Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Politics And AGW/GW

Recommended Posts

Most of the pro-AGW extremists probably are socialists

Yeah there's a good reason they're colloquially known as pomegranates. :) I suspect there a few who lurk around on this forum and others like it to.

Anyway, I've printed out this thread for when I have a bad day. Endless amusement is to be had when certainty is claimed - from either side. I recommend The End of Certainty as essential reading, for all those concerned. Yes, you know who you are.

(I know this isn't a peer reviewed paper, but the guy did get a Nobel prize on this subject, so does that count as a voice worth listening to?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solar Cycles's post only holds true for the fringe extremists. Most of the pro-AGW extremists probably are socialists, who use the AGW argument to further their agendas of bringing us towards Communism. Similarly, those on the far economic right tend to be anti-AGW as curbing the risks from unsustainable development and possible resultant anthropogenic climate change poses serious questions to the philosophy "unregulated free markets are the solution to everything". Many of the links that Solar Cycles, Noggin and Laserguy post up feature people in the second category writing articles.

But for those in between, there is probably little correlation between political ideologies and belief in AGW. It is sometimes used as a tool by politicians to further other agendas, but so are many other things, some of which are questionable, while others are indisputably truths.

On the politics front it annoys me when people who support capitalism label anyone whose views deviate from "unregulated free markets are the solution to everything" as a "Marxist", and yes I've been called a Marxist numerous times on this forum. On the contrary, I do not support Marxism simply because it is likely to leave everyone at the lowest common denominator. I see markets as a part of the solution, but also feel that some kind of outside regulation/intervention is also needed in cases where the markets would otherwise go all-out to maximise profits at the expense of everyone and everything else, or prevent constructive action from being taken due to laissez-faire getting in the way.

With regards personal liberty there has to be a balance struck between the rights of the individual and the protection of the collective good of the population. I argue that striking such a balance is the best way to maximise freedom, as if we give people too much personal liberty, it allows people to impinge heavily on the freedoms of others. I also argue that the same applies to economic as well as personal liberty. I do have concerns that we are sliding towards authoritarianism, but not because of AGW or lack of it, rather because of agendas that I've raised numerous times in other threads.

Good post, and I fully agree with that.

I do worry that certain policy makers and beuracrats want to use AGW as a political tool for taxing every form of life and reaping profit from what the people pay. Then again, certain scientists and politicians may have other agendas in speaking against AGW; or how they perceive it is researched.

I have doubts really about any such measures in Europe or America given that China and Russia are currently determined to continue their use of carbon-based fuels. They certainly wont allow people like the Rockefellers (oil barons of the USA) to dictate to them what they should do in the future on a political level.

Yeah there's a good reason they're colloquially known as pomegranates. :lol: I suspect there a few who lurk around on this forum and others like it to.

Anyway, I've printed out this thread for when I have a bad day. Endless amusement is to be had when certainty is claimed - from either side. I recommend The End of Certainty as essential reading, for all those concerned. Yes, you know who you are.

(I know this isn't a peer reviewed paper, but the guy did get a Nobel prize on this subject, so does that count as a voice worth listening to?)

Henry Kissinger also got a Nobel prize for peace....but the guy is regarded by many to be a war criminal to be tried in the Hague.

:lol:

I do agree though that certain things beyond our understanding should be for now attributed to 'chaos theory' - given that the 'rulebook' becomes more flexible at times in nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solar, you are, I take it, opposed to socialism (as, on the whole, am I - though you have to define your terms.....even you probably completely accept a degree of what would have been described a hundred years ago as rabid socialism). You are convinced that those who believe in AGW (and think we need to address it as a problem) are mainly socialists. You are in danger, I'd have thought, of not accepting AGW mainly because it is being preached at you by the "enemy", and they must be wrong.

The problem with that logical sequence - quite apart from it making it impossible to look at the science objectively - is that it is based on an untruth: many, perhaps most socialists accept AGW (and, yes, enjoy the opportunities it affords for regulating still more of our lives); but many, perhaps most of those who accept AGW are not what I would define as socialists. Yes, I believe in the existence of, and threat posed by AGW. No, I do not consider myself a socialist. I know many other thinking people in the same position. I am by instinct both a libertarian and a liberal, and I regret greatly the unavoidable restrictions on our freedom of choice that follow an acceptance of the dangers of climate change. In the same way I accept, but regret that I cannot drive at 100 mph while drunk if I choose, or more mundanely have to wait in a long queue at the Post Office when I am in a hurry: my 'right' to do what I want needs to be balanced with the rights of those who may be adversely affected by my behaviour.

