If Climate Change Is A Lie, Is It Still Worth The Risk?
climate.nasa.gov
It doesn't matter if climate change is a complete lie! The obvious move is to cover your ass anyway!
Don't need it? Don't buy it!
Stop participating! End the oil wars! End pollution!
Look into the soil conditions of America overtime. The darker regions indicate drier soil. As the soil dries and the rain fails to show up, the water goes away and the crops stop growing. When the crops stop growing people migrate.
I really hope this is all a big lie and science is wrong. If it is I will be happy. In my opinion we should heed the warning regardless. What if it all turns out to be true and we did nothing? We shouldn't take the risk. The smart move is to fix the environment before it potentially becomes unfixable. It is better to take the precaution than to take the risk of killing billions of humans and even more plants and animals.
But regardless.. reducing overconsumption is the only way to plateau the increasingly uneven wage gap and to ensure that companies properly mitigate resources rather than making huge stockpiles of things we dont need, advertising to our psychology as to why we need them, and selling them to us for more than they are worth.
We are addicted to stuff and in my opinion it not only ruins the ecosystem, but it is also just a misuse of resources that could turn out to be much more valuable in the future, and it destabilizes the economy because the resources are finite and the current consumption is unsustainable and inefficient.
It doesn't matter if climate change is a complete lie! The obvious move is to cover your ass anyway!
Don't need it? Don't buy it!
Stop participating! End the oil wars! End pollution!
Look into the soil conditions of America overtime. The darker regions indicate drier soil. As the soil dries and the rain fails to show up, the water goes away and the crops stop growing. When the crops stop growing people migrate.
I really hope this is all a big lie and science is wrong. If it is I will be happy. In my opinion we should heed the warning regardless. What if it all turns out to be true and we did nothing? We shouldn't take the risk. The smart move is to fix the environment before it potentially becomes unfixable. It is better to take the precaution than to take the risk of killing billions of humans and even more plants and animals.
But regardless.. reducing overconsumption is the only way to plateau the increasingly uneven wage gap and to ensure that companies properly mitigate resources rather than making huge stockpiles of things we dont need, advertising to our psychology as to why we need them, and selling them to us for more than they are worth.
We are addicted to stuff and in my opinion it not only ruins the ecosystem, but it is also just a misuse of resources that could turn out to be much more valuable in the future, and it destabilizes the economy because the resources are finite and the current consumption is unsustainable and inefficient.
Comments (36)
This is an excellent point. I'm in continual awe of the power of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda.
For a while, climate change deniers had an edge due to dropping temperatures in some areas, and the sea not being as much warmer as predicted. As the sea covers 2/3 of the earth, it is a dominant factor in the analysis. However, even in the last 10 years, we now understand much more due to better satellite data on weather, and something called the ARGO buoy system ( http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html ). Its data is available from NOAA ( https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/) . It originally measured only temperatures in the first 50 feet of the sea, and it was assumed deeper waters were simply colder. But in trying to find the missing heat, new 'bouncing buoys' were deployed can now measure temperatures down to 3000 feet. And the missing heat in the ocean was found, in large, static 'bubbles' under currents higher up, where the heat is trapped and does not reach the surface.
These currents also convey cold water from the poles, causing lower temperatures elsewhere from melting ice caps.
Incidentally, the increased heat reduces the amount of oxygen that can be retained, and the best study of the data so far, published in SCIENCE in 2018, finds that the lowest zone of the ocean, the 'dead zone,' has quadrupled in size since 1950 ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/04/oceans-suffocating-dead-zones-oxygen-starved ). Other human factors besides the greenhouse effect, such as agricultural runoff, are adding to this ( https://earthsky.org/earth/dead-zone-gulf-of-mexico-2019 ), causing the dead zone to extend closer and closer to the surface. In combination with overfishing by modern 'super trawlers,' this has depleted large areas of the ocean of fish entirely.
The only remaining issue is whether our impact is significant compared to other factors affecting the global environment. Of these the most significant is heat from the sun, which slowly varies to some extent not predictable. On this there are obviously three alternatives.
So given the choices, we should definitely do something, yes.
