Global warming discussion III

[Distracted1]

Sure, not all Green supporters think like that, but I'm reasonably confident all Green parties have it as a central policy.



I disagree. I think apathy is a much bigger problem. People don't want to buy in because it will cost them money, so nothing gets done.

NZ is a classic example, because while our global impact is minute, we are also in a perfect position to act, and under the previous government held our heads up proudly as a leader yet again in a social issue.

But when it came to the crunch there was no opposition whatsoever to the next government cutting the budget to fight climate change from $1 billion to $0.



Mostly because of the complete irrelevance of it.

What good do you think this thread will do? Has it changed a single denier's mind yet?

Thought not.

What's to argue? Scientific confidence in AGW is sufficient that there is no real question any longer, so what's the point of the thread. I'm treating this thread exactly as I do bigfoot threads - it helps highlight the absolute pointlessness of the discussion.

Sensible places - The Guardian, Reddit, & even 4Chan last time I checked - have banned dissenting threads on AGW because they're exactly the same as CT threads - no progress is made, and if people in the thread care that much they'd be far better served to go and actually do something instead of fighting via keyboard and getting nowhere.

Here's one for you:

How many of the Green Warriors in the thread drive an internal combsution engine car? Talk the talk but don't walk the walk is my experience of pro-AGW arguers.

I stand to be corrected, but I will be surprised if anyone here is doing more than paying lip service to the entire question.

I put a white roof on my home, insulated thoroughly, have LED bulbs in every fixture, cultivate a small roof garden, pay a little more to PECO for wind generated electricity, use my feet for short trips and mass transit whenever practical ( which has a downside of allowing me to drink more ) use the washer during off-peak hours, recycle everything recyclable, and only flush the brown stuff.
My partner is on board, and goes a little further by bringing home the recyclables from the small law office in which she works, and she has reduced the amount of meat we consume ( for health reasons- not environmental ones ).
We no longer keep pets ( more of a sacrifice for her than I )and keep the house cooler in wintertime ( lots of blankets )

I am under no illusions that we are " saving the planet " for whatever that's worth, we clearly still consume at a level that is not sustainable- but when an opportunity to adopt a less destructive behavior without putting ourselves out becomes possible for us we adopt it.

Just " lip service "? Maybe. We still use air conditioning and drive. Perhaps we are spinning our wheels, the equivalent of being happy that we are drinking water with our French fries instead of CocaCola. It is disturbing how little "low hanging fruit" there actually is.

 

[Belz...]

Certainly. That's why I've conceded the point already. I don't think I'm wrong, but would rather admit to it than waste a week trying to prove it one way or the other.

Huh ? Man, this is the internet ! You're supposed to argue the same irrelevant detail for weeks on end.

 

[Trakar]

How many of the Green Warriors in the thread drive an internal combsution engine car? Talk the talk but don't walk the walk is my experience of pro-AGW arguers.

I stand to be corrected, but I will be surprised if anyone here is doing more than paying lip service to the entire question.

While we are incorporating more and more electric/battery powered equipment and we do have grid connections (hydro supplied in our part of Oregon) they are more used to sell the excess power we generate from our PV systems than something that we regularly draw from. The equipment we use that is not electric/battery powered, and our back-up generators, are bio-diesel powered by fuel made on site here where we grow soybeans that we process into livestock feed and fuel (likewise we grow sorghum and sugar beets that help us to produce ethanol which is used to condition our bio-diesel for cool weather usage). It has taken us much of the last decade to achieve the level of self-sufficiency we currently have, and there is still a ways to go before we are securely and completely energy independent, but in net we produce much more "green" energy than we use, Occasionally, when travelling I am forced to buy regular diesel due to the lack of available bio-diesel, but even this is becoming a more and more rare situation, at least on the west coast of the U.S.

 

[macdoc]

The two big improvers right now, USA & China, have reduced emissions, but as I already noted above, that is nothing to do with a global agenda to fight AGW.

You've already been shown a cross section...no one is going to hand feed you what can be easily found on the internet.

