate.
It doesn't matter if we're only 2% of all emissions in the world, or 20%!
Because:
Flooding and rising sea levels are bad - I'm not sure that I need to explain why this week!
High level of what gets called "carbon emissions" in the air decreases air quality and "bad air" is linked to a variety of respiratory problems and, of course, cancer.
Droughts in summer are damaging to us, it damages crops, and if it ever extends further than summer, we start getting worries about running out of water stores...
It doesn't matter if climate change exists - because these other things do, and we can attempt to deal with them, instead of arguing about whether something we cannot observe accurately exists at all or whether it's our fault!
I don't know if it's the fundamentalist Christian arguments form the US leaking into their political debate, and then into our (god killed the dinosaurs to make your car go).
Or whether it's the apocalyptic language of lefty activists who don't understand the science but do understand the power of a good doomsday scenario to whip up a bit of media throth...
... Anyway, I wondered if you're as tired as I am of the "debate" about climate change? Or wish they could change the tone of it from whether it exists at all, to something more useful - like how to ensure, whatever happens, that we don't get ruined by extreme weather in the future!
This morning on the BBC they had two commentators, one from each "side" and they argued about the idea of climate change, whether it existed...
... but it doesn't matter!
They argued about how it doesn't matter what we do because if we stripped back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 emissions, that "saving" would be wiped out in one year at China's current growth rate.
It doesn't matter if we're only 2% of all emissions in the world, or 20%!
Because:
Flooding and rising sea levels are bad - I'm not sure that I need to explain why this week!
High level of what gets called "carbon emissions" in the air decreases air quality and "bad air" is linked to a variety of respiratory problems and, of course, cancer.
Droughts in summer are damaging to us, it damages crops, and if it ever extends further than summer, we start getting worries about running out of water stores...
It doesn't matter if climate change exists - because these other things do, and we can attempt to deal with them, instead of arguing about whether something we cannot observe accurately exists at all or whether it's our fault!
I don't know if it's the fundamentalist Christian arguments form the US leaking into their political debate, and then into our (god killed the dinosaurs to make your car go).
Or whether it's the apocalyptic language of lefty activists who don't understand the science but do understand the power of a good doomsday scenario to whip up a bit of media throth...
... Anyway, I wondered if you're as tired as I am of the "debate" about climate change? Or wish they could change the tone of it from whether it exists at all, to something more useful - like how to ensure, whatever happens, that we don't get ruined by extreme weather in the future!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It would seem to that common sense would dictate that some kind of global warming is taking place. The reduction in the glaciers and the ozone layer can't be ignored. I listened to the debate this morning on the Today Program and I would question what on earth Nigel Lawson knows about any scientific subject !
I am also curious why people who support the theory of climate change are referred to as "lefties" ?
I am also curious why people who support the theory of climate change are referred to as "lefties" ?
It is a bit liking watching the ongoing debate between "The Peoples Front of Judea" and "The Judean Peoples Front" :)
Both side acknowledge that climate change is occurring; The principal point of difference which is causing the contention is the degree to which human activity contributes to the process ( Anthropogenic Global Warming).
If AGW is real and a significant contributor to the process, then to combat the effects a major shift in the way power and resources are used is required; This will have cost implications for the developed world, and no one in the developed world likes that idea at all, whereas for the developing world, such an attempt to combat AGW would mean that the cheap route to development taken by the developed world is no longer available to them, and no one in the developing world likes that idea either.
So you end up with the debate being lead off into sterile avenues, and very little being done, while those in power secretly cross their fingers behind their backs and hope like hell that nuclear fusion has a breakthrough and soon.
Both side acknowledge that climate change is occurring; The principal point of difference which is causing the contention is the degree to which human activity contributes to the process ( Anthropogenic Global Warming).
If AGW is real and a significant contributor to the process, then to combat the effects a major shift in the way power and resources are used is required; This will have cost implications for the developed world, and no one in the developed world likes that idea at all, whereas for the developing world, such an attempt to combat AGW would mean that the cheap route to development taken by the developed world is no longer available to them, and no one in the developing world likes that idea either.
So you end up with the debate being lead off into sterile avenues, and very little being done, while those in power secretly cross their fingers behind their backs and hope like hell that nuclear fusion has a breakthrough and soon.
Perhaps it's partly because, more than any other Scientific topic, this one genuinely has the potential to impact on almost every aspect of daily life. How we travel, how we work, how we fuel our homes... and perhaps most critically, how governments conduct foreign policy. If Climate Change were an interesting problem in, say, theoretical chemistry then the debate would be combined to professional circles (and would still get very heated!) and no-one would care. But it's not, and because everyone is affected in a substantial way then everyone feels a need to weigh in.
I am willing to entertain the notion of Climate Change in terms of the potential impact of human activity, but I am unwilling to accept that this is the sole reason.
Climate Change has existed since the planet evolved, and always will continue. Samuel Pepys skated on the Thames, and it was only forty years ago that doom mongers were predicting a new Ice Age - where did that argument go!
What I fond loathesome is the lentil-steaming yogurt knitters who blather on about 'my carbon footprint'. As long as China is building coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a week, I am not going to consider my 'carbon
footprint' - even typing that namby pamby phrase makes me cross!
