Earth Hour

[simonpro]

It's amazing how many people will listen to politics over science. Escpecially considering many of those listening to the politics have previosly complained about politicians being shifty bastard.:blink:

 

[Andy44]

The correct term is "mostly BS, with a little truth thrown in".

 

[fresh squid]

It's amazing how many people will listen to politics over science. Escpecially considering many of those listening to the politics have previosly complained about politicians being shifty bastard.:blink:

I'm sorry but you lost me on this one.
Your post relates to what?:blink:

 

[simonpro]

Sorry if I lost you, just a little humor on my part.
And there should (judging byy who has posted ehre so far) be one or two people who know what I mean. If not then no loss, I'll think of anothe rretort when I get some more ammunition from you guys

 

[n0mad23]

I think that's why "climate change" is the preferred terminology

And "Heavy Weather" just gets rid of the ambiguity all together!

 

[RAF92_Moser]

I wonder what climate change is going to trigger this year's natural disaster.


I bet the flooding here is caused by Gary Steel Works....and so was the drought two years ago.

 

[Andy44]

I assume you are talking to me, Simonpro?

I am just a skeptic, is all. Especially because every time there is a bad weather event a bunch of idiots say it's because of "global warming". The best is when they say "global warming" makes the weather "more chaotic". Translated loosely as "I need a way to combine my anti-corporate politics with my dismay at failing to predict the storm that ruined my ski trip to Aspen on a carbon-blasting 777".

Come on, sometimes it just rains. If you could accurately predict the weather, you'd be rich enough to buy your own carbon-blasting Cessna Citation.

 

[simonpro]

Well that's the problem. There are so many nuts out there (on both sides of the debate) that objectivity has long since vanished from all public debate.
Some of those (especially that pain in the ass Gore) on the "pro" side seem to think that any disaster at all is the fault of global warming.
Some of those on the 'anti' side jump on the scientific process and then use it as evidence that global warming doesn't actually exist (they normally forget the word anthropogenic too).


Excuse me if this goes off on a bit of a tangent, but I have noticed something.
The vast majority of those who don't accept the AGW theory (i.e: that humans are having some kind of measurable influence on climate, regardless of size) seem to come from either the USA or the UK. I know of no-one in any other part of Europe* who doesn't at least partially accept AGW. Conversely I know plenty in both the UK and USA who tend to think that AGW is the antichrist.
There's probably a very good reason for this, but I'll be damned if I can think what it is.



*Henrik Svensmark excluded, as he's a nutjob who tends to short circuit scientific method in order for his data to match his preconceived ideas; and he is also protesting mainly because he likes being on the news, rather than any actual real objection to teh AGW principle.

 

[tblaxland]

My experience here with the community reaction to AGW is that people like the idea that they can have an influence on the climate - it means they can have a positive impact as well as a negative one. A lot of people are running around patting each other the back because they have saved X tons of CO2 emissions by installing fluoro lights, or saved X litres of town water by installing a rainwater tank. In a weird way it is creating a sense of community where there was none before. Having said that, I predict this sort of goodwill will slow down a bit now that higher inflation and interest rates are starting to bite.

 

[Andy44]

The vast majority of those who don't accept the AGW theory (i.e: that humans are having some kind of measurable influence on climate, regardless of size) seem to come from either the USA or the UK. I know of no-one in any other part of Europe* who doesn't at least partially accept AGW. Conversely I know plenty in both the UK and USA who tend to think that AGW is the antichrist.
There's probably a very good reason for this, but I'll be damned if I can think what it is.

Well, I don't think it's so difficult to come up with some reasonable speculation. For starters, the U.S. and U.K. tend to have traditions of private property rights, and almost every scheme concocted for stopping or slowing GW (not just AGW) involves infringing on those rights. More taxes, more bans, more regulations on how to build/alter/decorate/ heat/live in your house or business.

Reinforcing these suspicions is the fact that most of the eco-activists in the public eye are leftists, college students or "scientists" with beards, wire-rim glasses, who wear Birkenstocks and eat lots of granola bars, and from whom every other sentence they speak is some sort of whining about "corporations" and "capitalism" destroying the world, blah blah blah.

This screams socialism, if not plain old communism, and most Americans and Brits are not cool with that.

Case in point: The American Green Party platform, which you might expect to be concerned with environmentalism, is in fact a straight-up socialist screed that calls for, among other things, nationalization of large corporations, and absolute salary caps. Their primary rock star candidate has been Ralph Nader, who has to rank up there with the greatest crackpots of the modern day. I have never heard the man speak about the environment; he speaks only of evil corporations.

So in the U.S., environmentalism, especially the radical kind, is really just a thin veil for socialism.

 

[n0mad23]

Well, I don't think it's so difficult to come up with some reasonable speculation. For starters, the U.S. and U.K. tend to have traditions of private property rights, and almost every scheme concocted for stopping or slowing GW (not just AGW) involves infringing on those rights. More taxes, more bans, more regulations on how to build/alter/decorate/ heat/live in your house or business.

Reinforcing these suspicions is the fact that most of the eco-activists in the public eye are leftists, college students or "scientists" with beards, wire-rim glasses, who wear Birkenstocks and eat lots of granola bars, and from whom every other sentence they speak is some sort of whining about "corporations" and "capitalism" destroying the world, blah blah blah.

This screams socialism, if not plain old communism, and most Americans and Brits are not cool with that.

Case in point: The American Green Party platform, which you might expect to be concerned with environmentalism, is in fact a straight-up socialist screed that calls for, among other things, nationalization of large corporations, and absolute salary caps. Their primary rock star candidate has been Ralph Nader, who has to rank up there with the greatest crackpots of the modern day. I have never heard the man speak about the environment; he speaks only of evil corporations.

