Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 553557 times)

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4532
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 910
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2850 on: November 30, 2019, 05:05:04 PM »
Tom, I appreciate your good intentions in battling deniers on the web, a thankless and soul-consuming task, but seeing this stuff here in mass is a bit unpleasant.
The best thing would be to only choose battles which you are already armed to answer, or that you can arm yourself from skeptical science, climate central and other reliable sources. Know that you are up against professional trolls so you cannot win in the traditional sense.
Of course, it's ok that you continue seeking weapons here, as you are serving a good cause. However, personally I will refrain from reading your questions on this thread as I've had enough of denier crap and it pains me to read it. I hope you are not offended by this. I fight them in my own little way in the place and time of my choosing, but I'm not looking for more.
Note that links to denier sites like WUWT are a no-no as this just gives them more clicks and a higher placement on search engines.

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2851 on: November 30, 2019, 05:16:54 PM »
Tom
There is a most excellent free on  line course on how to go about debunking climate change denial that you may be motivated to undertake .
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-denial.
About this course
Quote
In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.

Why the gap between the public and scientists?
What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.

We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” to “global warming is caused by the sun” to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science.

With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths.

This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.


gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1685
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2852 on: November 30, 2019, 05:23:30 PM »
Tom writes...
Quote
"I really like that forum except they call people who believe in AGW "idiots" or worse...it is a Furry Forum and I am a Furry"

Tom -who are "they"? Just a few people? The "owner" of the site? It is a bit odd that a forum dedicated to furry people has such a rabid attitude to AGW. It is possible that a group that funds Climate Science Denial have corrupted your favourite furry forum.
__________________________________________
ps:- I admit climate science deniers make me lose my cool.  Rather than engaging in debate with closed minds I would prefer to engage a denier with a slap round the face with a snow shovel.

Until a few months ago, the BBC always had a climate science denier/skeptic on the panel when climate discussions / debates took place. This was because, as a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC had to show impartiality.

But then the BBC changed its policy. AGW is now considered to be a fact. Climate Science Denial therefore occupies the same space as the Flat Earth Theory. It is not the job of a Public Service Broadcaster to give space to those who wish to deny a fact.

I think that change by the BBC influenced my attitude to the Climate Science Denial Industry (because an industry it certainly is) that will use every dirty trick in the book to plug their message.

pps:- Please can posts on climate change denial myths, if they are to continue, be placed on their own out of the way thread with posts not showing on the "Recent Posts" section.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1557
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 690
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2853 on: November 30, 2019, 05:39:44 PM »
This was because, as a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC had to show impartiality.

I always thought that not giving marketing a platform in the non-marketing sections would apply as being impartial and that they have to be strictly separated. (silly me ;) )
Refugees welcome

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2854 on: November 30, 2019, 07:04:28 PM »
oren:
That's fine.

KiwiGriff:
Thanks for the link. I will look into it.

gerontocrat:
They are both the owner of the site and 97% (  :D ) of the members.
The owner is a Furry Webcomic artist who is a Fundamentalist Christian (and anti-Catholic, which shows you what I have to put up with) and his followers are almost all Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, or other such Bible Thumpers. His webcomics are good, and sometimes I disagree with the politics and sometimes I don't. To be honest, I might even agree more often than not. But this is the issue I disagree with most (except for his anti-RCC stance), and is the one most likely to have disastrous results in the Real World.
Also, I'm willing to follow your pps, if I can.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2855 on: November 30, 2019, 08:21:18 PM »
Tom,
You may want to especially read (listen to) what Katharine Hayhoe has to say (e.g., her site, Wikipedia, TED talk, YouTube, etc.).  From Wikipedia:
Quote
Katharine Anne Scott Hayhoe (born April 15, 1972) is an atmospheric scientist and professor of political science at Texas Tech University, where she is director of the Climate Science Center.
...
In 2009, she and her husband, Andrew Farley, co-authored a book called A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions, which outlines the ways in which climate science reflects conservative Christian beliefs.
...
Hayhoe, who is an evangelical Christian, is the daughter of missionaries.
...
She has figured out some ways to sidestep denier memes.  (As someone wrote above [in this thread], don't pretend to know things you don't know.)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 08:33:43 PM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2856 on: November 30, 2019, 08:43:54 PM »
Thanks, Tor.
Placed in my bookmarks.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

ReverendMilkbone

  • New ice
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2857 on: November 30, 2019, 10:01:08 PM »
Question for those who are knowledgeable and following the current Arctic Freezing Season thread, How is this seasons freeze coming along?

