|
Radbot posted:Here's the survey that contradicts you, by the way: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/23/most-americans-believe-in-climate-change-but-give-it-low-priority/ Um, the whole narrative of that article is that Americans don't believe it's that big of a deal relative to other threats... you have a very interesting reading of the numbers.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
disheveled posted:Um, the whole narrative of that article is that Americans don't believe it's that big of a deal relative to other threats... you have a very interesting reading of the numbers. Its the 'Climate Change is happening, but we're not causing it' level of denial. quote:Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below — in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
disheveled posted:Um, the whole narrative of that article is that Americans don't believe it's that big of a deal relative to other threats... you have a very interesting reading of the numbers. Please, attempt to get a different reading out of that article than "48% of Americans believe global warming is a major issue" and "the vast majority of Americans believe in climate change". Let me know how it works out for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Please, attempt to get a different reading out of that article than "48% of Americans believe global warming is a major issue" and "the vast majority of Americans believe in climate change". Let me know how it works out for you. I was under the impression that you were trying to suggest that statistic was meaningful. If not, I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I was under the impression that you were trying to suggest that statistic was meaningful. If not, I apologize. I assume it passed a statistical significance test, unless you've got data to suggest otherwise. Otherwise, your opinion has been noted, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Please, attempt to get a different reading out of that article than "48% of Americans believe global warming is a major issue" and "the vast majority of Americans believe in climate change". Let me know how it works out for you. I think I can see how someone might not get that reading....
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I assume it passed a statistical significance test, unless you've got data to suggest otherwise. Otherwise, your opinion has been noted, thank you.  I didn't think I was being that unclear, but I'll rephrase the first post you quoted. If Americans rank the problem below many other problems, it doesn't matter what the absolute number of people who answer yes to a yes/no question is. Also, you don't know what statistical significance is.Trabisnikof posted:I think I can see how someone might not get that reading.... Two different things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
disheveled posted:The idea that there has been no movement on the issue because of deniers is laughable. Because most people don't understand the severity of the problem, though? That makes sense. If people were sufficiently loud and angry, then there would actually be some push against the economic and political incentives that are preventing any meaningful policy changes. Half-heartedly supporting "green initiatives" is more than enough to satisfy voters. Disinformation is a problem, but we've painted ourselves into a corner as far as our dependence fossil fuels are concerned. It's not like we can quit cold turkey, even if the economy wasn't riding on it, despite the obvious need for such drastic measures. How many of us would starve to death within weeks without it? I'm going to hazard a guess - it's all of us. We're so addicted that even if there were the political will to enact change, we're probably so short on time to actually mitigate damage, that we'd effectively be slapping a band-aid on a severed leg. And to get that political will in the first place? Even if 100% of the population was convinced climate change is an apocalyptic problem, I don't believe we'd see change, since you still have to beat the fossil fuel industry at a fun game called "They have all the money". Frankly, the idea that there's still time to do something about it is wishful thinking. We haven't eliminated the biggest problem - those that stand to profit from maintaining the status quo. Nothing will change until that does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think I can see how someone might not get that reading.... Read the article and look at the two metrics that are posted above the fold, you loving moron. disheveled posted:
I assure you I know what statistical significance is. Just let me know what population you have and what CI and MoE you need and I'll calculate a sample for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Disinformation is a problem, but we've painted ourselves into a corner as far as our dependence fossil fuels are concerned. It's not like we can quit cold turkey, even if the economy wasn't riding on it, despite the obvious need for such drastic measures. How many of us would starve to death within weeks without it? I'm going to hazard a guess - it's all of us. We're so addicted that even if there were the political will to enact change, we're probably so short on time to actually mitigate damage, that we'd effectively be slapping a band-aid on a severed leg. And to get that political will in the first place? Even if 100% of the population was convinced climate change is an apocalyptic problem, I don't believe we'd see change, since you still have to beat the fossil fuel industry at a fun game called "They have all the money". It really does feel like an insurmountable problem. So... how many years until we're living in some version of Mad Max or The Road?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Frankly, the idea that there's still time to do something about it is wishful thinking. We haven't eliminated the biggest problem - those that stand to profit from maintaining the status quo. Nothing will change until that does. And yet people say pointing to capitalism as a part of the problem are misguided.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Would another economic system solve the problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Would another economic system solve the problem? We better not try and take any action until after we replace Capitalism, just to be safe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
