|
Forever_Peace posted:My point was that we, the liberal-skewing members of SA and followers of the OK, I misunderstood your intent. Sorry. It's not just a Republican problem, though. I think it goes way deeper than that and the fact that this thread was buried is an interesting testament to that. It's actually interesting (and kind of horrifying) to see that the mass human response to the problem mainly consists of denial of its magnitude regardless of whether it's accepted or not.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
So, what is that talking point, exactly? I watched Newt Gingrich live at the GOP convention explain that, to his half of the states, feelings are what really matter. https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/25/john-oliver-theme-republican-convention-was-emphasizing-feelings-over-facts/211865 (I'm not a John Oliver fan -- it's just the only copy I can find in the first few Google result links on the search "Newt Gingrich facts do not matter") I think I've seen what you're referring to, but I kinda just don't get it. Is the point the GOP is trying to make with respect to party alignment and outlook on climate change that, what, "Look at these cattle Democrats?" or "Lol Democrats are dumb and 85% of them believe the overwhelming scientific community's take on climate change, so climate change science is dumb." "Democrats these days....and their ability to (hic) clearly establish factual baselines for discussion. gently caress your baseline, it doesn't exist" ?? schmuckfeatures posted:All else aside, it actually is an interesting case study for how these kinds of discussions become hopelessly polarized. Yeah no kidding  "I am purer than thou" puritanical poo poo's been going on in North America since, well, the Puritans. Not knowing whether you've read about John Winthrop (a Puritan transatlantic expedition leader) and his trouble trying to keep his movement together, it's interesting to see that pretty much any movement can easily break itself apart as squabbling over minor details force people who agree 90% of the time to close their minds to each other. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
I guess my point is that I'm actually surprised that, now that the facts are well and truly in, nobody seems to be talking about it anymore. We're just fiddling while Rome burns. It's like everyone's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic but nobody wants to mention either deck chairs or the Titanic. I find that a bit weird. I dredged the thread up because there were countless other discussions going on and meanwhile nobody talks about the elephant in the living room, while to my mind, that's the first thing we should be talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:My point was that we, the liberal-skewing members of SA and followers of the No it's not. Even in the US, in Democratic Party strongholds, the kind of changes we need to see are not happening at the rate we need to see them. As a notable example, Obama just approved two fossil fuel pipelines. But then, even if we can blame Republican denialism for the lack of meaningful progress on climate change, that has no explanatory power for why the rest of the world is largely twirling its thumbs uselessly--or even reversing progress, as Germany has done by shuttering nuclear power in favor of coal. The Republican party is a huge problem, but if we just blame them, we miss the point that this is a global problem and all the implications that has on how we arrive at a solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
A few people in the last page had it right, I think. This discussion has been had and had and had so many times, the consensus on climate change asserted with such force that we may as well accept it as elementary principle if the next generation of atmospheric satellite studies don't find any revelatory, unexpected "anthro climate change is not true!" results..... I think this thread is at a point where, if this was a subreddit, it would become a circlejerk that is no longer capable of talking about new developments with an open mind. So, instead of circle jerking for karma, this thread is just sitting bookmarked in people's profiles, waiting for something new and significant to hammer out and pick apart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
While I appreciate your newfound care for the importance of discussing climate change (I noticed this was your first post in the thread), there are a lot of folks doing more than "fiddling". I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of folks in this very thread have taken part in climate marches or divest protests (I certainly have), or alternatively have talked to their friends, family, and local and national representatives about the importance of transitioning to a post carbon economy. Again, I find the deliberate misinformation campaign by extraction industries to be a more compelling villain here than ignorance or apathy (though both are probably not absent in their contributions).