So in the U.S., environmentalism, especially the radical kind, is really just a thin veil for socialism.

Does this indicate that you think W et al. still have credibility then? This response takes me right back to M6's thread on Capitalism vs. Socialism and my own question - where have either really been tried? Corporatism is not capitalism. Fascism is not socialism.

Don't get me wrong - I think Nader's a wanker, but I'm sure for none of the reasons you do. But who's on the "left" in the U.S. context? Hillary? Obama? Nader's (damn his eyes) is correct here; they're all representing the same limited interests.

Privilege is impossible without denial. Very few will ever walk away from privilege even if it's the right thing to do.

Simonpro -

You've touched on something that's been bothering me for the last several years. We've (the US and UK) have been drifting to a position where "I believe" always trumps the "empirical evidence." And that's not my belief - that's my experience with college kids who think education's the same as customer service.

Following the poll on "global warming" on M6, that's what I really wanted to see - if you say global warming is propaganda, what country are you from?

 

[Andy44]

Does this indicate that you think W et al. still have credibility then?

You are making an assumption.

 

[n0mad23]

You are making an assumption.

Not exactly, but admittedly it was a rather confrontational question. One I also note you didn't bother to answer.

Personally I find the "left" vs. "right" dichotomy to be just another red-herring. Almost everyone I know occupies a blend of both political positions. Why are same sex relationships even an issue in 2008?

But I am rather puzzled about your own position regarding climate change. Is it the eco-activists who are, "leftists, college students or "scientists" with beards, wire-rim glasses, who wear Birkenstocks and eat lots of granola bars," you take issue with? So the tie wearing corporate executives have credibility because they don't look like this? I'm having difficulty reconciling the impression I've gotten from your posts here and M6, as this is pretty darned narrow minded.

I have trouble imagining that it's the science you reject. After all, which credible scientist is still saying that it's nothing more than a natural cycle?

And if it's about hippies "whining" about the corporations, well shouldn't somebody do something more than whine? What good did Enron do you or me? State Farm? Eli-Lilly? I say they should pay their taxes like the rest of America. We're in this together, and we should all pay our dues.



Actually, believe it or not, I have trouble with the 'granolas' too. The last time I took my daughter to the Earth Day celebration she begged to go to, I was totally thrown by the people that were there. Nearly everyone was a pre-twenty five year old white person with the ugliest dreadlocks I've ever seen, and they treated me like I was a right-wing conservative because I didn't look like them.

I really despise that people who consider themselves "right" always categorize me as "left," while meanwhile people on the "left" think I've got to be "right." Meanwhile nobody's watching the chicken-coop and Col. Sander's has let himself in.

 

[Andy44]

Look, nomad, I didn't participate in that thread on M6 because I don't feel like reading giant posts and to be honest I just don't care that much.

Sorry for getting you revved up. Later.

 

[simonpro]

Well, I don't think it's so difficult to come up with some reasonable speculation. For starters, the U.S. and U.K. tend to have traditions of private property rights, and almost every scheme concocted for stopping or slowing GW (not just AGW) involves infringing on those rights. More taxes, more bans, more regulations on how to build/alter/decorate/ heat/live in your house or business.

So in other words people aren't at all interested in the science, but just dont want to see their rights being infringed upon.
Okay, so does that mean (in your opinion) that if the entire "what should we do?" debate was taken away, and we are just left with AGW and what causes it, that many more Americans would begin to realise that it is more than likely a correct theory?

You've touched on something that's been bothering me for the last several years. We've (the US and UK) have been drifting to a position where "I believe" always trumps the "empirical evidence." And that's not my belief - that's my experience with college kids who think education's the same as customer service.

I'll sound like a stuck record, but I blame the media (and al gore) for this. Before Gore jumped on the bandwagon most of the debate was scientific, now it seems more political - much to the frustration of anyone who actually thinks scientific method does a good job

I agree that it is bothersome too, and it's not just AGW. Look at other stuff, the Iraq War, Apollo Programme etc etc. People never seem to want to accept the evidence in front of them, but would rather construct monsterous conspiracy theories based on tenuous pieces of data that are normally misunderstood anyway.

 

[Andy44]

Okay, so does that mean (in your opinion) that if the entire "what should we do?" debate was taken away, and we are just left with AGW and what causes it, that many more Americans would begin to realise that it is more than likely a correct theory?

Right.

The problem with an issue like this is that it's politically charged. You can talk about Einstein's theory of relativity until you're blue in the face, and the average American (or average anyone) will accept it as long as it comes from someone reasonably smart-looking, because whether relativity exists and how it works has very little effect on the daily lives of most people.

But as soon as you start talking about global warming, you are talking about something which seems to demand laws and regulations to be changed, and changing those laws has an immediate, dramatic, and for some people potentially disastrous effect on their lives and livelyhoods. So you cannot just throw some statistics out there along with the names of some "experts" and expect people to roll over and buy it. You've got to prove that GW will have more of a negative consequence than whatever your proposed solutions will.

Other issues that will start an immediate argument and win you enemies real quick might be the theory of when life begins (which may threaten or reinforce abortion laws), research on cloning and genetic engineering, research on racial differences, etc.

It's impossible to discuss any of these without getting mired in the politics that follow. As demonstrated by the preceding posts, you can't even make a smart-assed observation about one of these subjects without getting accused of taking sides, being aligned with some nefarious political persuasion, etc. I try to remain equally skeptical, and also to maintain a sense of humor about it all. Events have seen fit to make a mockery of my idealism long ago, so I might as well laugh at everyone else's.