tmfool posted:It really does feel like an insurmountable problem. So... how many years until we're living in some version of Mad Max or The Road? Less than 100, but it's hard to guess for sure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Would another economic system solve the problem? Well, the one we have actively works against solving the problem, so I don't know about you, but that's kind of a red flag for me. Better alternatives include: Almost anything. There's no (immediate*) profit in lowering/eliminating emissions, or any other positive changes that could be made, so capitalism will inherently "ignore" the problem. And by ignore I mean spend billions on anti-climate change lobbying, exacerbating the problem. *The hidden profit from mitigating climate change is the large number of people that perhaps wouldn't be... you know... dead as a result of climate change. Therefore they are able to continue to buy goods and services. Only this quarter's bottom line matters though, so 7 billion dead people in 2096 means jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Av027 posted:Only this quarter's bottom line matters though, so 7 billion dead people in 2096 means jack poo poo. That's really where the problem lies and it's one that's tied to the human condition and our origins as tribal hunter-gatherers, not capitalism in particular. It's the notion that resources (including money) are scarce and must be competed for and hoarded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Would another economic system solve the problem? Only another economic system can solve the problem. Slightly different formulation. But no, an economic system constituting of the continued accumulation of capital through the production and sale of commodities cannot solve the problem of global warming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also, I don't think the scientific consensus is as nearly as apocalyptic as many extrapolate from it. I think you'd be surprised. My last job had me working on code for weather telemetry and I had fairly regular dealings with atmospheric physicist dudes (More of a focus around fire prevention) and my sister worked for the CSIRO in ground water modeling around climate change (she's out now, and workign govt policy stuff). All of whom pretty much where of the opinion that we're basically hosed whatever we do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Would another economic system solve the problem? How do you prevent fossil fuels being consumed while its still hugely profitable within a Capitalist system?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:That's really where the problem lies and it's one that's tied to the human condition and our origins as tribal hunter-gatherers, not capitalism in particular. It's the notion that resources (including money) are scarce and must be competed for and hoarded. Resources, not including money, are indeed scarce in many situations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Resources, not including money, are indeed scarce in many situations. No poo poo, Sherlock. Is competing for them and hoarding them the best way to benefit human society?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
bpower posted:How do you prevent fossil fuels being consumed while its still hugely profitable within a Capitalist system? I guess my issue is that consuming resources that are immediately available in order to gain more immediate comfort seems like a human nature thing and less like just a "capitalism" thing. Like, if humans lived for 1000 years I could see a venture capitalist going "It is not rational for me to extract this oil, because it will harm me while I still expect to be around to experience life. So I will invest in alternatives." But since the alternatives may not be able to ensure the same quality of life, and because human life-span is only around a century, we ignore matters that may harm future generations. It would be unfortunate if I'm right, because while overhauling the economic system is incredibly complicated and failure-prone, changing human nature would basically be impossible with the time we've got left. So I guess our only hope is economic change, and see if human behavior is radically altered through this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:42
|
|
bpower posted:How do you prevent fossil fuels being consumed while its still hugely profitable within a Capitalist system? Attach a cost to the externalities? What's so bad about a Carbon tax.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Attach a cost to the externalities? What's so bad about a Carbon tax. The fact that it requires political power
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:08
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:The fact that it requires political power So? That doesn't mean that capitalism and a carbon tax are incompatible. You want to know how to reduce the profitability of fossil fuels, it's attaching taxes and removing the existing tax breaks.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Capitalism and ideological political power are incompatible. It's the power of individuals motivated by personal profit competing against the interest of the greater whole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Resources, not including money, are indeed scarce in many situations. Man so few people realize how precarious a situation we're really in when it comes to simple things like iron or copper. Like, if some cataclysmic event came along that knocked industrial civlization right out for a generation or two, it's now quite impossible for the survivors to build themselves back up to our current level of technological progress. We've quite effectively pulled up the ladder behind us, when it comes to exploitable resource deposits. You'd think that rate of resource depletion would be a greater concern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
We almost had this climate change problem licked until Naomi Klein and those drat kids foiled everything
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Ccs posted:I guess my issue is that consuming resources that are immediately available in order to gain more immediate comfort seems like a human nature thing and less like just a "capitalism" thing. Like, if humans lived for 1000 years I could see a venture capitalist going "It is not rational for me to extract this oil, because it will harm me while I still expect to be around to experience life. So I will invest in alternatives." But since the alternatives may not be able to ensure the same quality of life, and because human life-span is only around a century, we ignore matters that may harm future generations. People are capable of the sort of long term planning required, it's just selected against by market forces. The first example that comes to mind is planting forests to be harvested generations down the line. http://www.longfinance.net/groups7/viewbulletin/35-maintenance-planning-over-millennia-or-how-to-cash-in-a-forest.html?groupid=4 quote:About 100 years ago the college authorities found that the 500 year old roof beams were infested with beetles and needed replacing. They called in the College Forester and asked this worthy if there were any suitable oak trees on the rather extensive college-owned lands. His reply is supposed to have been “well sirs, we was wondering when you’d be asking.” Upon further inquiry it was discovered that when the college was founded, a grove of oaks had been planted specifically to replace the beams in the dining hall when this eventually became necessary. Successive generations of foresters had passed on the knowledge that one day the college would come knocking for wood. SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:We almost had this climate change problem licked until Naomi Klein and those drat kids foiled everything