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:While I appreciate your newfound care for the importance of discussing climate change (I noticed this was your first post in the thread), there are a lot of folks doing more than "fiddling". I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of folks in this very thread have taken part in climate marches or divest protests (I certainly have), or alternatively have talked to their friends, family, and local and national representatives about the importance of transitioning to a post carbon economy. It's not "newfound". Just because I don't post in the thread doesn't mean I've only just suddenly stumbled upon this. Forever_Peace posted:Again, I find the deliberate misinformation campaign by extraction industries to be a more compelling villain here than ignorance or apathy (though both are probably not absent in their contributions). Well yes, but isn't it a little odd that a forum called "Debate & Discussion" doesn't discuss the fact that every month for the last sixteen months has been the hottest month on record? I kinda think it's time we talked about mitigation (which is probably hopeless at this point) or adaptation (the more realistic alternative). While we're on it, what do you make of the clathrate gun hypothesis? Not shitstirring, I'm honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:I find the deliberate misinformation campaign by extraction industries to be a more compelling villain here than ignorance or apathy (though both are probably not absent in their contributions). Uranium Phoenix posted:No it's not [a Republican problem] Echoing on this, a more general way to characterize it is "there's a lack of political will to fix this." GOP / industrial interests pushing lies about ACC to the extend that 3/5 of those who self-identify as a Republican (at least on that survey) do not know the truth to the extent necessary to answer "Yes" on the last question in that screenshot definitely represents an active loss of progress on the matter of "fixing" climate change in the broadest sense, but this is a situation where apathy also represents a loss of progress. Passively not changing anything or at least fighting to change anything while existing as a Western consumer does harm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:Well yes, but isn't it a little odd that a forum called "Debate & Discussion" doesn't discuss the fact that every month for the last sixteen months has been the hottest month on record? I kinda think it's time we talked about mitigation (which is probably hopeless at this point) or adaptation (the more realistic alternative). We have, it generally leads into prepper talk and how eating bugs is the only way to survive. Bonus if you get into totally not racist means of forced sterilization to control population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:A few people in the last page had it right, I think. This discussion has been had and had and had so many times, the consensus on climate change asserted with such force that we may as well accept it as elementary principle if the next generation of atmospheric satellite studies don't find any revelatory, unexpected "anthro climate change is not true!" results..... Forever_Peace posted:While I appreciate your newfound care for the importance of discussing climate change (I noticed this was your first post in the thread), there are a lot of folks doing more than "fiddling". I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of folks in this very thread have taken part in climate marches or divest protests (I certainly have), or alternatively have talked to their friends, family, and local and national representatives about the importance of transitioning to a post carbon economy. A few people have come in and asked what they can do, but few people have good answers. Most organizations that seem to be doing stuff are not always easy to find. The more people sharing organizations, local movements, and things people can do, the more the thread might become active in a productive, interesting sense, rather than continuing to linger on page 2 unless a slapfight erupts or new especially depressing article surfaces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:While we're on it, what do you make of the clathrate gun hypothesis? Not shitstirring, I'm honestly curious. Permafrost is melting right now, so there's already a positive feedback loop available for discussion. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/siberia-melting-permafrost-fuels-climate-change-151122124853964.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We have, it generally leads into prepper talk and how eating bugs is the only way to survive. Which is probably a bit reductionist really. Steve Wozniak moved to Tasmania to get away from the worst of climate change's forecast problems; perhaps we should follow his lead? computer parts posted:Bonus if you get into totally not racist means of forced sterilization to control population. That horse already bolted, and it's frowned upon to talk about any kind of population control measures (which I certainly don't think can be blamed on any particular skin color), so yeah. Other than "Try not to have so many kids, folks!" I'm not sure anything can really be said about that issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