I am also reminded of the Britain-fully-in-Europe arguments. While it is true that most socialists are in favour these days, most people who who are in favour are not socialists. It is the more extreme fringe on both Right and Left who are opposed. Similarly with AGW there is an unholy alliance of opponents-on-essentially-ideological-grounds: the ultra-libertarian Right who do not want their own lives and freedom interfered with, and Leftists who are passionately opposed to rich countries' attempts to curtail the development and empowerment of poorer ones. Please note that I am referring to ideological positions on the subject: I am not for a minute suggesting that all opponents of the AGW think what they think because of a violent antipathy to its political consequences.

I do think, however, that we all need to look carefully at why we are drawn to believe one camp or the other, and try and put that firmly away while we examine the science from as close to the horse's mouth as possible. Simply to follow the opinions of columnists whose politics we like is probably not a good way to go - and we get a lot of links to such commentators offered on here.

Ossie

PS Thanks, Noggin, for the thread: a very good idea indeed.

Agree with much of this, especially the final paragraph.

This is actually opening a massive philosophical can of beans...

Political ideologies tend to be, in my opinion, either:

1/ an attempt to create a set of living conditions which will benefit a group of people, eg. of a country, an ethnic origin, but rarely unfortunately does it genuinely reach beyond these limitations (ie benefit all mankind, or better our entire planet) except in lip service.

2/ an attempt to justify a similar group's set of living conditions, action and behaviours, or

3/ a reaction against another ideology which in some way denies a group of people's set of living conditions from realising the potential wished for.

The means by which these ideologies, whether for net good or bad, are able to spread, is dictated by the level and types of 'control' that is in influence in an area, state, country etc., eg. in this country we can speak out against the State because we have a democratic procedure that tries to ensure that the law is interpreted by judges and not for instance those wielding the power. We have other problems, such as disinterest and voter apathy meaning we can have a government voted in on a proportionately small percentage of the voting community.

Essentially there is a problem we have to contend with: We are an animal species and although we differ in many ways in terms of our development from other animal species, we certainly share one trait. That is, given an available habitat, with enough resource, we as a race will expand to the limit of our potential in that habitat. Just like in a stable ecology, you will find a fixed ratio in the food chain, which is dictated according to the environment from the smallest single cell life form up to the 'top-feeders'. The trouble is, we are changing our environment. Note I am not following the AGW argument here. I am talking simply about our quest to use more and more resources in order to expand that potential so that every habitat is exploited to a degree which is harmful. Why is Antarctica the least spoilt continent? Because we don't live there...

Some of the ways these resources are used may well be beneficial in some ways to the environment, but the overwhelming majority are not. Some affect locally, some affect globally. Effects are impacting and will further impact habitats detrimentally on the whole.

So, AGW...

As long as people can grasp cause and effect, there will always be political influences involved on both sides of the argument that's being created. But my understanding is it should not an argument but a whole spectrum of issues involving environment, climate and resources. The last of these is why the power, money and politics comes into play in the first place.

When you consider it, can you not think of various political and economic bodies whose short-term vested interests lie in the denial of proper scientific analysis of the real issues? Those with power, i.e. money and the will to use force, will always wield them to ensure their perceived influence is maintained or improved upon. Using a very broad brush, one could say the idea of an AGW 'consensus' is being used by some governments to secure their economic and power-based position by taxation and law-passing for their own ideological gains.

The point is many of the points being made under the AGW banner are on the face of it, reasonable. They persuasively speak to fears we have about our (and our grandchildren's) security and are designed to tap into our conscience to make us feel collectively guilty. Sometimes done with everyone's and the environments best interests at heart, but not always. Where is the funding coming from and why? What ideology is driving the message that is sent out, and is the perceived gain for the few or all, and I don't just mean the human race?

It is scientifically correct to look thoroughly at the way we over-use resources, burn our fuels, clear rainforest and other areas which should be protected, to form theories and collect evidence. This can then lead towards further theories which suggest more positive (less harmful) ways for us to interact with our world, because it is all we have and we continue to do it harm, rather than nurturing it.