There will neve be a sensible approach to limiting carbon emmissions until it becomes ecconomically attractive to do so - money rules, always has, and always will - pretty much like climate change!
Climate Change has existed since the planet evolved, and always will continue. Samuel Pepys skated on the Thames, and it was only forty years ago that doom mongers were predicting a new Ice Age - where did that argument go!
What I fond loathesome is the lentil-steaming yogurt knitters who blather on about 'my carbon footprint'. As long as China is building coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a week, I am not going to consider my 'carbon
footprint' - even typing that namby pamby phrase makes me cross!
There will neve be a sensible approach to limiting carbon emmissions until it becomes ecconomically attractive to do so - money rules, always has, and always will - pretty much like climate change!
Two fundamentals.... does climate change exist, yes it always has and has shaped the globe. Does Anthropogenic Global Warming exist maybe...maybe not; it will only be proven through the demise of the planet and life as we know it.
Problem is that its becoming impossible to have the rational debate these days because too many people have forgotten to ask why. AGW is still a hypothesis yet people are taking it as gospel because it's been force fed on us now for going on 20 years by governments using it to raise taxes, by the IPCC to maintain their existence and the media because it's easy journalism. Is AGW real: perhaps but those people questioning it should not be pilloried for their views the way they are.
When I was still in education, lo those many years ago I was told the fundamental job of a scientist is to keep asking why....too many people have stopped doing that. Science is the new religious fundamentalism!!
Problem is that its becoming impossible to have the rational debate these days because too many people have forgotten to ask why. AGW is still a hypothesis yet people are taking it as gospel because it's been force fed on us now for going on 20 years by governments using it to raise taxes, by the IPCC to maintain their existence and the media because it's easy journalism. Is AGW real: perhaps but those people questioning it should not be pilloried for their views the way they are.
When I was still in education, lo those many years ago I was told the fundamental job of a scientist is to keep asking why....too many people have stopped doing that. Science is the new religious fundamentalism!!
LG: "So you end up with the debate being lead off into sterile avenues, and very little being done, while those in power secretly cross their fingers behind their backs and hope like hell that nuclear fusion has a breakthrough and soon."
That could be it I suppose! Make an effort of appearing to "discuss" and actually do nothing...
"Asimov's First Law of Committees: A committee must not make a decision or, through inactivity, allow a decision to be made."
Jim: "Perhaps it's partly because, more than any other Scientific topic, this one genuinely has the potential to impact on almost every aspect of daily life."
I don't know if that accounts for the language of it though? Unless you mean that by everyone "having their say" this allows for the language to creep into the "denial" area, which triggers people on the "AGW" side to start jumping up and down about it existing? This is where the distractions begin?
Mikey: I don't know if you're performing a satire when you ask the distracting and sterilizing question of: "I am also curious why people who support the theory of climate change are referred to as "lefties"?" ? Are you doing a performance piece in which you want to distract a debate into an area where no one wins and no one is right (which, ironically, is what the subject of the OP is!). If so, I'll call the Tate :)
That could be it I suppose! Make an effort of appearing to "discuss" and actually do nothing...
"Asimov's First Law of Committees: A committee must not make a decision or, through inactivity, allow a decision to be made."
Jim: "Perhaps it's partly because, more than any other Scientific topic, this one genuinely has the potential to impact on almost every aspect of daily life."
I don't know if that accounts for the language of it though? Unless you mean that by everyone "having their say" this allows for the language to creep into the "denial" area, which triggers people on the "AGW" side to start jumping up and down about it existing? This is where the distractions begin?
Mikey: I don't know if you're performing a satire when you ask the distracting and sterilizing question of: "I am also curious why people who support the theory of climate change are referred to as "lefties"?" ? Are you doing a performance piece in which you want to distract a debate into an area where no one wins and no one is right (which, ironically, is what the subject of the OP is!). If so, I'll call the Tate :)
The world contains God deniers, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, moon landing deniers, and MMR deniers. Quite regardless of whether these concepts are true or not, the obsessive deniers are suffering from a form of OCD. Years ago, we would have put them in long stay mental hospitals and allowed them to work out their anger on basket weaving. Now the basket cases spend their time on internet forums and chat shows.
I think Andy in particular and slapshot are missing something about the model being used. The simple picture is that of a bath with a tap putting water in, and a plughole letting water out again. If the two rates are in balance then the water level remains about the same. On the other hand, someone throwing a bucket of water into the mix and the level rises -- or, simply, adding a new tap, with a slower rate. (or even drilling a new hole). In both cases the delicate balance is disturbed.
The human contribution to Climate Change is that small tap. It's clear and obvious that our contribution will make a difference, even if on the face of it our emissions are dwarfed by those of, saying, rotting plant life in lakes and rivers, or volcanic emissions. Those were always there, and formed a background. The human signal on top of that is strong, clear, and evidently dangerous.
When you add to the mix of CO2 emissions, the extra contributions of methane (principally from livestock), and CFCs, which are entirely artificial, there should be no room for doubt that human activity is going to impact the planet. The remaining question is no longer "if" human activity is making a difference, but what that difference is going to be.