I linked to Al Jazeera in the hope some Trump-supporting poster quotes it as an example of unamericanism and anthropogenic climate change discussion, letting me find it later in a crawler. SA seems to be way more than just "left leaning" these days; I have no loving clue where the right has run off to. Is there a semaphore I need to flip in my browser to see where the hell they've all run off to?computer parts posted:Bonus if you get into totally not racist means of forced sterilization to control population. I want to stir the pot on population control again. It is bugging me. UN assertions on human rights aside, I am still having trouble internalizing why straight-up "sterilize after the second child" wouldn't help. I'm not talking about practical concerns like "how would you ever get that enacted into law?" or "this is the subject of many a future dystopian novel" or the very obvious issue or enforcement of sterilization of men vs women particularly in the case where paternity isn't clear. I don't actually think sterilizing anyone is something that should be looked at, but I never quite understood the last time I brought it up why it wouldn't do anything if it was a policy. Like, thought experiment: the God Emperor of Mankind quietly and secretly channels his planet-spanning psychic power to sterilize men instamagically after their second viable child is born and women after their second viable child is born, period. Does demand for more food not start to plateau? Would not every advancement in GMOs that increases crop yield let us fallow more farmland each year, helping it recuperate and sustain our farming needs? What about energy? With a flat population line magically enforced by <insert God person here>, wouldn't every extra percent of efficiency squeezed out of power generation infrastructure represent that much more abundance? Help me out here, I'm lost. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I don't actually think sterilizing anyone is something that should be looked at, but I never quite understood the last time I brought it up why it wouldn't do anything if it was a policy.  Okay, kids, let loose — let's hear your Effective Climate Change
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
I maintain that Kill All Humans is the best and final answer  This is your chance to beat some sense into some rear end in a top hat (me) who clearly doesn't think the world is more complex than an RTS game. DO IT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:That's why I made the thread with the intention of steering the debate towards solutions. We got our city retirement board, which controls $240,000,000 in pension assets, to introduced a motion to divest from fossil fuels last month. They are currently doing their due diligence and will probably vote soon, and three of the five are probably on board with divestment. I'm not a member of the organization and can't take much credit here, but I went to their march on city hall and participated in their email campaigns to the retirement board - wasn't hard at all! Let me tell you, these guys are not used to being the center of public scrutiny - they take individual community input waaaaaay more seriously than national representatives. Just look for local "Divest" or "Fossil Free" groups in your city, state, or nearby university. There are similar campaigns to divest a number of local university endowments as well as the State pension fund, all of which are looking somewhat promising. Yay for little victories.  edit: yeah the march was super fun. They had an awesome community second-line band there and everything. Forever_Peace fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
The fact that goons condemn Obama for some pipelines while ignoring the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Agreement, our bi-lateral China agreement, the fact we got renewables subsidies extended and while ignoring other positive actions like California's new aggressive climate policy part of why this thread gets buried. If anything less than a perfect solution is met with "who cares that's not good enough," that will shutdown half the discussion for decades. Instead this thread because the "climate impact thread" which just won't be as active.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I linked to Al Jazeera in the hope some Trump-supporting poster quotes it as an example of unamericanism and anthropogenic climate change discussion, letting me find it later in a crawler. SA seems to be way more than just "left leaning" these days; I have no loving clue where the right has run off to. Is there a semaphore I need to flip in my browser to see where the hell they've all run off to? Everything else aside, it's not politically expedient to discuss it. No politician in the Western world (at least, no politician who wants to be elected) would propose such a platform regardless of the fact that it might take us off the boil, simply because of the overwhelming mindset that says IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE AS MANY drat KIDS AS I WANT AND gently caress THE CONSEQUENCES. Simple as that. You're arguing with a base biological drive and that's always going to be a losing battle, whether it's rational or not. If anything, available research has shown that the only way to make people have fewer kids is to provide better education for women. There's a solution for you, but at this late stage I don't think it's going to buck the trend - we're already way over our heads in this poo poo. schmuckfeatures fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Would not every advancement in GMOs that increases crop yield let us fallow more farmland each year, helping it recuperate and sustain our farming needs? Per capita demand for energy is not a fixed amount. The more efficient you make power generation, the more affordable power use becomes. Power use may even rise as a result. Food is different, but less than you might think, since we can for example feed it to more animals, or become fussier and waste a higher proportion. There has been a global food surplus for many decades, so it is not simply food demand that stops us leaving land fallow (or even better, wild).