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4532
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 910
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2858 on: November 30, 2019, 10:26:54 PM »
RM, the best is to browse the Freezing Season thread (it's actually quite calm, the thread I mean), and also the area/extentvdata thread and the PIOMAS volume thread. I can't say I'm cery knowledgeable myself on the subject, but in general I'd say the season is normal-delayed, in that the various regions are freezing and total area and extent gained since minimum are around average, but still this year is 2nd-3rd lowest because of its low starting point and because of several delays along the way. Also volume is 2nd lowest and average thickness the lowest ever.
The most delayed region is the Chukchi, while the relatively high extent regions are on the Atlantic side (esp. Barents).
I hope this is the level you were looking for.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2859 on: November 30, 2019, 10:28:40 PM »
One poster said that 97% of climatologists said we would all be dead by 2017. I asked for a link. He replied it was in Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

So, ask where in An Inconvenient Truth is it said that "97% of climatologists said we would all be dead by 2017". It isn't, so keep pounding that.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2860 on: November 30, 2019, 10:43:12 PM »
Well, I haven't seen it, so I will take your word for it.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2861 on: December 01, 2019, 12:57:20 AM »
The 97% in an inconvenient truth is something like

Quote
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Quote
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.


Also
https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm

Quote
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.

HapHazard

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2862 on: December 01, 2019, 01:02:27 AM »
Rather than engaging in debate with closed minds I would prefer to engage a denier with a slap round the face with a snow shovel.

You can use my snow shovel, Gero. That would be a great way to knock the dust off of it.  ;)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1557
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 690
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2863 on: December 01, 2019, 06:51:50 AM »
Quote
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Actually it's 99.9%. Even the 97% figure is a hoax.

Link >> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958
Refugees welcome

Rob Dekker

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2335
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2864 on: December 01, 2019, 09:43:41 AM »
Well, I haven't seen it, so I will take your word for it.

Wait. What ?
You are arguing with climate science deniers, but you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth ?

There are a lot of useful facts and science in there, and deniers hang all kind of crap on that movie which was never in there.

So, yes, you need to watch that movie.
This is our planet. This is our time.
Let's not waste either.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2865 on: December 01, 2019, 10:22:23 AM »
Quote
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Actually it's 99.9%. Even the 97% figure is a hoax.

Link >> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958

Typo: He says over 99.99%.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 891
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 218
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2866 on: December 01, 2019, 10:27:18 AM »
anyone saying otherwise could not be considered a 'climate expert' .  b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1557
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 690
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2867 on: December 01, 2019, 11:57:53 AM »
Typo: He says over 99.99%.


Forgive me, Tom.  ;D  ;)

Let's make that completely accurate. According to the study, it's 99.9942%.

So only 0.008 away from 99.999.
Refugees welcome

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2868 on: December 01, 2019, 12:20:11 PM »
Tor, I posted the TED talk by Katharine Hayhoe that you gave me.
Here is their response:
Quote
It pretty much demonstrates that it's become a political football, and it isn't just the rank and file that fall into this pattern. The scientists do as well. And there are a lot more who question AGW than the media will admit to.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 859
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2869 on: December 01, 2019, 01:51:14 PM »
Which freely translates to your arguments are not valid because they conflict with our worldview.
I don´t think it is worth wasting time on them.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2870 on: December 01, 2019, 02:10:52 PM »
Which freely translates to your arguments are not valid because they conflict with our worldview.
I don´t think it is worth wasting time on them.

Well, they allow me to debate, and I believe in standing up for what I believe (that is why I was talking so much about a------- till Neven told me to stop). I suggested that, if AGW is so stupid to believe in, they should come here and educate us, so I could go back to writing my Mammaloid stories on that site. They refused. When Klondike Kat was banned, I realized the wisdom of that refusal (they would not last two posts and all it would do is aggravate Neven) and instead, suggested that they refute AGW on the cosmoquest forum, which allows debate against scientific consensus under fairly strict rules. They said the rules were too strict.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1463
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 196
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2871 on: December 01, 2019, 03:03:24 PM »
Which freely translates to your arguments are not valid because they conflict with our worldview.
I don´t think it is worth wasting time on them.