If it's really getting warmer over time, the human race is certainly in better shape in terms of habitat than if it's getting cooler. If you had to choose between the two, which would you take? One thing is certain - it has never and will never stay at the same temperature, which is what those in power surely want? The only real fear governments of 'developed' countries have, as well as many of their citizens, is what they stand to lose in the event of warming or cooling. As a whole, the human race would stand to gain if it's warming (up to a point!) because of increased food production. True, there might be a percentage reduction in usable land mass. Again, political problems, not survival ones.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measurably increasing. Good, one could say. Plants like that stuff and grow better. Again, you could say simplistically, people win in the short term, without taking into account different and diverse ecologies and species of plants, fungi, animals, bacteria etc. But you have to assume all things are related in nature, whether directly or indirectly, because that is the essence of how life functions. Some species get to enjoy relatively long periods of time in which to thrive, develop and evolve. Others don't and the factors which affect both scenarios can be based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Mankind cannot dissociate itself from the equation in the arrogant way that has been demonstrated from the industrial revolution onwards. Our ability as a species to thrive develop and, I suppose, evolve in the near term may rest on our intellectual and collective abilities. The longer term isn't really for us to say!

My personal slant re the GW/AGW issues:

Are we affecting our environment? Obviously.

Can we know how that will have impacted and will impact the climate as it was, is and will be? No, because we don't or can't see all the evidence and patterns that could give us clear answers.

So what can we do? It is a moral and individual responsibility of every human being on the planet to respect, nurture and protect our environment around us, including people, animals and ecosystems. Our own personal choices affect all these things in small and sometimes not so small ways.

Do I personally think AGW is a big player compared to natural forcing and cycles? I suspect not, given what I have read so far. But I keep an open mind (hopefully). It is there and real, but I think it's likely that over time the natural forces will turn out to be bigger than we suspected.

Can politics serve the debate in any useful way? Only when people who understand the science and whose ideology is connected meaningfully with the good of the environment and the diverse ecosystems as well as the human race as a whole are leading and influencing the debate. Maybe that's idealistic but what else do we have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fringe extremist!! So if a person doesn't believe, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. Then they are an extremist?

Well yea. That's such a basic fact of physics that if you are denying that you are not a lot different from the people who go around claiming evolution is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant post, NickB! Well written, well argued, well balanced. What more can we want? Just the kind of input that this thread needs, IMO. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yea. That's such a basic fact of physics that if you are denying that you are not a lot different from the people who go around claiming evolution is a myth.

Basic fact!!!! Android it is not FACT at all. But please feel free to prove otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basic fact!!!! Android it is not FACT at all. But please feel free to prove otherwise.

How about YOU try to prove that it's not? Or, better still, prove to us 'sheep' that something else is at the root of GW?

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about YOU try to prove that it's not? Or, better still, prove to us 'sheep' that something else is at the root of GW?

:)

If it were lay-science there would be no need for a scientific consensus, now, would there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about YOU try to prove that it's not? Or, better still, prove to us 'sheep' that something else is at the root of GW?

:)

I've posted evidence to show that man is not responsible for past warming. Extra CO2 does not increase temperatures. You may need to refresh your memory to a previous post of mine! And it should be the scientific community, trying to prove to simple people like me, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. And not by using anemometers, and flawed computer models. Let's see actual evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ossie

PS Thanks, Noggin, for the thread: a very good idea indeed.

A pleasure, Ossie. :)

Can I make a general request, chaps, that scientific debate/discussion goes in one of the other threads please?

This thread was started purely for the political aspect of AGW/GW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/anta...-in-antarctica/

I was going to make a comment on this, but Mr Watts puts it so much better than I could.

Yes, before anybody complains, it's a blog. Just read the letter from Ross Hays to Eric Stern contained therein before dismissing it out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've posted evidence to show that man is not responsible for past warming. Extra CO2 does not increase temperatures. You may need to refresh your memory to a previous post of mine! And it should be the scientific community, trying to prove to simple people like me, that extra CO2 increases temperatures. And not by using anemometers, and flawed computer models. Let's see actual evidence!

So - you've proved that Cretaceous warming episode wasn't caused by anthropogenic CO2? And that's meant to be evidence applicable to 2009 AD, is it?

Ought one to investigate the back of a milk carton when researching the ingredients of marmalade? :D

That's the problem with so many politically motivated claims: so long as the 'conclusion' is as desired, the method is expendable!