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Very few Wealthy White Westerners™ have many kids to begin with. Folks in poor countries that have a lot of kids typically don't have much of a carbon footprint. We already grow plenty of food, this issue is that it's all corn and grains which, and I may be mistaken here, isn't really the sort of food aid poor countries need. They are typically in need of stuff like cooking oil and proteins instead of rice and flour. If your sterilization campaign is 100% voluntary but comes with a cash incentive, that incentive is going to attract poor minorities in a lot of cases which just looks bad. I think the best path we could take on the short term would be a new program along the lines of the Civilian Conservation Corps or Tennessee Valley Authority with a focus on building new nuclear plants. Forever_Peace posted:The primary contributor to recent population growth has been extensions in life expectancy. Maybe we need to put cigarette machines back in restaurants and convenience stores and ditch all the anti-smoking ads. Die early and save everyone money, time, and effort instead of living on as a dementia-addled zombie. Reinvigorate local economies in disadvantaged nations with woman owned and operated tobacco farms with a focus on responsible land use and fairly compensated labor. V V V V V bij fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
You guys, we are decades past "peak baby". This isn't really the problem here. The primary contributor to recent population growth has been extensions in life expectancy. Though education for women in developing countries is still a necessary and worthy cause that will continue this downwards trend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:Maybe we need to put cigarette machines back in restaurants and convenience stores and ditch all the anti-smoking ads. Die early and save everyone money, time, and effort instead of living on as a dementia-addled zombie. I like that you are thinking outside the box, but I might take a different approach here: everybody ITT should pressure their local zoning committees to ease parking restrictions on new developments. Big families in rural farming communities of Vietnam or something isn't why climate change is such a problem. Here's the problem: we are expected to add half a billion people to global urban centers over the next 10 years through migration and population replacement, and decades of development strategy has emphasized growing out (into car-heavy and carbon-costly suburbia) instead of up. Let's make cities for people instead of for cars. Discourage parking and driving, and increase the efficiency of public transit through density and the availability of walking and biking routes through proximity. Energy production is a more voluminous problem, but carbon demand is a more tractable one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:You guys, we are decades past "peak baby". This isn't really the problem here. It's not really population growth, it's population size and growing affluence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:It's not really population growth, it's population size and growing affluence. Yeah, growing affluence is measurable in generic energy consumption and a lot of major contributors (fossil fuels, industrial extraction, fertilizers) to climate change support and underpin that energy availability. To circle back to food aid, as protein demand increases thus does energy demand, because animal proteins are ridiculously intensive to farm in any real quantity. Tropic levels blah blah everyone who hangs in this thread knows about this stuff. *insert pro nuclear derail* be back in ten pages y'all!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:
Nuke every city with a population > 1 million, the resulting ash cover will buy us some time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
schmuckfeatures posted:That horse already bolted, and it's frowned upon to talk about any kind of population control measures (which I certainly don't think can be blamed on any particular skin color), so yeah. Other than "Try not to have so many kids, folks!" I'm not sure anything can really be said about that issue. I always bring up zero and negative population growth anytime people mention saving the environment. It's important for people to realize that there's nothing more harmful to the climate they can do in life than create more humans. That being said my wife and I are trying to get pregnant, so it's not like I'm advocating mass sterilization, just for people to realize the impact of their decisions and to proceed accordingly. Especially when talking to younger people to whom having kids isn't even on the radar yet. They should all grow up knowing that having kids is something really important that they need to decide is worth the cost, and not "it's okay to pop out 7 kids because that's what my grandparents and parents all did." What if we introduce some sort of cap and trade system so that people who want 10 kids can buy baby credits from people who don't want kids? I realize this means only rich people get to have too many kids so lets just solve wealth inequality first and then do it. Edit: I should specify I mean for Americans since we're the second worst polluters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