Well, they allow me to debate, and I believe in standing up for what I believe (that is why I was talking so much about a------- till Neven told me to stop). I suggested that, if AGW is so stupid to believe in, they should come here and educate us, so I could go back to writing my Mammaloid stories on that site. They refused. When Klondike Kat was banned, I realized the wisdom of that refusal (they would not last two posts and all it would do is aggravate Neven) and instead, suggested that they refute AGW on the cosmoquest forum, which allows debate against scientific consensus under fairly strict rules. They said the rules were too strict.

You'll find the same kinds of logic, illogic, denial, and refusal to examine details if you debate creationists, flat-earthers, ufo-ologists, moon landing deniers, etc, etc.  The value of disputing lies in public isn't to convince the (unwitting) liars, it's the silent audience who is to be persuaded.  This is a fight for political action, and the people on the sidelines matter.

When you get a response like "you're just being duped by the conspiracy, these are their lies you're repeating," then just point out that they've not addressed the information/evidence/logic you've presented, and stop there.  Readers will see who is more convincing.  Stop when you've won.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2872 on: December 01, 2019, 03:09:55 PM »
One thing they suggested is that you people come to them.
They are rather lackadaisical about their debate sub-forum. You have to be a rather egregious troll or something to get banned there. However, they do have one rule that might be a problem. You have to have at least 50 posts on other sub-fora before you can take part in a debate. So if any of you are a fellow Furry, go for it and take this thankless (on that forum, not this one) job off my shoulders. Otherwise, I will just have to continue to be Sisyphus.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 859
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 377
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2873 on: December 01, 2019, 04:42:01 PM »
It is just a site where you write mammaloid stories which must be rather niche in itself. It really does not matter in the large perspective.

You can choose to write stories there and ignore their politics or you don´t.

You will never convince them because affiliation is more interesting then reason for most humans so any attempt is a waste of time.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7209
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 477
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2874 on: December 01, 2019, 05:00:47 PM »
One thing they suggested is that you people come to them.

Tell them that AGW will come to them instead, or to their offspring, and they can then explain why they chose not to do anything but spread misinformation.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2875 on: December 01, 2019, 06:53:27 PM »
One thing they suggested is that you people come to them.

Tell them that AGW will come to them instead, or to their offspring, and they can then explain why they chose not to do anything but spread misinformation.

I think at least some of them don't care. I pointed out that AGW would likely make the world a lot worse by 2100 and the reply I got was that the poster would be dead by then.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1685
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2876 on: December 01, 2019, 08:36:37 PM »
One thing they suggested is that you people come to them.

Tell them that AGW will come to them instead, or to their offspring, and they can then explain why they chose not to do anything but spread misinformation.

I think at least some of them don't care. I pointed out that AGW would likely make the world a lot worse by 2100 and the reply I got was that the poster would be dead by then.
Why did you say to him 2100? More like 2019 if you live in the Bahamas, 2018 if you live in Puerto Rico etc etc. And for everybody else the what or the when is merely a matter of chance with the probability rising year by year. The following link suggests there are at best 30 years left to go zero-carbon to avoid +2 and at best it will take at least 20 years to do it. Perhaps the writer had not read 55% emission reduction b+y 2030 needed for + 1.5.

________________________________________________________________
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/01/scientists-theory-of-climates-titanic-moment-the-tip-of-a-mathematical-iceberg
Scientist's theory of climate's Titanic moment the 'tip of a mathematical iceberg'
Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control’
Quote
Knowing how long societies have to react to pull the brake on the Earth’s climate and then how long it will take for the ship to slow down is the difference between a climate emergency and a manageable problem.

Rather than being something abstract and open to interpretation, Schellnhuber says the climate emergency is something with clear and calculable risks that you could put into a formula. And so he wrote one.

Quote
Emergency = R × U = p × D × τ / T
Borrowing from the insurance industry, the scientists define risk (R) as the probability of something happening (p) multiplied by damage (D).
Urgency (U) is the time it takes you to react to an issue (τ) “divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T)”, they wrote.