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...Minority.Pledge

Al Gore is a hypocrite. He does not and will not practice what he preaches. To have given this odious man a Nobel Prize is to have insulted worthy recipients. :D

The thought that this man's spoutings might have influence on policy is frightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...Minority.Pledge

Al Gore is a hypocrite. He does not and will not practice what he preaches. To have given this odious man a Nobel Prize is to have insulted worthy recipients. :D

The thought that this man's spoutings might have influence on policy is frightening.

That's why I've never watched his Climate Change thingie...He's a politician first! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So - you've proved that Cretaceous warming episode wasn't caused by anthropogenic CO2? And that's meant to be evidence applicable to 2009 AD, is it?

Ought one to investigate the back of a milk carton when researching the ingredients of marmalade? :D

That's the problem with so many politically motivated claims: so long as the 'conclusion' is as desired, the method is expendable!

:D

Oh yes the cretaceous period, maybe you should have a good read up on it yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yes the cretaceous period, maybe you should have a good read up on it yourself!

Pretty grim time for lots of the planet. Lots of extra oxygen around (which allows the period of 'mega' dinosaurs to come about) , ocean basins ripping apart,ocean basins being swallowed, so much Free carbon to allow the likes of the White cliffs of Dover to be laid down by the critters utilising it for their 'homes', gradual move to extinction at the end of the period (prior to the KT event) due to the naff climate and then ,to end it all, an unlucky impact in the seas off Mexico...I think I'd prefer the Jurassic myself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yes the cretaceous period, maybe you should have a good read up on it yourself!

Cut the insults. Just explain how pre-human warming episodes disprove AGW theory! :D

Pretty grim time for lots of the planet. Lots of extra oxygen around (which allows the period of 'mega' dinosaurs to come about) , ocean basins ripping apart,ocean basins being swallowed, so much Free carbon to allow the likes of the White cliffs of Dover to be laid down by the critters utilising it for their 'homes', gradual move to extinction at the end of the period (prior to the KT event) due to the naff climate and then ,to end it all, an unlucky impact in the seas off Mexico...I think I'd prefer the Jurassic myself!

And it says so much about manmade CO2 in the 21st Century, doesn't it? :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brilliant post, NickB! Well written, well argued, well balanced. What more can we want? Just the kind of input that this thread needs, IMO. Thank you!

Completely agree Pete. Super post NickB. Now can we plese have well thought out replys instead of the 2 line put downs. Any more of these will just be binned. There is plenty of "meat on the bone" to chew over on this issue, both personal and observed.

Can I make a general request, chaps, that scientific debate/discussion goes in one of the other threads please?

This thread was started purely for the political aspect of AGW/GW.

Yes. Please stay on topic and remember that the issue is AGW/GW and not a general politics thread. There are plenty of other forums elsewhere on the net for that sort of thing..

Ta muchly.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...Minority.Pledge

Al Gore is a hypocrite. He does not and will not practice what he preaches. To have given this odious man a Nobel Prize is to have insulted worthy recipients. :D

The thought that this man's spoutings might have influence on policy is frightening.

I'll just point out that you've linked to the propaganda spewings of the odious Marc Morano who work for far right wing American politician Sen James Inhofe :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just point out that you've linked to the propaganda spewings of the odious Marc Morano who work for far right wing American politician Sen James Inhofe :doh:

I have linked to a report which shows Al Gore to be a hypocrite; a "don't do as I do, do as I say" person. We all knew he was like this, but as this is a political thread, it is relevant. How the man has the barefaced cheek to spout as he does, I shall never know. It's the same as so many other people in the public eye.....politicians and "celebrities" whose actions belie their words.

Has anybody anything to say about Ross Hays' letter to Eric Stein?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anybody anything to say about Ross Hays' letter to Eric Stein?
With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.

It says a lot really. I think that the media should start reporting without bias and start being factual rather than report just one part of the story, even if they only say BTW its cooling on the other side. I'm not sure if this is political of if it's just to gain interest in a media company's output. Some of the media is steared towards a political line and it shouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have linked to a report which shows Al Gore to be a hypocrite; a "don't do as I do, do as I say" person. We all knew he was like this, but as this is a political thread, it is relevant. How the man has the barefaced cheek to spout as he does, I shall never know. It's the same as so many other people in the public eye.....politicians and "celebrities" whose actions belie their words.