You can start with Sweden. Then try Portland Oregon, ...alliances like this are happening everywhere.
http://usdn.org/public/CNCAMarch2015PressRelease.html

You didn't even blink when I stated a sizeable economy went from 25% coal to zero in a decade....I stand by my statement...your attitude sucks....
The information is out there in droves....you chose to ignore it and wallow in your hand ringing.
There are even threads on this forum dedicated to eliminating fossil fuels....which will not happen in a short period but is inevitable.

It's the debris left from that transition that is the risk.

This thread is engaged with the science underlying AGW and tracking the consequences now and in the near and intermediate future as the understanding of the impact improves.

For instance the Arctic Dipole is wreaking havoc as the Arctic Ocean warms far far faster than the continents around it.
Policy arising out of that leads to fossil fuel exploration and new shipping patterns.

Science can only guide policy.
Science charts sea rise more rapidly than expected....
The US Navy sees that risk and acts accordingly.

More extreme rain events means cities outside the tropics zones must plan for them, beef up their water drainage systems.

The science can help with dealing with the consequences and what represents a near term risk for one region may be no risk at all for another region.

Coping is one aspect. Onset of consequences another including ocean acidification and changes in species habitats in the ocean.

Mitigation ...slowing down the use of fossil fuels so as to reduce future consequences moves along below nation state level and now starting at major nation state levels with Europe leading for super states, China dedicated to it ( or they drown in their own emissions ) and the US lagging along ( some states are very progressive ).

Smaller individual regions are way ahead of the curve with Sweden leading year after year.

Renewables efforts are being helped by the plunging cost of solar...Australia notoriously COULD be fossil fuel free between nuclear and solar....

and there are surprises along the way....

Texas city opts for 100% renewable energy – to save cash, not the planet
Georgetown, Texas decision not about going green: ‘I’m probably the furthest thing from an Al Gore clone you could find,’ says city official

News that a Texas city is to be powered by 100% renewable energy sparked surprise in an oil-obsessed, Republican-dominated state where fossil fuels are king and climate change activists were described as “the equivalent of the flat-earthers” by US senator and GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/28/georgetown-texas-renewable-green-energy

There are long lists of projects underway around the world. Do your homework and stop with the oh woe is my nonsense. Tiresome

 

[macdoc]

a very specific case in point.

High-tech Car Ferry Debuts: It’s Electric
by Kerry Darnell, Commercial Business Development, Siemens Marine and ShipbuildingMonday, June 01, 2015
File
Norwegian Car Ferry Debuts World’s First All-Electric Propulsion System
Norled Ampere, the world’s first all-electric car ferry, began service this year carrying up to 120 cars and 360 passengers across the 4.2-mile (6.8 km) Sognefjord channel that separates Norway’s villages of Lavik and Oppendal and empties into the North Atlantic’s Norwegian Sea.
The 260-ft. vessel recharges its dual 450 kW/hour battery packs after each docking in less 10 minutes – faster than today’s smartphones and the turnarounds of many conventionally powered ferries.
Operated by Norled, a Norwegian shipping company under license from the nation’s Ministry of Transport, the Norled Ampere includes a Siemens BlueDrive PlusC propulsion system that drives fore and aft screws.
The system features a vessel energy-management subsystem, battery packs, and vessel automation and control, including communication and control of the shore power charging unit. This system makes it fully automated and hands-free.

Matching Load Demands
While the Siemens solution delivers a range of frequencies and voltage for diesel, dual-fuel or gas-operated vessels, the Norled Ampere uses a custom-built, all-electric model. This eliminates the cost and emissions of the 264,000 gallons (one million liters) of diesel fuel that its predecessor’s 2,000-hp engine burned each year. In fact, the Norled Ampere will annually keep 570 tons of carbon dioxide and 15 tons of nitrogen oxides out of the atmosphere.

http://www.marinelink.com/news/hightech-electric-debuts392199.aspx

other efforts in the planning stages..

Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance

The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance was formally launched in March 2015. Read the press release here.

Cities striving for carbon neutrality recognize that averting the worst impacts of climate change will require cutting GHG emissions by at least 80% by 2050. Because urban areas account for nearly three-quarters of humanity's emissions, reaching this goal will depend in large part on our ability to reimagine and reinvent cities in ways that promote economic prosperity, social equity, enhanced quality of life, and climate resilience.

The Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance (CNCA or “Alliance”) is a new collaboration of international cities committed to achieving aggressive long-term carbon reduction goals. The Alliance aims to address what it will take for leading international cities to achieve these deep emissions reductions and how they can work together to meet their respective goals more efficiently and effectively.

The Alliance was born in Copenhagen in June 2014 at an organizing meeting of the following cities:

Berlin, Germany
Minneapolis MN, USA
Stockholm, Sweden
Boston MA, USA
New York City NY, USA
Sydney, Australia
Boulder CO, USA
Oslo, Norway
Vancouver, Canada
Copenhagen, Denmark
Portland OR, USA
Washington DC, USA
London, United Kingdom
San Francisco CA, USA
Yokohama, Japan
Melbourne, Australia
Seattle WA, USA

These cities came together to share lessons in planning for and implementing deep carbon reductions and agreed upon opportunities to accelerate best practices through collaboration in the Alliance’s first year, including:

http://usdn.org/public/Carbon-Neutral-Cities.html

more

http://www.betterbricks.com/design-construction/reading/carbon-neutral-and-net-zero

Airport works to become carbon neutral

Created on Friday, 06 March 2015 00:00 | Written by (none) | Print

Hillsboro facility among three to promote clean air
Portland International Airport, Hillsboro Airport and Troutdale Airport are now certified through the Airports Carbon Accreditation (ACA) program, making them just the fourth, fifth and sixth airports in North America to achieve the status.

http://portlandtribune.com/ht/117-h...121521-airport-works-to-become-carbon-neutral

Twenty carbon neutral airports and even more engaged in addressing their carbon footprints
Published: April 30, 2015, 3:02 pm

Twenty carbon neutral airports and even more engaged in addressing their carbon footprints
Vicky Karantzavelou - 27 March 2015, 10:32

The programme certifies airports at 4 different levels of accreditation covering all stages of carbon management (Mapping, Reduction, Optimisation and Neutrality).

http://www.bluecommunity.info/view/article/55427bc80cf24df5070a17b2/?topic=51cbfc76f702fc2ba8129794

Industry-wide carbon neutrality for forest sector by 2015
0 0 135
/ ©: Karen Rosborough / WWF-CanadaForest, New Brunswick
© Karen Rosborough / WWF-Canada
The forest industry is directly and indirectly responsible for significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from harvesting activities, manufacturing, transportation and product disposal. At the same time forests, soils, biomass and forest products all have the potential to store carbon for varying degrees of time. Activities aimed at reducing emissions, increasing carbon storage and reducing reliance on fossil fuels can positively influence the amount of CO2 and other GHG in the atmosphere.

The Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) and WWF-Canada both believe that providing leadership in sustainability and environmental performance will realize some of the greatest opportunities for the future of the forest industry. With this in mind, FPAC and WWF-Canada have committed to use their collective resources and influence to affect positive change.

With the support of WWF-Canada, FPAC has committed to the goal of industry-wide carbon-neutrality by 2015 without the purchase of carbon-offset credits – a world first. FPAC and WWF-Canada have also agreed to use this partnership to leverage broader uptake within the forest industry, across the forest product value chain and in other sectors.

http://www.wwf.ca/conservation/global_warming/fpac.cfm

CHINA: A CARBON-NEUTRAL FACTORY BY LATE 2015


With the help of an ambitious hydropower project, the L’Oréal factory in Yichang, China – already very efficient in reducing its CO2 emissions – is expected to reach carbon neutrality in 2015.

http://www.sharingbeautywithall.com/en/china-carbon-neutral-factory-late-2015-85

There are hundreds and hundreds more projects at various stages including nuclear and sustainable power projects world wide.

 

[The Atheist]

I put a white roof on my home, insulated thoroughly, have LED bulbs in every fixture, cultivate a small roof garden, pay a little more to PECO for wind generated electricity, use my feet for short trips and mass transit whenever practical ( which has a downside of allowing me to drink more ) use the washer during off-peak hours, recycle everything recyclable, and only flush the brown stuff.
My partner is on board, and goes a little further by bringing home the recyclables from the small law office in which she works, and she has reduced the amount of meat we consume ( for health reasons- not environmental ones ).
We no longer keep pets ( more of a sacrifice for her than I )and keep the house cooler in wintertime ( lots of blankets )

Certainly gets a full credit.