“As a matter of fact, the intervention time left for limiting global warming to less than 2C is about 30 [years] at best. The reaction time – time needed for full global decarbonisation - is at least 20 [years].”

As the scientists write in Nature, if the “reaction time is longer than the intervention time left” then “we have lost control”.[/size]

I love the way simple arithmetic can clear away the miasma surrounding a subject.
There are many places already beyond climate emergency, i.e. time available is already less than time required -the Louisiana Boot, The Florida Keys, the East Anglian Coast of England, California's Central Valley Aquifer.........
 
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2877 on: December 01, 2019, 09:02:03 PM »
Quote
Why did you say to him 2100?
because I didn't want them to say "Things aren't so bad".
They are already twitting me about Nuclear War/Global Cooling/Y2K/Peak Oil/ and us scientists crying wolf.

EDIT: You know, you guys are right.
I gave it the old college try, but I'm throwing in the towel.
At least until I take the course.

EDIT 2: I just can't seem to let them get the last word  :D
I guess I'll keep slogging along  :(
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 04:14:12 PM by Tom_Mazanec »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2878 on: December 03, 2019, 04:27:09 PM »
Here is their latest argument. I have to admit, it is the best they have come up with yet:
Quote
Okay, Tom, what do we do? How are you going to live with zero carbon emissions? Forget windmills and solar, they take mining, which is also a no-go. Forget hydro, that also requires mining and destroys the environment where the dams are built. So, we've got no real means of energy production. Since animals apparently also cause CC, we shant be using them. You going to go out and harvest crops with your bare hands? You going to live without cars, electricity or anything this side of wooden or stone huts?
Tell me, please, how we're going to live?
Anyone who has actually gotten past the "The guvmint must do something!!111!" has pie-in-the-sky ideals, but trying to actually implement them results in a bigger mess than we're now in. So, what are your plans? Lay 'em out.

They also say that any AGWphobe who does not support nuclear is a hypocrite. Well, I am not a hypocrite, I support nuclear in the mid-term (in the long term we will need renewable or fusion...uranium is too rare).
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

dnem

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2879 on: December 03, 2019, 04:59:32 PM »
Well Tom, I'm afraid to say that they are, in a sense, correct.  Humanity is deep into overshoot.  There is no viable way to support modern, high consumption lifestyles for 7.6 billion people (and growing). Read the Bill Rees pieces recently posted.  There is no viable way to build out (and maintain and replace) a "renewable" solar and wind infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure at scale, especially when you consider that doing that will starve the economy of the energy it needs to continue functioning ("bootstrap problem", EROEI).  The coming decades will be a very bumpy ride, with global death rates beginning to outpace birth rates, and a falling human population.  Perhaps we can bump our way down to a sustainable number of humans (2 billion?) and preserve enough of a functioning biosphere to let the healing begin. And perhaps we can't.

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1557
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 690
  • Likes Given: 948
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2880 on: December 03, 2019, 05:10:25 PM »
There is no viable way to build out (and maintain and replace) a "renewable" solar and wind infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure at scale

While i agree with you general point you are making, this one is wrong! Drop-dead wrong!

A modern society can be transformed into a 100% renewables society in like 10 years. You can easily extrapolate the effect the German subsidising of renewables had. If the program was still in place we would be there already.

You subsidise renewables while ending subsidies on fossil fuel. You have a constantly rising carbon tax. And that's it. From a technical and from an economic standpoint, there are no hurdles at all.

Building, changing, and modernising stuff is good for the economy.

We are talking entirely about a political problem here.
Refugees welcome

dnem

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2881 on: December 03, 2019, 05:16:38 PM »
Sorry blu, that's just a techno-optimistic, cornucopian fantasy.  Good for the economy? What does that even mean?  So we can have more "growth" and consumption, further consuming the biosphere?  But just from a practical standpoint, there ain't enough carbon budget left to build out all the solar and wind needed without starving the economy of the fossil fuels it needs to just keep everyone fed and warm and cool.

