Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

I think it comes from several directions. Judging from all I've seen, it seems to be:

1.) Industry does not want to have to lower carbon emissions, because it feels that it would harm profits too much. It wants to do as much as it can to avoid those costs, so it encourages and funds "research" for the purpose of disproving climate change.

2.) Political conservatives in the US have a very strong individualistic streak, but the solutions to climate change involve increased regulation and collective action. This cuts to the core of their worldview of how things should be. In addition, they are at their core Calvinistic (even though they are mostly not part of the Reformed church), and believe that hard work and working as much as you can is God's path. They see the development of carbon-emitting industries as arising from that hard work. Since it arises from hard work, which they see as following God's path, then it should only ever produce good fruits, and never bad fruits. So to them, therefore, global warming must either not be caused by human activity or it must have only beneficial effects. They must believe.

3.) The science that goes into studying climate change is complex, and it requires years of education to be able to fully understand. This makes it easy for people to cherrypick data and make it look like it's saying the opposite of what the climatologists are saying, which of course can happen in any field. But in this case, these people are being encouraged and enabled by the people in the first 2 categories I mentioned. And of course, these people like to think of themselves as smarter than those stupid or dishonest scientists and dislike being told they have gaps in their knowledge.

So that's how not trashing the planet can be so controversial. It sucks, I know.

I think it may be informative to read about pseudoskepticism:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... tops.12179

In addition, there can be ethical concerns when you make decisions via motivated reasoning, and here is the first of 2 examples quoted by the study (the examples originating from an 1887 paper):



And the author of the study ties it to climate change pseudoskeptics:



The second example is here:



And the author's tie of it to the climate change pseudoskeptics:

I doubt anyone has a problem with that.

The controversy lies in what is seen as scare tactics to push a socio-economic political agenda.

More bullying

Good examples of unreliable reporting.

Actually, they did. I remember the '70s. Predictions of an imminent ice age were a popular topic in the news for quite some time. However there was one crucial difference: media/news back then wasn't the round the clock in your face repetitious assault that it is today. Maybe a newspaper in the morning, the headlines on the radio during your lunch hour and Walter Cronkite in the evening.

It was something that the news media trumpeted, but in scientific papers a lot more uncertainty was expressed. By the mid-1970s, the scientific papers were arguing that with the information they had at the time, they could not satisfactorily predict where the climate was headed, and by the end of the 70s it was becoming clear that CO2 was the dominant forcing. Again, I refer you to my source:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ling-myth/

And it's gotten exponentially worse since that was made 12 years ago.

Last edited by EzraS on 02 Jan 2020, 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

A UFO,
From a very small planet?

i never have understood WTF is so controversial about not wanting to trash the planet's economy and standard of living just to service virtue-signalling.

When you say: "high level of consensus",
What are you refering to?
The 97% figure?



So you would agree that Al Gore was not in any position to give advice in regards to climate change predictions,
And if he used "Informed Advice", that source got it wrong?

Crickets? Do I hear crickets?

I think it may be informative to understand that the Climate Change movement has all of the trappings of a cult. And, like any other cult, its brainwashed members engage in a mind boggling array of mental gymnastics in a vain attempt at rationalizing and justifying their own internal cognitive dissonance. Reason, facts and logic need not apply... in fact these things are the very antithesis of their worldview. Any evidence contradictory to their dogma is never critically examined as doing so may irrevocably expose the fraudulent nature of their chosen beliefs.
Those providing arguments and evidence contradictory to cult dogma are considered heretics who must must be shouted down at all costs. Ad hominem, obfuscation, misdirection, psuedointellectual verbosity, fixation on irrelevant minutiae, baldfaced lies and other dishonest tactics are considered to be not only acceptable but necessary methods to used against the 'deniers' - because, well, they *are* heretics after all.

We wouldn't want to let a little reality get in the way of a good story now would we?

Well surprise, surprise, surprise!
When the facts don't fit the CAGW narrative what do you do?
Well, you erase evidence of the lie and pretend it never happened. What else would you expect?

NPS officials at Glacier National Park have quietly removed the 'Glaciers Gone by 2020' signs:

Greta said it, I believe it, that settles it.