That's action, not lip service.

You've already been shown a cross section...no one is going to hand feed you what can be easily found on the internet.

The question I answered was about India and Brazil, plus what you are personally doing. I know what's going on in Sweden.

...your attitude sucks....
The information is out there in droves....you chose to ignore it and wallow in your hand ringing.

What is the hand-wringing [sic] you're talking about?

All I've said is that this thread is a waste of space, so I'm trying to find out what people are doing of their own accord.

How is that hand-wringing?

Seems to me the complainer is you, and it appears to be because I won't play by your rules.

Or you could point out to me where a denier has changed his or her opinion as a result of what - 20000 posts overall?

This thread is engaged with the science underlying AGW

I hope that just a grammatical error, because the thread isn't involved with the science at all. It's a thread devoted to endless repetition of some scientific data.

I could be wrong, but I haven't detected any actual climate scientists in the thread.

Mitigation ...slowing down the use of fossil fuels ...

And your personal contribution is? I'm really interested. I see a couple of others seem to be trying.

There are long lists of projects underway around the world. Do your homework and stop with the oh woe is my nonsense. Tiresome

No, what's tiresome is 20000 posts that have never moved beyond step 1.

I'm amused you think there's information I need, because I do not, and even more amused that you keep on about woe. I'm stating the obvious.

The questions you need to answer is to explain how India and Brazil's contribution to the destruction of the climate will be overcome. How many bleeding megatonnes fewer carbon Portland and Sweden save is irrelevant; they are tiny fish in the face of the gigantic damage being done and that will be done by India, Brazil and many other developing nations.

 

[The Atheist]

While we are incorporating more and more electric/battery powered equipment and we do have grid connections (hydro supplied in our part of Oregon) they are more used to sell the excess power we generate from our PV systems than something that we regularly draw from.

That appears to be a state position rather than you personally - but for all I know you could be Governor.

... bio-diesel...

Bravo!

Biofuel is very good.

In case the poster above you didn't give you the guide, I'm very interested in your personal contribution.

Another example - and I'll give you just one.

My wife and I run a walking school bus - that is, instead of going by bus, a group of kids walk in a team. As there are no actual buses and these kids would be travelling individual cars both ways, we are saving twenty car trips every day.

That's one of the things we do personally, and while it's a bit of effort, we're happy to do it, and not everyone has the ability to do that kind of thing.

Away you go!

 

[Trakar]

That appears to be a state position rather than you personally - but for all I know you could be Governor.

"We" includes me, my wife, a few neighboring family farms who have joined together in a co-op, and our employees. This is not a "state" operation but a small farm and resort which I own and operate and a group of neighboring farmers, here in west central Oregon.

Biofuel is very good.

No one I know has, or is, proposing that food-based biofuels are the best way to address all of the needs our society has relied upon being met with fossil fuels. For us, however, it is an easy solution that is made more green than most studies suggest because all of the energy used to produce the crops we turn into fuels is a combination of PV and biofuel generated. I am an advocate for utilizing whatever combinations of local sustainable energy you have available, and I prefer a mix of technologies and systems rather than trying to replace the current oil, coal and gas systems with one alternative (eg wind, solar, or biofuels). I strongly advocate for well regulated (preferably government owned and operated) advanced nuclear power systems and a national smart grid system to provide a base-load backbone national power system which localities can tap and feed into according to the needs of their local energy grids.

My wife and I run a walking school bus - that is, instead of going by bus, a group of kids walk in a team. As there are no actual buses and these kids would be travelling individual cars both ways, we are saving twenty car trips every day.

That's one of the things we do personally, and while it's a bit of effort, we're happy to do it, and not everyone has the ability to do that kind of thing.

Away you go!

Very good! Unfortunately, that wouldn't work very well around our area as the nearest substantive town and school system is roughly a 45 minute drive. We do have a bio-diesel mini-bus that takes some of our employee's children and spouses into town every weekday morning and returns transporting workers who don't live onsite and then reverses the process every weekday afternoon.