Read Rees:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/11/Climate-Change-Realist-Face-Facts/

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2882 on: December 03, 2019, 07:16:15 PM »
Here is their latest argument. I have to admit, it is the best they have come up with yet:
Quote
Okay, Tom, what do we do? How are you going to live with zero carbon emissions? Forget windmills and solar, they take mining, which is also a no-go. Forget hydro, that also requires mining and destroys the environment where the dams are built. So, we've got no real means of energy production. Since animals apparently also cause CC, we shant be using them. You going to go out and harvest crops with your bare hands? You going to live without cars, electricity or anything this side of wooden or stone huts?
Tell me, please, how we're going to live?
Anyone who has actually gotten past the "The guvmint must do something!!111!" has pie-in-the-sky ideals, but trying to actually implement them results in a bigger mess than we're now in. So, what are your plans? Lay 'em out.

They also say that any AGWphobe who does not support nuclear is a hypocrite. Well, I am not a hypocrite, I support nuclear in the mid-term (in the long term we will need renewable or fusion...uranium is too rare).

My bold to indicate what I am replying to.

Why is mining a no-go? Mining ff certainly, they will get burned. Mining for other things? Mining can be done with boring machines running on renewable electric and explosives. There will be some ghg emissions but is it on a scale that cannot be dealt with by burying charcoal to improve farm yields?

dnem

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2883 on: December 03, 2019, 07:35:38 PM »
Mining per se is not a "no go."  The simply gargantuan scale of replacing the global fossil fuel infrastructure while electrifying transportation is incredibly daunting.  It will be a gargantuan, global industrial enterprise that would need to be undertaken while simultaneously continuing to power everything else that a growing, power hungry global population will need.  So far, despite fast growth in "renewables" they aren't even keeping up with growth in the global appetite for energy, so while a good part of the global growth in energy supply is coming from renewables, fossil fuel use is STILL growing. It is very, very unlikely that we will turn this massive ocean liner around in time.

Again, Rees's first three steps to getting out of the human predicament:

1. Formal recognition of the end of material growth and the need to reduce the human ecological footprint;

2. Acknowledgement that, as long as we remain in overshoot — exploiting essential ecosystems faster than they can regenerate — sustainable production/consumption means less production/consumption;

3. Recognition of the theoretical and practical difficulties/impossibility of an all-green quantitatively equivalent energy transition;

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1685
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2884 on: December 03, 2019, 08:50:41 PM »
If the debate is confined to Global Heating, i.e. not widened to include all the other forms of environmental damage, then you can make a case for a world that, in theory at least, could produce 100% renewable energy for an ever-growing population and ever-growing GDP.

Pity about the herbicides, the pesticides, the deforestation, the desertification, the over-fishing, the plastic waste, or in other words, the destruction of most, if not all, of life on earth.



"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2885 on: December 03, 2019, 09:25:41 PM »
Well, not quite evergrowing, but your general point is otherwise quite right, sadly.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

HapHazard

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 1139
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2886 on: December 03, 2019, 09:27:11 PM »
Ah, the good ol' "All or nothing!" fallacy. Their binary life must be delightfully enlightening:

Humans emit CO₂, so if you believe in AGW we demand that you stop breathing.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2887 on: December 03, 2019, 09:36:58 PM »
Re: their latest argument

Tom,
Sometimes in life, seeing the problem leads quickly to finding a solution.  But life's bigger problems don't generally have such singular straight forward solutions. [For those who see "abortion" as a problem, closing women's clinics is an obvious solution to some, while educating poor women about health issues is as an obvious solution to others.]  [The bumper sticker "If all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is perceived as a problem to some, a solution to others.] 

With regard to Climate Weirding (or GW or ACC or whatever) seeing the problem is nowhere near seeing the solution.  Some scientists saw the increasing atmospheric CO2 problem 30 or 50 years ago.  Virtually all published climate scientists see it today.  An increasing number of regular American citizens are also 'getting it.'

But seeing this civilization-in-the-balance problem is not the same as knowing what to do about it!  There is serious debate (or choosing not to debate) on the ASIF (and, obviously, elsewhere) as to what are solutions, what are 'interim solutions' and what are 'feeling good about pretending to do something'.  For some, there is no "solution".  While its a future problem for some, it is a 'now experience' for others:  people have already died due to Global-Warming-influenced hurricanes (e.g., Dorian's rapid intensification and then stall over Grand Bahamas) and people's homes have slumped into the Arctic Ocean after permafrost thaw.  Population, life style issues (standard of living), ideas about macro-economics, etc. loom large. 

