Should we believe the experts or the politicians regarding climate change?

[columbus]

If these eco-companies are so convinced about the damaging effects of CO2 there is nothing to stop them investing without government regulation forcing ordinary people to pay green taxes.

Sure there is.
The fossil fuel industry doesn't have to pay for waste disposal, they just dump the exhaust on everyone.

How long would fossil fuels remain the economically viable power source, if cars couldn't have exhaust pipes, power plants couldn't have smoke stacks, and plastics manufactures had to remove their products from the biosphere, homes couldn't have....

Or else they were charged a fee comparable to the cost of removing and sequestering their waste products?
Biodegradable products and renewable energy sources would become the economically feasible resources.

Tom

 

[Notanumber]

It seems that what they are discussing here occurred in the UK earlier in the month.

What caused the UK's power blackout and will it happen again? - Watt-Logic

 

[Milton Platt]

My apologies if your take was that my post was accusing u of avoiding info. imho there are an infinite number of facts out there and some can support one point of view and other facts may reinforce the other view. Our job is to look at the preponderance of facts and judge for ourselves where proof of truth lies.

As for warming and food production, my hope is that there are a lot of facts we can share w/ each other and decide where we agree on as to the various levels of human prosperity over the centuries when global climate temps cycled.

You game?

No, I didn't take your post that way or in any other negative fashion. We're good.....

How a warmer climate (as opposed to just local and/or temporary weather patterns) affects food production is a very complicated and nuanced issue. Simply stating that more CO2 will increase plant growth and therefore increase overall food production is probably an over-simplification.

 

[Notanumber]

As this man says, now that we know that renewable can’t save the planet are we going to keep letting them destroy it.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...How a warmer climate (as opposed to just local and/or temporary weather patterns) affects food production is a very complicated and nuanced issue. Simply stating that more CO2 will increase plant growth and therefore increase overall food production is probably an over-simplification...

What I get is you're experiencing difficulty judging how temps affect food production and that you're not willing to decide.

There are an infinite number of ways to make this work. One choice is to compare winter time crop yields to that of summer crops. Another way is by comparing different farming areas that are similar in all regards except temp. Of course, for every one of the infinite number of possible solutions it's also possible to come of w/ ways each solution can fail, but the idea is to make it work and come up w/ an indicator while not accepting failure as a goal.

The invitation still stands, are you willing for us to examine the question together?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

We need to aggressively reduce carbon emissions imho. We don't need to eliminate them altogether. This ideology that "renewables won't work, so push on!" is just asinine. There are extremists on both sides of any issue, and extremists are the last one to listen to.

 

[Milton Platt]

What I get is you're experiencing difficulty judging how temps affect food production and that you're not willing to decide.

There are an infinite number of ways to make this work. One choice is to compare winter time crop yields to that of summer crops. Another way is by comparing different farming areas that are similar in all regards except temp. Of course, for every one of the infinite number of possible solutions it's also possible to come of w/ ways each solution can fail, but the idea is to make it work and come up w/ an indicator while not accepting failure as a goal.

The invitation still stands, are you willing for us to examine the question together?

That could be a discussion that goes on for days and days and really gets off in the weeds. In would be interested in links suggesting that any increase in plant growth/food production in some areas would not be offset by reduction of same in other areas of the globe.
Also to be taken into consideration would be negative effects of increased ocean levels, changes in salinity and ph of oceans and it's effect on that food chain. Also, encroachment of desert conditions into current croplands, storm damage, flood damage to crops.

It's a huge topic and everything is intertwined. The question to me isn't whether higher co2 levels will increase plant growth....it does and has in the past. The question is at what cost to the environment, animal habitat, etc.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That could be a discussion that goes on for days and days and really gets off in the weeds. In would be interested in links suggesting that any increase in plant growth/food production in some areas would not be offset by reduction of same in other areas of the globe.
Also to be taken into consideration would be negative effects of increased ocean levels, changes in salinity and ph of oceans and it's effect on that food chain. Also, encroachment of desert conditions into current croplands, storm damage, flood damage to crops.