The human contribution to Climate Change is that small tap. It's clear and obvious that our contribution will make a difference, even if on the face of it our emissions are dwarfed by those of, saying, rotting plant life in lakes and rivers, or volcanic emissions. Those were always there, and formed a background. The human signal on top of that is strong, clear, and evidently dangerous.
When you add to the mix of CO2 emissions, the extra contributions of methane (principally from livestock), and CFCs, which are entirely artificial, there should be no room for doubt that human activity is going to impact the planet. The remaining question is no longer "if" human activity is making a difference, but what that difference is going to be.
Ed...you used the phrase "lefties", not me. I was just wondering why people who support the theory of climate change are referred in that way. Not sure why this wasn't a legitimate question to ask ?
Also, not sure why you thought sarcasm was the correct response to a debate that you started. Am I not entitled to make my point ?
Also, not sure why you thought sarcasm was the correct response to a debate that you started. Am I not entitled to make my point ?
Mikey, if I thought you weren't entitled to make your point, I would ban you. It's part of the job description. I am not sure why you don't understand the point that was made, but I am not going to spend time derailing my own thread to go into it. Just know that no offense was meant and no slur intended.
Andy, when you talk about the "carbon footprint" concept I can't help but agree. Talking about your carbon footprint is futile in the grand scheme of things and applies a sense of self-importance to the witterer. It's a different argument though - and not one I would make. My point is that, just as others have, you've focused on the exists/doesn't exists element instead of the pragmatic issue...
Why isn't the conversation about "what are we going to do about increasingly hostile environmental factors over the next 10 years?"
... and why can't I hear that on the radio on the way to work rather than two people saying "It exists!"/"It doesn't exist!" :)
Andy, when you talk about the "carbon footprint" concept I can't help but agree. Talking about your carbon footprint is futile in the grand scheme of things and applies a sense of self-importance to the witterer. It's a different argument though - and not one I would make. My point is that, just as others have, you've focused on the exists/doesn't exists element instead of the pragmatic issue...
Why isn't the conversation about "what are we going to do about increasingly hostile environmental factors over the next 10 years?"
... and why can't I hear that on the radio on the way to work rather than two people saying "It exists!"/"It doesn't exist!" :)
The debate is about what we should do (about flooding, pollution etc).
If you believe they are 'Acts of God' then surely you do not want to waste money betting against God. You should continue to waste energy because the emissions from you big car, and the extra energy you need because your uninsulated roof, are not the problem, God is. That is handy because if you do not want to use less resources personally, you can just blame God.
If you believe the changes in the weather are man made, you can modify your own behaviour to try and help. And Governments who believe they are man made can spend vast amounts of money to encourage you to use less (they recoup some of that money in extra taxes).
The Governments like the extra taxes, but the public doesn't. When a green tax becomes too unpopular, the Government will give in easily, they can just invent a new one later.
I wonder how many people by the Thames were happy when their fuel bills went down £50 because the green taxes were removed?
If you believe they are 'Acts of God' then surely you do not want to waste money betting against God. You should continue to waste energy because the emissions from you big car, and the extra energy you need because your uninsulated roof, are not the problem, God is. That is handy because if you do not want to use less resources personally, you can just blame God.
If you believe the changes in the weather are man made, you can modify your own behaviour to try and help. And Governments who believe they are man made can spend vast amounts of money to encourage you to use less (they recoup some of that money in extra taxes).
The Governments like the extra taxes, but the public doesn't. When a green tax becomes too unpopular, the Government will give in easily, they can just invent a new one later.
I wonder how many people by the Thames were happy when their fuel bills went down £50 because the green taxes were removed?
-- answer removed --
It's clear global warming is happening, as to it's cause we dont actually know. the world does change and I have made this point before but got lambasted by the likes of Jake (there's your lefty).
We need to accept the world does, and is changing and deal with it. As an aside I see no reason for not reducing our energy consumption and our reliance on fossil fuels. I am asthmatic and would love a cleaner planet but I dont think taxing people to the hilt with no credible alternative is the way to do it.
BTW Gromit, how does removing the green taxes affect those on the Thames?
We need to accept the world does, and is changing and deal with it. As an aside I see no reason for not reducing our energy consumption and our reliance on fossil fuels. I am asthmatic and would love a cleaner planet but I dont think taxing people to the hilt with no credible alternative is the way to do it.
BTW Gromit, how does removing the green taxes affect those on the Thames?
Whether we are going throuogh climate change or not, whether we have affected the planet with our doings or not are really irrelevant.
The big problem touched on slightly by ymb is that we currently have no viable alternative to fosil fuel energy.
Yes lets hope cold, workable fussion is just around the corner, but what else is there? Are the big energy companies researching other forms of energy? I dont know but they should be we've probably only got about 50-100 years of fosil fuels left.
Then what?
The big problem touched on slightly by ymb is that we currently have no viable alternative to fosil fuel energy.
Yes lets hope cold, workable fussion is just around the corner, but what else is there? Are the big energy companies researching other forms of energy? I dont know but they should be we've probably only got about 50-100 years of fosil fuels left.
Then what?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.