Biblical understanding also plays a role.  Polygamous marriage is never condemned in Christian scripture (although Paul did discourage marriage in the first place), but we (mostly) understand this cultural norm has changed for the good.  Abraham (patriarch of three world religions) Adam was guided to 'be fruitful in the world and subdue it; rule over all fish, birds and animals' [Genesis 1:28 for those who think this rings a bell]; was that a message for his time and not ours?  I rather think so.  Ruling over things has its benefits, for sure, but the saying "the bigger they are the harder they fall" has its sting [or if you prefer, substitute with Proverbs 25:16], and Climate Weirding appears to be giving us a quickly intensifying sting.  (This sting, if allowed to intensify much longer under business as usual [BAU], will certainly destroy human civilization as we've come to know it.)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 02:13:14 AM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2888 on: December 03, 2019, 09:54:42 PM »
You can not separate humanity from the worlds ecology. If we kill Gaia we kill ourselves.

AGW is a wicked problem it has no known resolution as yet.
Quote
A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems.


We are running up against a resolution to the Fermi paradox.
 Maybe we find a solution or maybe smart apes are not the ultimate evolutionary branch that we arrogantly claim.
    That should not stop us from trying.

The Overton window is shifting towards action. We have a very long way to go before what we need to do will become possible.
There is a very good chance of 3 C and starting a cascade of feedback's that push us into hot house earth.  I do not believe human civilization will survive the result.

Finally .Thank fuck I have not bred. It is not my children that will live the horrors to come.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1705
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 392
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2889 on: December 04, 2019, 12:01:05 AM »
Tor:
A small point, but if you posted that on the other forum you would be laughed right off the planet.
It was Adam who was given dominion.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Human Habitat Index

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 158
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2890 on: December 04, 2019, 12:38:35 AM »
Gaia + BAU = GBaia !
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation. - Herbert Spencer

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2891 on: December 04, 2019, 02:20:50 AM »
Thanks, Tom.  :-[ (my post is now edited).  That's why I don't go to evangelical sites! (although I have been to evangelical conferences, but not in 20 years). Within my mostly-liberal Christian circles, I know more scripture than most.  (Yes, we're in a sad state!)

I do like the "Too much honey makes you sick" Proverb, though.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4532
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 910
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2892 on: December 04, 2019, 02:48:54 AM »
Here is their latest argument. I have to admit, it is the best they have come up with yet:
Quote
Okay, Tom, what do we do? How are you going to live with zero carbon emissions? Forget windmills and solar, they take mining, which is also a no-go. Forget hydro, that also requires mining and destroys the environment where the dams are built. So, we've got no real means of energy production. Since animals apparently also cause CC, we shant be using them. You going to go out and harvest crops with your bare hands? You going to live without cars, electricity or anything this side of wooden or stone huts?
Tell me, please, how we're going to live?
Anyone who has actually gotten past the "The guvmint must do something!!111!" has pie-in-the-sky ideals, but trying to actually implement them results in a bigger mess than we're now in. So, what are your plans? Lay 'em out.

They also say that any AGWphobe who does not support nuclear is a hypocrite. Well, I am not a hypocrite, I support nuclear in the mid-term (in the long term we will need renewable or fusion...uranium is too rare).
They are trolling you very nicely Tom, really by the book. All of these arguments are rehashed, nothing original.
Somehow when it comes to replacing fossil fuels, all these die-hard deniers suddenly become environmentalists. Mining is a no go. Right. But fracking for oil and gas while poisoning the water and causing earthquakes, just to burn it and cause AGW, is perfectly fine by them. Forget hydro. Right. It destroys the local environment. Are these the same folks that said who cares about 2100? You think you are having a fruitful discussion, while they are having a field day.


The truth is, should the US and other countries decide/realize that AGW is the same as World War III, the whole energy system could be transformed in about a decade, max two decades. The solutions are well known - solar plants and rooftop solar, wind turbines (not windmills, this term identifies deniers), grid batteries, in addition to hydro and geothermal and existing nuclear until it is retired. And yes, some natural gas backup. Maybe for a few years people will have to do with a reduced amount of barbie dolls and flights to exotic locations, but that is nothing compared to the suffering that will come by not acting. Read some history, about the wartime economies of the UK and the US during WWII. When people realize the house is burning down and that the enemy is at the gates, they are capable of moving fast and temporarily giving up some of life's enjoyments - for the cause.