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Meh, those are small potatoes. I give Americans a lot of credit for being worried about something that they can't yet perceive themselves - that 48% number has grown steadily over time. Don't you worry your little head about that 2%, we'll be there soon. I think a better question to ask is "how much" americans believe in climate change. do they believe in it enough to make sacrifices to their daily lives? Do they believe in it to the point that they're willing to accept their children having a much more difficult time finding jobs? and its not like climate change is a digital hosed/NOT hosed switch. even if catastrophic climate change is inevitable there is still the possibility of mitigation. Av027 posted:Frankly, the idea that there's still time to do something about it is wishful thinking. We haven't eliminated the biggest problem - those that stand to profit from maintaining the status quo. Nothing will change until that does. Like, do yall not see why these two beliefs are super harmful together? if I honestly believed that the opinion of the voting public cannot affect policy on climate change and that it will result in an "extinction event" then why bother doing any work to try to mitigate the impact? might as well enjoy the time i have left and not have kids. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I think a better question to ask is "how much" americans believe in climate change. I think that they have the will provided they have someone to tell them what to do. The biggest problem is that ordinary people don't know what actions to take. You have people in this very thread telling others that driving less or installing solar panels is going to do nothing to fix the problem. For regular people there is literally no solution. Its really a problem looking for a leader. From an American perspective the issue is that our leaders aren't independent of business in a way that allows for us to be lead out of peril.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
also it is laughable beyond belief to point out the problem of gathering political will to enact reform and then conclude that capitalism is the problem. Yall cannot possibly be idiotic enough to believe that replacing Capitalism is a more acheivable goal than a carbon tax
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:also it is laughable beyond belief to point out the problem of gathering political will to enact reform and then conclude that capitalism is the problem. You can actually believe both. Hell, it really only makes sense to, unless you believe market forces have nothing to do public opinion which is pretty Which is why we're hosed. Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:The latter significantly affects the former. Capitalism, at least how it's largely practiced today (neo-liberalism) is obviously a significant driver in climate change, and of course is a roadblock in the political process to seriously combat it, in at least to help mitigate the most damaging effects in the short time we have to do so. ok now read the second line of my post. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
It's possible to advocate both for reforms and replacing capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:and its not like climate change is a digital hosed/NOT hosed switch. even if catastrophic climate change is inevitable there is still the possibility of mitigation. Actually, it kind of is. Behold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback Effectively, there is a breaking point that we're either teetering on, or have already gone over that results in runaway global warming. You can literally pass that point of no return, quit fossil fuel use cold turkey the next day, and without some sort of miraculous geo engineering effort, you're straight hosed, period. A big flaming stink posted:Like, do yall not see why these two beliefs are super harmful together? if I honestly believed that the opinion of the voting public cannot affect policy on climate change and that it will result in an "extinction event" then why bother doing any work to try to mitigate the impact? might as well enjoy the time i have left and not have kids. The voting public cannot affect policy when there is billions of dollars (nearly unlimited funds, truth be told) in opposition. It's moneyed interests that get politicians elected, and don't kid yourself, in the US both major parties are one and the same (minus particular brands of crazy). Politicians that do not toe the line simply won't be re-elected, and someone that will replaces them. Money=legislation is what it boils down to. So, what do we need to do? Remove the actual problem. In a sense, that's money dictating policy, but Capitalism in general drives us to that - it is the root cause. Those with more money dictate policy, thus creating more favorable conditions for themselves, which makes them even more money, and the problem perpetuates itself. A byproduct of this is the anti-climate change lobby, through which we all suffer in the end. But don't worry, the assholes with all of the money are enjoying the time they have left on their million dollar yachts, and their financial security even allows them to have children without worry. To me, if we cannot topple Capitalism and make changes for the good of all, yes, we're hosed. The question is how do you go about it when almost every aspect of our political system works for Capitalism, and what's left they're trying to do away with (Social Security, minimum wage (such as it is), the EPA, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So people overestimating the problem is causing people to underestimate the problem? Just want to make sure I'm tracking with you here. What's your proposed solution, and what sort of misinformation do you think lies between believing CC is real and policy action? People absolutely shut things out that seem too catastrophic to handle, also people are less likely to believe you if you make claims that turn out false. That people are clamoring for evidence for these very obvious things is pretty goddamn spergy. Radbot posted:I assume it passed a statistical significance test, unless you've got data to suggest otherwise. Otherwise, your opinion has been noted, thank you.  e: I mean I'm not even sure why you would you are even talking about signficance testing, but assuming your point was a majority of americans believe the thing you are talking about, no a point estimate of .48 would not lead to that test being significant. tsa fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
And what's your proposed solution? Otherwise you're just one more of about a dozen concern trolls that regularly participate in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Its funny how many people who claim to support climate action are also smugly posting that it is impossible to ever adapt/mitigate. If your starting point for addressing climate change involves reorganizing the world's economy first, you're effectively saying it is impossible. Climate change can't wait for the global socialist revolution for us to address it. Av027 posted:Actually, it kind of is. Behold: A lot of people claimed 350 ppm was that tipping point. Also, that wikipedia article doesn't really prove that there is a tipping point we're approaching.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:41
|
|