 

[Trakar]

“Ecomodernist Manifesto”?

Is the “Ecomodernist Manifesto” the Future of Environmentalism?
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/eleme...-future-of-environmentalism?intcid=mod-latest

The Anthropocene, the unofficial name for our human-influenced geological age, has become a popular shorthand for environmental apocalypse. In mid-April, however, a group of eighteen researchers, activists, and philanthropists published a six-thousand-word tract, called “An Ecomodernist Manifesto,” that envisions a different sort of Anthropocene—not only a good one but a great one. Most of the manifesto’s authors are associated with the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank in Oakland, California. Calling themselves ecomodernists and ecopragmatists, they argue that technology, supported and accelerated by government investment, can allow humanity to simultaneously mitigate climate change, protect land, and relieve poverty. They approve of urbanization, intensified agriculture, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination; they disapprove of suburbanization, low-yield farming, and forms of renewable energy with large acreage demands. High-efficiency solar cells, advanced nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion, they write, “represent the most plausible pathways toward the joint goals of climate stabilization and radical decoupling of humans from nature.”
(...)
Though the manifesto’s call for investment in nuclear energy excited predictable outrage, most of the criticism of it was more about tone than content. The manifesto’s basic arguments, after all, are hardly radical. To wit: technology, thoughtfully applied, can reduce the suffering, human and otherwise, caused by climate change; ideology, stubbornly upheld, can accomplish the opposite. When I spoke with Nordhaus, he characterized the manifesto as “an alternative framework for protecting the environment that is consistent with a world of nine billion people living something that looks like modern lives.” Ecomodernism, he said, was a reaction to “the environmental movement’s apocalyptic doomsaying, soft-energy utopianism, and obsessive moralizing about consumption.”...

I haven't yet waded through the actual manifesto, but from the general overview provided in this article, I'm more aligned with it than opposed to it (it rather plays off my sigline link to David Brin's quote) It isn't that I don't wish to preserve what we can, its that I'm more concerned about preserving a livable and diverse future by whatever means that we have at our disposal, and technology is one of the most powerful tools in our species kit.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm amazed (not really, because I can guess at the reasons why) a person so dismissive of efforts and a national and international scale can put so much emphasis on the personal efforts of individuals, when you knows full well it doesn't make a jot of difference what individuals do. The fact is that we exist in economic structures that are carbon intensive. All the bus rides in the world are going to be drowned out every time we eat food, or buy things. Until we decarbonise the economic structures that sustain us then limp-wristed token efforts will remain limp-wristed.

At any rate, this is a science thread, in the science forum. If you want to have a discussion about token efforts to reduce one's carbon footprint then you should start a thread in the appropriate place and cease derailing this one.

 

[Trakar]

Miami Herald - End of Florida?

Editorials
The end of Florida?
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article22639026.html

Yogi Berra once said that, “The future ain’t what it used to be.” His words could serve as yet another warning for the residents of today’s Florida, a state that finds itself in the eye of the storm on climate change.

It’s customary on the first day of the half-year-long hurricane season to issue a reminder about preparing for what a well-known book (and movie of the same name) once called The Mean Season. Long-time Floridians know they have to be ready, and that now is the time to prepare.

Feeling complacent because Florida hasn’t been hit by a major storm in 10 years? Consider this: On April 11, 1992, the Herald ran a story with the following headline: Slow season forecast for hurricanes. Four months later, Hurricane Andrew devastated South Miami-Dade. And here’s a headline we spotted last week in the Sun Sentinel: NOAA predicts slow hurricane season. Our advice: Be prepared for the worst.

But as bad as hurricanes are, they do not pose existential threats to Florida, or to our future. The recurring peril of windstorms has certainly not stopped the influx of millions of new residents that began in the post-war years and has turned Florida into the third most populous state in the union.

But climate change — specifically, sea-level rise caused by global warming — poses a challenge of another order of magnitude. A hurricane hits our shores like a big bang. It’s here and then gone, leaving disaster in its wake. We clean up, we move on.