The truth is also, that all human activity causes some damage to the environment, and the truth is also that 7.6 going on 10 billion humans is well above the carrying capacity of the planet. So no plan will be perfectly clean and no plan will get you past the crisis point harmlessly. To fix that, big steps were needed fifty years ago (but thanks to trolls like that, these steps were not taken).

But the truth is, renewable energy is much cleaner and much less harmful than the current alternative of coal, oil and gas. And EVs are much cleaner than ICE vehicles. So energy and transportation can be transformed with the means we have on hand right now. And there are ways (more difficult, less comprehensive) of transforming other carbon sectors - construction, industry, plant and animal agriculture. It is impossible to maintain current lavish lifestyles, not to mention provision of these lifestyles globally, while achieving carbon neutrality in short order. But it is possible to achieve a 50% reduction relatively quickly. And afforestation can do a lot as well. Some savings will come by eliminating the huge fossil fuel sector itself - prospecting, drilling, mining, transporting, refining, distributing. And good riddance.

So the truth is, the situation we are in is a much bigger mess than the situation where parts of the economy are transformed towards carbon neutrality, even if that is not a full solution for humanity's problems.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1095
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2893 on: December 04, 2019, 02:52:24 AM »
All very interesting and not likely to get us anywhere. Having been reading, thinking and writing about AGW for more than 2 decades now, I am more than ever convinced of the underlying premise of AGW. But I am getting less and less convinced of any existential threat to human civilisation.

The New Scientist magazine ran an article online last week, entitled "Could climate tipping points lead to collapse of human civilisation?" which said absolutely nothing about any impending collapse of human civilisation. It seems to be nothing more than a catch-phrase, something that draws in readers but has not been properly thought out or supported by evidence.

Recently I've been looking at estimates of the effects on world economy of a) doing nothing or b) doing what e.g. the Paris accords call for. The estimates I've seen talk about a couple of percentage points or three shaved off the global economy at some future point, irregardless of whether a) or b) is chosen. So similar in magnitude to the 2008 crisis. Civilsational collapse?

And the effects on agriculture, which has the potential to be the real killer. Best estimates seem to indicate a drop in up to 25% of productivity in existing agricultural areas. But when taking into account that vast areas in Canada and Siberia will open up to agriculture, and the huge potential for increased production in Africa, it's not at all clear whether agricultural output would suffer at all in a worst-case scenario.

So let's take Africa, or specifically the Horn, where it seems to me that agriculture could easily produce food for an extra half a billion people simply by modernising to European levels. The biggest threat from AGW is from changes to rainfall patterns. But nobody seems to know which way, more rain or less. What's more, the current effort to reforest the highlands could have a significantly bigger effect than AGW.

So all in all I'm not at all convinced that we are looking at any existential threat to civilisation. I'm actually pretty optimistic that wars and famines can be avoided even in a worst-case AGW situation, and I'm absolutely convinced that humanity will not be able to do anything purposeful to avoid what is going to happen.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1685
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2894 on: December 04, 2019, 06:59:11 AM »
Tor:
A small point, but if you posted that on the other forum you would be laughed right off the planet.
It was Adam who was given dominion.
Dominion
A long time ago I read an article by a linguist suggesting a better translation of the word used in the original text was not "dominion" but "stewardship".
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1685
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2895 on: December 04, 2019, 07:11:06 AM »

The New Scientist magazine ran an article online last week, entitled "Could climate tipping points lead to collapse of human civilisation?" which said absolutely nothing about any impending collapse of human civilisation. It seems to be nothing more than a catch-phrase, something that draws in readers but has not been properly thought out or supported by evidence.

Recently I've been looking at estimates of the effects on world economy of a) doing nothing or b) doing what e.g. the Paris accords call for. The estimates I've seen talk about a couple of percentage points or three shaved off the global economy at some future point, irregardless of whether a) or b) is chosen. So similar in magnitude to the 2008 crisis. Civilsational collapse?

The LSE is not so sure as you.......