davebo posted:I always bring up zero and negative population growth anytime people mention saving the environment. It's important for people to realize that there's nothing more harmful to the climate they can do in life than create more humans. That being said my wife and I are trying to get pregnant, so it's not like I'm advocating mass sterilization, just for people to realize the impact of their decisions and to proceed accordingly. Especially when talking to younger people to whom having kids isn't even on the radar yet. They should all grow up knowing that having kids is something really important that they need to decide is worth the cost, and not "it's okay to pop out 7 kids because that's what my grandparents and parents all did." From above, it doesn't look like the populations with the largest carbon footprints are growing that much. Birthrate seems like it's not really an issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:From above, it doesn't look like the populations with the largest carbon footprints are growing that much. Birthrate seems like it's not really an issue. While rate of growth is on the decline, the actual population is still increasing. If people from countries that pollute less move to America and have to live in such a way that they pollute a lot more than where they were, that's bad news. Third world nations developing to create more pollution is probably worse, but it seems unfair to deny other people the quality of life that we enjoy, so it seems more equitable for us to focus on decreasing our population. Now of course everyone's economy is based on constant growth so our population stagnating or decreasing would be an economic disaster, which would lower our standing in the world while others increase, but since I don't particularly think the USA has some god given right to stay on top indefinitely, I'm okay with that. Just don't tell my wife because she works for the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
We don't have time it wait for population growth related effects to take impact. We need to reduce total emissions now. If we reach a zero global warming emissions per-capita economy ever, then population growth isn't impactful on total emissions anymore. If you believe we can never reach a zero global warming emissions per-capita economy ever, then we're complete hosed in your model.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We don't have time it wait for population growth related effects to take impact. We need to reduce total emissions now. Well I certainly agree that we need to reach zero emissions regardless of population growth, but I would argue that since global warming is already underway and even in the best case we're going to feel the effects, I'm assuming there'll be some degree of climate-induced migrations so population size will still be an issue. I wouldn't say we're hosed either way though. If you can curb emissions enough, and lower population in certain places enough, then the places that are still inhabitable could have room to absorb the people displaced by climate change. Then you're only hosed by the horrible culture wars which inevitably will just reduce the population further. The glass is half full!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Edit: Upon reflection, this was a really dull and predictable joke, and really doesn't contribute to the discussion such as it is. Snipped
Drunk Theory fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Sep 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
davebo posted:Well I certainly agree that we need to reach zero emissions regardless of population growth, but I would argue that since global warming is already underway and even in the best case we're going to feel the effects, I'm assuming there'll be some degree of climate-induced migrations so population size will still be an issue. I wouldn't say we're hosed either way though. If you can curb emissions enough, and lower population in certain places enough, then the places that are still inhabitable could have room to absorb the people displaced by climate change. Then you're only hosed by the horrible culture wars which inevitably will just reduce the population further. The glass is half full! Lowering populations doesn't speed us along towards the of a zero-emissions economy. In particular spending time or resources on those projects won't pay off climate returns as fast as spending the same resources on mitigating or adapting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Lowering populations doesn't speed us along towards the of a zero-emissions economy. In particular spending time or resources on those projects won't pay off climate returns as fast as spending the same resources on mitigating or adapting. I think we got our wires crossed. I wasn't advocating we spend a million dollars on some don't have kids campaign, just that it's something to include in the discussion and long term try to permeate the culture. The cap and trade thing was just a joke because people get too offended when you imply their decision to have a dozen kids isn't environmentally responsible that they'll immediately call their senator and complain. Even if we somehow reach an emissions-neutral existence, I assume that will be achieved by balancing the things that cause emissions with things that help negate the effects of emissions, so if you have those enivonment-aiding protocols in place, and don't have the population that's causing that amount of pollution in the first place, then you're at negative emissions, and wouldn't that be nice? But that's just icing on the cake, of course we'd have to actually get to zero-emissions lifestyle first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that goons condemn Obama for some pipelines while ignoring the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Agreement, our bi-lateral China agreement, the fact we got renewables subsidies extended and while ignoring other positive actions like California's new aggressive climate policy part of why this thread gets buried. The Clean Power Plan is stuck in judicial fights and might get completely thrown out depending on who the next POTUS is or who fills the empty SCOTUS spot. Everyone KNOWS that we're already on track to overshoot the Paris Accords target, and some of the developing countries that signed up to cap their emissions are already balking because rich countries aren't paying up. That agreement with China was made before their economy started nosediving. The renewable subsidy extension and the California climate policy are really the only two things that are definitively good. It's not that we need "perfect" solutions, it's that toting half-assed and spinning them as concrete action can create a sense that we're actually solving the problem when that couldn't be further from the truth at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Rap