It's a huge topic and everything is intertwined. The question to me isn't whether higher co2 levels will increase plant growth....it does and has in the past. The question is at what cost to the environment, animal habitat, etc.

sounds good, later maybe.

 

[Pete in Panama]

We need to aggressively reduce carbon emissions imho. We don't need to eliminate them altogether. This ideology that "renewables won't work, so push on!" is just asinine. There are extremists on both sides of any issue, and extremists are the last one to listen to.

Making reducing carbon emissions a virtue is an idea at the end of a long series of controversial conclusions --but they're all moot because it's inevitable as the wealth human kind creates evolves from material goods into information. For decades the U.S. has been a (if not "the") world economic leader and the lion's share of its production growth has been in the creation of more and more information. The consequence has been an accelerating reduction of America's 'carbon-footprint':

So good, bad, or whatever reason the world's energy consumption is destined to fall simply because it's the path to continued prosperity.

 

[metis]

Making reducing carbon emissions a virtue is an idea at the end of a long series of controversial conclusions --but they're all moot because it's inevitable as the wealth human kind creates evolves from material goods into information. For decades the U.S. has been a (if not "the") world economic leader and the lion's share of its production growth has been in the creation of more and more information. The consequence has been an accelerating reduction of America's 'carbon-footprint':

So good, bad, or whatever reason the world's energy consumption is destined to fall simply because it's the path to continued prosperity.

Which is why Steven Hawking said that we must make plans to be ready to move to another planet or moon, as he believes our "selfish gene" will likely doom us here on Earth.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Which is why Steven Hawking said that we must make plans to be ready to move to another planet or moon, as he believes our "selfish gene" will likely doom us here on Earth.

--but wouldn't that simply just worsen the spread of the "selfish gene"?

 

[Notanumber]

This proves that when it comes to Climate Change, money has a greater value than truth.

This brave professor would not be silenced despite the immense pressure that was applied.

Freedom of speech is the answer to Climate Change bias.

This should be reported worldwide.

 

[ratiocinator]

This proves that when it comes to Climate Change, money has a greater value than truth.

Propaganda videos don't prove anything.

It's now quite clear that your answer to the title of your thread is that you believe the alt-right propaganda machine about anything and everything. As I said before, anybody can encase themselves in a bubble and dismiss everything else, especially the "MSM", as "fake news" and misinformation - it's exactly what flat-earthers do - and I'm sure they could come up with videos that "prove" their point too.

 

[ratiocinator]

Which is why Steven Hawking said that we must make plans to be ready to move to another planet or moon, as he believes our "selfish gene" will likely doom us here on Earth.

--but wouldn't that simply just worsen the spread of the "selfish gene"?

Err... um... the "selfish gene" is a reference to genes being the unit of selection in evolutionary theory, as proposed by Richard Dawkins in the book of that name. It refers to all genes being (metaphorically) "selfish". It is not a reference to selfish human behaviour - neither does it refer to a gene for selfishness.

 

[Notanumber]

Propaganda videos don't prove anything.

It's now quite clear that your answer to the title of your thread is that you believe the alt-right propaganda machine about anything and everything. As I said before, anybody can encase themselves in a bubble and dismiss everything else, especially the "MSM", as "fake news" and misinformation - it's exactly what flat-earthers do - and I'm sure they could come up with videos that "prove" their point too.

You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote this post.

Free speech is the best antidote for propaganda videos.

 

[ratiocinator]

Free speech is the best antidote for propaganda videos.

Free speech is generally good but we do have a problem in the modern world with people thinking they can pick and choose their own realities and ignore the experts.

The time at which one person could have any chance of understanding a sensible proportion of human knowledge is long gone (sometime in the nineteenth century, I think). The modern world relies on specialists and experts.