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts/
The missing economic risks in assessments of climate change impacts
Quote
In order to make well-informed decisions on climate change action, leaders need to understand clearly the nature and magnitude of the risks to lives and livelihoods that are being created by climate change. Unfortunately, much of the technical advice and recommendations about these risks incorporate assessments of the economic implications that omit or underplay the largest potential impacts of climate change.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1095
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2896 on: December 04, 2019, 07:40:21 AM »
The LSE is not so sure as you.......

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts/

I'm absolutely sure that there are lots of respected and knowledgable people out there who disagree with me! As for the LSE link, if only they had tried to make a quantitative analysis of the possible risks, but they don't. Unfortunately.

Disaster is always a possibility. A disastrous meteorite that could push civilisation back centuries has a similar probability every year to an average punter winning the lottery. But nobody does their budget based on the off-change of there being a meteorite strike or a lottery win.

At any given time, the changes of events that lead to tens of percentage points off the global economy (e.g. major nuclear war involving China / India / Pakistan seems uncomfortably likely), are real but non-quantifiable year from year, and may never happen. And are not included in budgetary forecasts.

If we are to weigh the costs and losses of doing nothing, and include the extreme disasters that may or may not occur, then we also have to include the major positives that may or may not occur, such as a breakthrough in fusion energy, contact with aliens, AI taking over in a singularity.

All of which is pretty far fetched but could have major positive or negative impacts on the economy, probably counting in tens of percentages.

So we are back with the more mundane things that are easier to predict. Say the chances of a 6m rise in sea levels before 2100. If it were to happen, major disruptions to low-lying areas will cost money, major construction projects to meet the threat will cost money, moving of cities will cost money. But the impact on the global economy? Might even be significantly positive, major construction efforts, building of newer and greener cities, etc etc. Money can be produced at will by governments to meet any need, and pumping it into the economy to pay for major construction work will have a positive effect on economic growth.

But if we say that there is a 10% change of 6m as opposed to 1m, and the negative effect of a 6m rise as opposed to 1m is a global GDP 10% lower than it could have been at 2100, then that should still only factor in as 1% (10% risk of a 10% drop). And anything that could cause 10% lower global GDP is huge!
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4980
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 382
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2897 on: December 04, 2019, 08:04:44 AM »
Re: the impact on the global economy

what of the impact on the ecology ? Let us say that through great effort we actually ensure that there is no impact on the economy.

But there are no insects or worms or beetles or birds or fish or wild animals left  outside zoos and the entire earth is groomed to human need with robots performing ecosystem services.

I am sure some here would be cool with that.

But in larger sense it is not up to us. We will die, and our children will live with what we leave, and their choices will be circumscribed by limits we construct. So mebbe ask them ? I do, and the answers are interesting. I recommend that experiment.

sidd

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1069
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 6970
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2898 on: December 04, 2019, 08:49:36 AM »
Beautiful sidd. Thank you for your clear view and high morality.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4532
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 910
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2899 on: December 04, 2019, 08:51:56 AM »
So we are back with the more mundane things that are easier to predict. Say the chances of a 6m rise in sea levels before 2100. If it were to happen, major disruptions to low-lying areas will cost money, major construction projects to meet the threat will cost money, moving of cities will cost money. But the impact on the global economy? Might even be significantly positive, major construction efforts, building of newer and greener cities, etc etc. Money can be produced at will by governments to meet any need, and pumping it into the economy to pay for major construction work will have a positive effect on economic growth.
Binntho I am beyond amazed by this. 6m sea level rise could be good for the economy? The USA can't even maintain its own current infrastructure, and you expect that with several major cities under the waves (NYC, Miami, Boston, DC, NOLA, parts of LA, Houston, and many more) spewing pollution into the ocean, all ports underwater, many airports underwater, coastal power plants underwater, this will be good for the economy because money printing will fix this? It's an issue of resources, not money. And globally? London, Shanghai, Karachi, Alexandria, the whole of Bangladesh, the list is endless I can't even be bothered to google it. All highly productive river deltas underwater. And this in the span of 8 decades, good luck to humanity. Not to mention the climate changing and environmental destruction - the above is just SLR. And supposedly 10 billion humans on the planet.
Luckily, 6m probably won't happen so soon but 2-3m by 2100 will still cause lots and lots of physical damage.
This whole discussion is OT in this thread, if you care to repost in a proper thread I might bother with a longer answer, but seriously please reconsider.