Record Hoarder posted:The Clean Power Plan is stuck in judicial fights and might get completely thrown out depending on who the next POTUS is or who fills the empty SCOTUS spot. Everyone KNOWS that we're already on track to overshoot the Paris Accords target, and some of the developing countries that signed up to cap their emissions are already balking because rich countries aren't paying up. That agreement with China was made before their economy started nosediving. The renewable subsidy extension and the California climate policy are really the only two things that are definitively good. The clean power plan is already changing power policy. Coal plants are being retired because of it. Paris is an overly-optimistic goal, but is certainly a critical and important step. We're close to reaching the enforcement threshold and that is something concrete even if it isn't sufficient. So what if China agreed before the economy collapsed? What matters is the progress they make towards those goals.If anything, that's a helpful way to shift industry and workers in a state run economy. Yes funding is a key issue, but the complaints of some of developing nations or developed as much as the fact we have agreed on a framework to resolve those complaints. But yes, a Trump presidency would seem to doom any sub +4C (peak) plan. Which of these policy changes would you call half-assed? I think you underestimate the work that went into SB 32, CPP or the Paris Agreement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I have no doubt that a lot of hard work and effort went into all of those policies. But do I believe for a second that their effectiveness in the face of the sheer immensity of the challenge we're facing is in any way proportional or even reflective of those efforts? No. As a whole they comprise a lot of little steps in the right direction that can easily backslide if we don't realistically assess them in relation to what science is telling us, which is that we need radical change sooner rather than later. If people think that stop gaps like the Paris Accords are solving the problem, they won't be motivated to support anything beyond that, certainly not the sort of lifestyle- and society-altering upheaval (even in developed nations) that will be necessary. In other news: https://newrepublic.com/article/136987/recalculating-climate-math quote:But the new new math is even more explosive. It draws on a report by Oil Change International, a Washington-based think tank, using data from the Norwegian energy consultants Rystad. For a fee—$54,000 in this case—Rystad will sell anyone its numbers on the world’s existing fossil fuel sources. Most of the customers are oil companies, investment banks, and government agencies. But OCI wanted the numbers for a different reason: to figure out how close to the edge of catastrophe we’ve already come. I still can't believe the AFL-CIO came out in support of a pipeline that would create all of 10 permanent jobs, despite mass indigenous protest and opposition from basically every other progressively aligned group, but that's modern US labor I guess. Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Why aren't we doing anything? Personally for myself, I am tired. I have been spreading the message on/off for 10 years or more now. Talking to whoever, getting into stupid internet debates and all the rest of it. I am a relatively newcomer to SA but certainly been doing it all over the internet for a long time. Doing whatever I can to inform. Its just super not effective. We have a geologist in our school that has unfortunately been renamed to Earth Atmosphere and Environment, he is a professor and for a long time been a climate denialist and gets his stuff published in the media. Other colleagues write rebuttals but newspapers here don't publish them. In Australia funding for climate science is going down the toilet, jobs at CSIRO are being shed, specifically climate science jobs. We even have a brand new ship, RV Investigator which is supposed to be gathering desperately needed observations from the Southern Ocean. Instead it spends half its time doing fossil fuel surveys. Not a joke. It was before my time at the school I am at but my colleagues even tried a rap music video. I know some of these people personally. NSFW: Language only https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8 Some people you can bring around but only after a mammoth amount of effort and they need to be prepared to put the time in. For the vast majority, nothing works. (Including my parents which is pretty drat sad) **** That the Earth is warming is a particularly ineffectual type of data. The response will be, sure the Earth is warming, *but its not us*. **** Scientists are only trained to communicate science to other scientists. I have recently been criticized by my family for going into "too much detail" regarding a completely unrelated area of disagreement. Communicating science to lay people is not our field, nor do I think it should be. Although for the most part, we do try our damnedest. Or have tried only giving up in response to the catastrophic failure that then proceeds. **** I have long held the opinion that psychologist and the social scientists have seriously dropped the ball on this issue. If the skills for communicating difficult ideas lie in any field, its probably there, somewhere. Maybe something can be learned from grievance counselling, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
There will be a free webinar called 'Fostering a Scientifically Informed Populace' tomorrow https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/643470864952326404 It might interest some of you as it might be relevant, because BattleMoose posted:If the skills for communicating difficult ideas lie in any field, its probably there, somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Signing up now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Dwesa posted:There will be a free webinar called 'Fostering a Scientifically Informed Populace' tomorrow Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:24
|
|