I would agree that modern propaganda techniques have evolved to the point where it is no longer possible for human reason to defeat it in the USA. I had the same problem when I was working in gun control, where the NRA has been so successful, half of the USA refuses to believe that anything it says could possibly be wrong. I wrote something about the NRA's propaganda techniques here: https://www.yofiel.com/writing/guns2/243-nra
There is no longer any point at all in trying to convince gun owners that their beliefs could be wrong. Any fact you show them has so many false counter arguments stacked up against it, it is snowed under until they simply change the subject to some other false propaganda from the NRA.
It seems mostly unique to the USA. The rest of the world has not shown itself to be so gullible. I atrtribute it to the USA's founding on 'self evident truth' in the Declaration of Independence, which is also wrongly understood in all of the USA. Franklin changed Jefferson's original words 'sacred and undeniable' to 'self evident' to accommodate Paine's philosophy of naive realism, which was popular at the time. In fact even the natural rights themselves are not so self evident. People have different intuitions on what natural rights might be, or how to resolve conflicts between them. And Jefferson actually based his choice on Locke's empirical reasoning, but as it has a theistic premise, it is not taught in public shools.
People in the USA are particularly susceptible to 'self evident' fallacies. Its a cold winter, so global warming must be wrong. Basically that's as far as most people in this country are capable of thinking.
I'm not sure if that's true, but the level to which the propaganda is implemented is probably unique. Nevertheless, other countries whose economies depend of the exporting of fossil fuels are also persuadable. Brazil, Russia, Australia, Britain, etc.
Thats not empirically true. The USA and Nicaragua are the only two nations which did not sign up to the Paris Accord. Everyone else generally agrees the planet is warming up. And no other country believes more guns mean less crime.
I think every country, including this one, has a majority of people who believe the climate is changing and it's man-made. That's not my point. Also, Brazil is in the Paris Accord as well -- as is the US (until later this year). That's meaningless. My point is the percentage of people who deny it's happening altogether are going to be found in larger numbers in fossil-fuel exporting countries. And that's indeed what you find. Empirically.
ooh. I didnt know that. I'll do some reading on it, thank you )
Can't tell if this is sarcastic.
Fair enough. Glad to help.
Maybe. He won by a few thousand votes in normally blue states and lost by 3 million in the popular. Hardly a guarantee.
I've often wondered if a miracle cheap source of clean energy wouldn't actually make matters even worse! Energy is the means by which we turn the planet's resources into consumer products. Imagine if we were to suddenly gain access to unlimited free energy! Of course, then we'd also be able to sequester carbon, rearrange the galaxy, and so on...
The climate changes. Some people disagree about the impact humans have in the climate - it’s clear enough that we impact the environment so it’s probably better to take that approach to those who refuse to take notice of carbon emissions and scientific projections.
It is hard to deny that cleaner water, management of sea flora and fauna, protection of ecosystems, and maintaining biodiversity are worthy aims. I don’t see the point in arguing about human impact i terms of climate change as it’s a reasonably well known psychological fact that people only change their minds when they arrive at the conclusion by themselves, and that ‘battling’ them does little more than cause mental entrenchment.
When it comes to the world we live in together it’s more fruitful to look for collective agreement on matters and assist each other in those areas rather than bludgeon each other to death with words which only serve the purpose of egotistical decimation of the ‘opponent’ - find common ground and work there.
It's the same with Gravity. If it's a lie, is safe to flap our ears and take off?
Even if a new source of energy is discovered, the economic barriers against it are daunting:
1. Special interests: The powerful elite that profits from burning fossil fuels has no interest in easing their grip and sacrificing financial empires in favor of the planet's environmental health.
2. Infrastructure: Switching to alternate power sources comes at a huge financial cost, and all who enjoy the conveniences of burning fossil fuels have to be willing to open their wallets and pay big now to build an infrastructure that makes fossil fuels obsolete.
In the end it will play out as it needs to play out: Most environmentalists see humans almost as a foreign plague that arrived to destroy nature, but in reality we are nothing but a product of nature. We evolved in this planet and by this planet. Time will tell whether humans are able to evolve past their child-like selfishness and acquire a global conscience... or whether the cycle of life on the planet naturally ends with humans.
Whatever it is, life will persist and adapt. A couple million years after man has wiped itself off of the face of the earth (a mere blip in cosmic time), there will be no trace of the fact that we once existed.
.
Food is different from the rest of the products. We need food so I dont expect anyone to stop eating. We can source our food as eco friendly and locally as possible and that is the best we can do for food.
