It's a bit warm/ wet/ cold outside

[Tiplodocus]

So an article about moving to being more sustainable on our internal company website has brought quite a few climate change deniers out into the open on the comments sections.

I say "deniers" but their main thrust tends to be "Sure, the climate is changing but it's nothing to do with human activity. We'll just have to ride it out.".

Vegans too. It brought out a lot of vegans. Which is nice.

[Leigh S]

The comments on the BBC news story regarding the Greens manifesto are dispiriting almost to a man - i think we deserve wiping out, sadly - too many goons happy to "whatabout India and China" and "who's gonna pay for it/too disruptive" - let's see how disruptive it really gets, you imbeciles

[IndigoPrime]

This would be the same Green party that would also make most people's lives much better with redistributed wealth, the aim of a four-day week, a citizen's income so no poor fuckers are left with nothing, and so on.

I really can't get on board with some Green policy, but dismissing them as crackpots seems an idiotic response that far too many people are prone to. Yes, they are at the extremes of British politics, but that's only because we've been wrenched so far right. Economically, they are in a broadly similar space to Labour, but are more progressive; and socially, they are largely liberal in outlook.

In short: GAH.

[Tjm86]

... their main thrust tends to be "Sure, the climate is changing but it's nothing to do with human activity. We'll just have to ride it out."

In some respects they're likely to be right in the next age .... The potential complete lack of human activity is likely to be a factor in the next climate change epoch.

Pity no one is likely to be around to see it.   

[The Legendary Shark]

[rant]

My view is that humans' contribution to climate change is small, but our overall damage factor is high - mainly through various species of pollution and over-exploitation. The focus on carbon dioxide is, to me, misguided and dangerous as the major global strategy. It's most useful role, as I see it, is as the poster child for much wider change - the equivalent of the WWF's panda symbol for the Just Look After the Effing Planet  it's Not Rocket Surgery for God's Sake Party.

The climate is going to change, there's absolutely no doubt about that because the climate has always changed. Ancient civilisations habitually find themselves subsumed by deserts or seas, sometimes due to the consequences of their own actions, sometimes not. I have no doubt that humans are contributing to the dynamics of the atmosphere and, by extension, the climate. I question, however, the extent and range of that contribution. That said, if we are having a detrimental effect, no matter its magnitude, then we must strive to minimise it across the board.

There is a theory that Christianity is the religion of choice for materialistic societies such as ours because it claims that God gave the world to humanity, making it property - to be used, disposed of, and controlled at will. The Old Way, the savage way, saw the world as communal - the benefactor, and (most crucially) the responsibility of all creatures. We see the planet and all that is contained therein as ours, to do with as we please. Strip mine. Build a house. Mow a lawn. Control.

We are all but told, now, that we can control the climate. Of an entire planet. Because it's ours. We can affect it, sure, like we can affect a wild tiger by poking it with a stick. But control it? Let's say it all goes right and the CO2 levels drop better than expected and sooner than expected: who knows what knock-on effects such a sudden and radical shift in atmospheric composition and dynamics would have? Okay, so that's pure speculation, practically worthless.

Thing is, it's like that old thing about betting that there is a God - if you win, you win Big. If you lose, you'd have lost anyway. This whole CO2 thing - sure. Go for it. If nothing else it'll encourage new research, new technologies, new power sources. I believe that the foundation of the CO2 movement has ulterior motives but that doesn't invalidate the whole idea behind it - look after the planet.

We will never get back to the Old Way, we like our houses (and sheds) too much. The Modern Way is not working, we like our houses (and sheds) too much. This whole climate argument is, to me, entirely demonstrative of where we are as a species: dazed and confused, and, at the same time, angry and convinced. All of us. Me included.

You want to know how I change the world? I don't buy bottled water, for one thing. Bottled [spoiler]fucking[/spoiler] water, for Christ's sake. All my water comes out of a [spoiler]fucking[/spoiler] tap. Sure, it might be full of all sorts of rubbish and super bad for me but then so be it. I'm not above the planet. Bottled water! Huh! If ever there was a more morally objectionable, and environmentally irresponsible, product on sale in a so-called First World country then bottled  [spoiler]fucking[/spoiler] water is it. So I don't buy any. Bottled water is my CO2.

Oh look - I see a point approaching...

As I've said before, it ain't CO2. At least, it ain't all CO2. It ain't all even bottled [spoiler]fucking[/spoiler] water. It's about humanity's relationship with the Earth. She does not belong to us. We belong to her - and any plan to live in harmony with Her is fine by me. Just remember that CO2 is not the only fruit, though it is currently the most popular - and expensive - fruit.

[/rant]

[IndigoPrime]

My view is that humans' contribution to climate change is small

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[Funt Solo]

Shark, you seem offended by people wanting to try to make the Earth more habitable, or habitable for humans for longer. Why is that offensive?

Take all your arguments and apply them to bath water temperature.  Hmm - my bath water is getting a bit cold, I'll add some warm.  In bursts Shark: "Just because you are in the bath, you presume that you have the right to add warm water to it?" etc.

[The Legendary Shark]

Sorry, IP, I can't read that on this ol' 'phone.