Most people get that they don't have the expertise to (say) design a computer or aeroplane, understand the physics necessary to design semiconductor devices, to develop quantum computers, or understand the details of public key encryption systems, and so on. However, when it comes to things like climate change and vaccination, we have endless pseudo-science nonsense, and many people think they can somehow dispense with the overwhelming expert concusses and believe whatever suits their (usually political) views.

Flat-earthers are an extreme example and, of itself, is probably relatively harmless but (for example) anti-vaxxers are actually putting people's lives at risk - it's a belief that kills people. Climate change denial puts the survival of humankind (or at least, modern civilization) at risk.

It's not impossible that the overwhelming concusses of the world's experts is wrong but the risk of believing people, very few of whom are really qualified, who disagree, is enormous.

You asked a sensible question in the title of this thread...

 

[Notanumber]

Free speech is generally good but we do have a problem in the modern world with people thinking they can pick and choose their own realities and ignore the experts.

The time at which one person could have any chance of understanding a sensible proportion of human knowledge is long gone (sometime in the nineteenth century, I think). The modern world relies on specialists and experts.

Most people get that they don't have the expertise to (say) design a computer or aeroplane, understand the physics necessary to design semiconductor devices, to develop quantum computers, or understand the details of public key encryption systems, and so on. However, when it comes to things like climate change and vaccination, we have endless pseudo-science nonsense, and many people think they can somehow dispense with the overwhelming expert concusses and believe whatever suits their (usually political) views.

Flat-earthers are an extreme example and, of itself, is probably relatively harmless but (for example) anti-vaxxers are actually putting people's lives at risk - it's a belief that kills people. Climate change denial puts the survival of humankind (or at least, modern civilization) at risk.

It's not impossible that the overwhelming concusses of the world's experts is wrong but the risk of believing people, very few of whom are really qualified, who disagree, is enormous.

You asked a sensible question in the title of this thread...

Political dogma is a major influence on what should be fully independent expert opinion.

As I said earlier in this thread, follow the money.

The US Green New Deal has at its heart making every residential and industrial building energy efficient. Given there are around 140 million residential buildings alone in the US this by definition means jobs in every district in the country, both Republican and Democrat. Such a Green New Deal could therefore be the cornerstone of the Democrats’ attempt to beat Donald Trump in 2020.

A 'Northern Green New Deal Powerhouse' could show the way for Europe and beyond - The Green New Deal Group

 

[ratiocinator]

As I said earlier in this thread, follow the money.

Follow which money? Of course if big changes are needed, somebody is going to make money out of it, while other people lose out. Politicians will try to take advantage either way.

Generally speaking, people don't go into science to make money; most scientists aren't rich.

 

[metis]

Err... um... the "selfish gene" is a reference to genes being the unit of selection in evolutionary theory, as proposed by Richard Dawkins in the book of that name. It refers to all genes being (metaphorically) "selfish". It is not a reference to selfish human behaviour - neither does it refer to a gene for selfishness.

Thanks for the technical correction on that, but I was referring to the fact that we tend to drift towards what's best for us personally versus the society as a whole. However, that is not uniform as there are a great many examples of people who are willing to sacrifice, including giving up their own life, to protect the group.

A recent study that I saw covered briefly on the news stated that some psychologists estimate that about 40% of those in probably most societies have difficulty with having empathy towards others. However, I don't know any details about that study.

 

[Notanumber]

Follow which money? Of course if big changes are needed, somebody is going to make money out of it, while other people lose out. Politicians will try to take advantage either way.

Generally speaking, people don't go into science to make money; most scientists aren't rich.

You are right about politicians taking advantage of any situation.

Generally speaking, people do go into science because they are gifted and want to use that gift to benefit humanity and the environment. They also want to be truthful, but if telling the truth is likely to ruin their livelihoods what do you expect them to do?

Not everyone is as brave as Peter Ridd is.