Has anybody anything to say about Ross Hays' letter to Eric Stein?

Gory Al puts his carbon footprint in it again! Honestly why would anyone take what this guy says seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the Nick B post which provides a fair balance to the subject, I would also agree with the concept that socialists do appear to be more extreme in their views on almost every subject not just climate change. I cannot remember the last time a capitalist march or rally took place or a protestor hanging off some roof top turned out to be one? Whilst this does not detract from the merits of the argument it does suggest that those who are most vocal on the subject of climate change are most likely to be pro-agw supporters. I think its a very interesting sociological argument but it means to me that the loudest noise may not necessarily come from the largest section of the crowd. Understanding in any subject including science = sight and without sight we only know what we hear!

Such is the concept that many of those who shout the loudest often do the least, just what is the carbon footprint of the AGW debate so far and from which side is the carbon being burnt? All them lab lights burning into the night, all those air miles and that fleet of government Range Rovers heading for the next climate change conference somewhere. As Einstein once said the best way to move forward is to stop still 'Mr Gore', that way you may just help save the planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have linked to a report which shows Al Gore to be a hypocrite; a "don't do as I do, do as I say" person.

So, when the chief spinmaster for a far right wing US politician tell you something that's 'shows'? I'm sorry it's not it's 'claimed' and claimed by someone most of who's life seems to be dedicated to personal attacks on Al Gore or climate scientists ;)

We all knew he was like this, but as this is a political thread, it is relevant.

I'm sorry but we don't 'all' know he's like this. Talk about condemning a man without trial...I wont convict Al Gore on the words of his sworn political enemies!

How the man has the barefaced cheek to spout as he does, I shall never know.

And I don't know how anyone can condemn a man based on the spoutings of a far right wing spinmaster? Seriously how can you do it? Al Gore is one of the politicians best informed about the workings of the climate - he's studies it's at a high level and been taught by some of the best scientists.

It's the same as so many other people in the public eye.....politicians and "celebrities" whose actions belie their words.

Has anybody anything to say about Ross Hays' letter to Eric Stein?

It's Eric Steig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...Minority.Pledge

Al Gore is a hypocrite. He does not and will not practice what he preaches. To have given this odious man a Nobel Prize is to have insulted worthy recipients....

I'm far from sure he's really my cup-of-tea, but I don't know if Al Gore is an odious person or not: I'm quite sure you don't know either, Noggin, unless you turn out to know him personally. Or do you mean that you find his politics/beliefs odious? A different matter.

The trouble in any case with this analysis of AG as a hypocrite, whose "electricity usage is reportedly 20 times higher than the average American household" in his house, is that it is a ridiculously simplistic view of people, their wealth and their homes. Unless you believe - and the vast majority of Americans do not - in a completely egalitarian society in which no-one may be richer or a have a bigger house than anyone else, then of course the rich will use more energy than the poor. Assuming that the electricity multiple is true (but note the word "reportedly"), well, it's really no surprise and pretty much inevitable. I imagine he is rather more than twenty times as rich as the average American, and lives on a very much larger scale. You (or even I) may find that distasteful, but most Americans do not. So to make Inhofe's ridiculous challenge, “Are you willing to make a commitment here today by taking this pledge to consume no more energy for use in your residence than the average American household by one year from today?” was to challenge him to cast away all his wealth and live in a small house in suburbia. Not gonna happen, so a safe challenge.

So without abandoning US capitalism and the right to be rich, the significant question (in terms of determining hypocrisy or not) should be "How does Gore's domestic electricity usage compare with the average usage of someone of similar wealth, or with a similarly-sized house?" How many people live in his household? How many others work there during the average day? Has he tried strenuously to make it as energy-saving as possible? What about other energy sources, does he perhaps have a heat pump system for heating/cooling? Or is it in fact a fine old historical house that is limited in its energy-saving possibilities? Has he reduced the number/size of the vehicles in his household? I don't know the answers to any of these pertinent questions, do you? Anyway, who calculated the electricity he uses? On what evidence?

Look, Noggin, maybe Al Gore is an energy hypocrite.....I've really idea. All I know is that it is preposterous to take as good cause what Senator Inhofe says on his staunchly anti-AGW polemical webpage: he offers no evidence beyond a silly little bar chart based on something "reportedly" true, and a gleeful (and rather childish) obsession with an impossible-to-accept challenge issued nearly two years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...