Not at all, Funt, I think everyone should treat our planet with care and respect. It's the focus on CO2, virtually to the exclusion of all else, that concerns me. Nature knows how to deal with CO2, she makes good use of it and has been doing so forever. It might take her some time but she'll eventually sort it, one way or another. What she does have problems with are all the other gases and toxins we constantly belch out, all the rubbish we dump, all the ecosystems we plunder.

I'm behind anyone who wants to make our Home a better place, I'm not even averse to people making a profit out of doing so, as long as it's done ethically. What does offend me is the way CO2 is being used as a vehicle for social control and the redistribution of wealth in an upwards direction. It's a battle on two fronts; against the poisoning of the world on one hand and the machinations of the poison peddlers on the other.

[IndigoPrime]

99% of scientists disagree. You know this. We've been over this. Humans have released carbon at a rate of knots never seen in history at this speed while simultaneously eradicating the things that can help control it (like the Amazon) and worsening things by adding to the amount kicked out. The result is tipping points.

In the long run, the planet will be fine. Some life will survive whatever we do. The point is whether or not we as humans want a habitable planet. And if we do, the science is very, very clear about how we go about that. Fight against it all you want, but at this point you're in "world is flat" or "I don't believe in gravity" territory.

shaolin_monkey: thanks for all the links. They are appreciated. And terrifying.

[The Legendary Shark]

It's not 99% of scientists who believe in AGW. The figure is 97.1%. And it's not 97.1% of all the scientists in all the disciplines in the world. It's not even 97.1% of all climate scientists.

If one reads the original paper from 2013 upon which this claim is based, one can see that it's 97.1% of 33.3% of 11,944 abstracts published between 1991 and 2011 that take a position on AGW. Of those papers that do take a position, there is a range of opinion on the actual levels of AGW.

If the science were that strong, obfuscation of this sort would be unnecessary. This is the aspect that politicians bring to the table - representing a percentage of a subset as a percentage of a whole in order to bolster their arguments. Politicians misusing information? Well, that's new...

[IndigoPrime]

Gah.

[shaolin_monkey]

Sharkey, some things you say I agree with, but there are two I definitely don't.

Please watch this video from Prof. John Cook.  It's only about 6 mins long.  It describes in detail where the 97% consensus figure comes from, and where logical fallacies are used to exploit folk to think the level of agreement among climate experts is an issue. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAqR9mLJrcE


This is from a course I am studying currently on edxonline, which is all about the psychology of man-made climate change denial.  The 97% figure comes from actual scientific studies, not politicians, not fossil fuel think tanks, not people with an agenda.  The studies were first begun by Naomi Oreskes, author of 'Merchants of Doubt' (another recommended read - please google it).



The other thing I disagree with is your view on CO2.  The parts per million in the atmosphere (415 PPM currently versus 280 PPM pre-industrial) is DEFINITELY causing problems RIGHT NOW, and it is going to get worse. 

We're past debating this - the evidence is all around us.  Ice caps melting, fires in California, Russia, Australia, Greenland, and in the Arctic, floods in the UK and Venice, record breaking heatwaves all over Europe year after year after year, water stress - water running out in places like Chennai and Cape Town, crop failures from climate stresses in the US and Europe etc etc etc.

I could go on and on and on.

I appreciate there's all kinds of confusing information about this on the internet.  Please bear in mind there's a fossil fuel-funded propaganda war going on out there, trying to downplay or poo-poo the problem.

Please do this FREE course from Prof. Michael E. Mann on edxonline.  He's basically the no.1 professor and communicator on climate science.

It's about 8 - 10 hours of study, and explains very clearly why CO2 is a problem, and how we have been aware of it's atmosphere-warming properties for over 100 years.

Please take the course, and update your understanding:

https://www.edx.org/course/climate-change-the-science-and-global-impact


I'll finish with this 7 minute vid, again from the course I am on at the moment.  It includes words from Sir David Attenborough, amongst others, and explains why challenging the myths spouted by climate change deniers is so difficult:

https://youtu.be/Hsllpg5jW7c

[shaolin_monkey]

I will add quickly that you are right to be worried about a whole bunch of other stuff - overuse of pesticides, water sources filled with hormones, deforestation, natural resources stripped and destroy to match our consumption, plastic getting into the sea and our very drinking water (totally with you on the plastic bottles issue), destruction of flora and fauna all over the world...but a lot of those things are also linked to climate change.

If we don't get on top of the CO2 issue, all these other environmental issues will be irrelevant, because our species will quite simply not survive a 4 degree average global temperature increase over the next 50 - 100 years, and we're already pushing the 1.5 degrees mark now. 

[Professor Bear]

Most scientists have been saying all along that the weather will change, and then it did.  The minority said the weather would not change at all, and then it did and their position became "okay the weather changed but that's got nothing to do with us".  On one hand, I can choose to believe scientists who have been right so far, or I can believe scientists that changed their story the second they were caught out in a lie.  I mean, it's a tough call - do I believe the people who want us to change our way of living to something less wasteful, more mindful of our environment, and considerate of the needs of the global poor, or do I take the advice of a small minority of people who say we're doing just fine as we are, that nothing needs to change, and whose interests align with a ruling class whom I despise and who have traditionally obtained their wealth through theft, deceit, and mass murder?

You know what, I'm going to side with the oil companies on this one.  The all-powerful environmental lobby has been calling the shots for too long.

[The Legendary Shark]

Thanks, SM. Unfortunately, this old 'phone won't play YouTube videos. Can you point me to similar text versions?