What I am more concerned about is all of the extra things that we do not need. New sneakers, new speakers, new watches. We do not need all of the extras and in fact they are holding us back from moving forward. We have to stop buying mass produced wants and we have to start buying just local needs.
So we have to try. Try for my children. Your friend's and family's children. Try because life is an amazing thing and it's worth continuing.
Isn't that Pascal's wager? If God exists, a little piety, showing up to church on Sunday, being kind to your fellow man, are a small price to pay for eternal salvation. And if you don't do those things but God does exist, you'll receive eternal damnation. Like spending eternity on hold with the insurance company as I was a little while ago. If God exists, the payoff for being pious is positive infinity; and the punishment for not being pious is negative infinity. If God doesn't exist, it only costs a finite amount of work to be pious. So by mathematical expectation, we should be pious whether or not God exists.
Of course the assumption is that the creator of the universe is so petty as to sort his creations into "naughty" and "nice." This conflates God with Santa Claus. So I think it's not really a good argument. A God that's keeping track of your every move, every act, every naughty thought. This is the God of a highly neurotic culture I think.
Re climate change, I favor a more nuanced approach.
* Is climate change real, and is it any different lately than the normal variance you'd expect over the ages the earth has had a climate?
* If there is a change and it's uniformly in one direction, is the cause primarily man-made?
* Even if it is, are there any sensible actions we can take while preserving our economy?
* How do we balance all these factors? We don't want to move back to caves and we'd like to be good stewards of nature. Where's the balance?
* How's the science. Are computer models "truth?" The earth is billions of years old and our climate records mere hundreds, if that. Maybe there's a lot about the climate we don't know.
Of course now I'm a "climate denier" and Sean Hannity as someone called me in another thread where I didn't even mention climate change!
I do oppose climate hysteria. The bushfires in Australia are mostly due to arsonists. 183 people have already been arrested. That doesn't prevent the screeching of radical environmentalists.
I think a sense of proportion, judgment, and thoughtful weighing of the evidence and alternatives and choices to be made, is better than hysterical panic that labels everyone who disagrees a hater and a denier. Having that opinion makes me in some people's eyes a hater and denier. It's frustrating but that's the culture these days.
But if I owned beachfront properties I would be selling them.
I disagree for two reasons: #1, no country anywhere on the planet is inconveniencing themselves very much on behalf of global warming (which is adding to the tragedy). It is not the case that the people in the USA or any other country are stupid and deluded. What IS the case is the global economy is based on fossil fuels. Take away coal, oil, and gas and the world economy (local and global) would crash and burn. Shifting from fossil to renewable energy is not at all simple, quick, convenient, or free.
Reason #2 is that fossil fuels are by no means a US monopoly. Many countries mine coal, pump up petroleum, or utilize natural gas. Granted, the USA has been and is one of the largest producers and users of fossil fuels. Granted, the fossil fuel and allied industries (transportation, electric generation, construction/building heating and cooling) have propagandized intensely on their own behalf. For some odd reason they are not just sitting there and letting eco-green meanies put them out of business. But its a world-wide business, and everybody participates in it--whether they want to or not.
I am 100% in favor of converting to renewable energy with haste--if it isn't already too late--but doing so will not entail severe consequences (but better consequences then continuing to burn every last pound of fossil fuel we can get our hands on).
It does matter because lie-based policy involves a lot of screwing with one's mind, and everybody else's. "let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay." Speak truly, honestly, in other words.
I agree with your approach, although I notice you didn't have in your list,
*in what ways are we polluting the planet and what are the likely consequences?
However there is a flaw in your argument. You appear to be working on the assumption that once you have concluded from the answers to these questions, or public opinion has so concluded, that we should be doing something about it, that the required action will follow. If that were the case I would be relaxed about the issue as you are, but that it is not the case that such action will naturally follow.
Far from it, there is a great deal of inertia in the system, there is short term political expediency, as evidenced by the wave of populism sweeping the world. There are powerful vested interests. There are fools in power playing war games. There are countries with no effective government, which are only going to change if the rest of the world is already changing. It is the awareness of such difficulties which exasperate the people who are shouting about climate change, level headed scientists included.
But what about the billion or more people who live at, or slightly above sea level, will they come and join you, when you move uphill?
I have recently moved uphill, to 56m, hopefully the value of my property will hold up for the foreseeable.
I live at one mile elevation on the prairie. Lots of room up here. But the surfing sucks.