Sea-level rise is something else: an insidious attack, slowly gnawing away at our beaches, our coastline, our coastal cities. It doesn’t go away...

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/article22639026.html#storylink=cpy

While some seem to believe that there is a lessening focus on what is happening in our world and impacting our future, I continue to run into people and organizations like those who make plans, are taking actions, and more and more frequently write articles and editorials like the one above. To me this demonstrates that not only are they thinking of themselves and their own, but that they are also trying to inspire and help their neighbors and fellow planetary occupants to understand that the future doesn't just happen, it is made out of today's actions and inactions.

 

[Trakar]

...At any rate, this is a science thread, in the science forum. If you want to have a discussion about token efforts to reduce one's carbon footprint then you should start a thread in the appropriate place and cease derailing this one.

Perhaps it is my holdover from when this thread was a dumping ground for all manner of discussion that in anyway touched upon AGW, but I do see both public policy and the economics of addressing the problems caused by the various aspects of Climate Change to be important and integral to both the understanding and technological application of those understandings with regard to AGW. A pure climate science exposition thread isn't a discussion thread. The base science (in this case the latest IPCC report) is posted and once a week or so new journal blurbs would update the thread. All discussion would be essentially superfluous.

The little daily changes that individuals make are important, because they shape purchasing and planning as well as voting considerations. Every voter that learns first hand the advantages of saving energy by changing light bulbs, the exercise, community and money savings inherent to public transport, and the monthly bill reductions of hybrid vehicles/rooftop solar panels is one more voter that will help influence their neighbors and promote and push through local, state and national measures to adapt to and address climate change.

Individual efforts won't win the war, but when you multiply them by your national population, they certainly make the other battles a lot easier to engage successfully.

 

[greybeard]

Yes, but it was outweighed by policies I saw as better than other party policies in areas I care about.

Until I caught them lying.



[Re] Nationalising privately-held assets

That one alone should suffice, because it is a 100% Communist ideal, but here are a couple of local (to me) examples.

Taxing high incomes to give money to those too lazy to work

Choosing leadership by dogma rather than capability

If you need more, there are plenty of them - maybe it should be a new thread as it has little to do with the climate?

As I thought. Here is a definition of communism...

a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Many Social Democrat parties believe in limited nationalisation. That's not communism.
Anyway, whether by accident or design, you have succeeded in disrupting the thread with off topic discussion. This is the science section for discussing the science behind AGW. There is a politics section for discussing your hatred of green political parties. There is a seperate thread for discussing climate change amelioration. Perhaps you could try discussing why you think we are headed for eventual catastrophe if we dont reduce our greenhouse emissions. If you think that is a fruitless excercise then why are you here disrupting this thread?

 

[macdoc]

Atheist

I could be wrong, but I haven't detected any actual climate scientists in the thread.

Because you haven't read it..there are several including a IPCC author....
Climate science moves forward over time as outcomes arise, some expected, others a surprise.

You are all about politics - not climate science or even mitigation efforts as it's patently clear you know squat about either.

You don't participate in any of the sustainable /carbon neutral threads

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279886

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271436

I disagree with bitpattern that individual efforts don't matter.....be it you or Elon Musk.

 

[bit_pattern]

The little daily changes that individuals make are important, because they shape purchasing and planning as well as voting considerations. Every voter that learns first hand the advantages of saving energy by changing light bulbs, the exercise, community and money savings inherent to public transport, and the monthly bill reductions of hybrid vehicles/rooftop solar panels is one more voter that will help influence their neighbors and promote and push through local, state and national measures to adapt to and address climate change.

Individual efforts won't win the war, but when you multiply them by your national population, they certainly make the other battles a lot easier to engage successfully.

I disagree with bitpattern that individual efforts don't matter.....be it you or Elon Musk.

Both fair comments with which I do not disagree. But for the purposes of the thread, trying to frame the discussion as a confessional, designed to deligitimise all but the pure of heart, is not helpful. Especially when conducted as a blatant diversionary exercise.

I adopt certain behaviours to mitigate my impact too, but I also engage in behaviours that I know are contradictory to my beliefs. I'm certainly not going to discuss them in the context of a diversionary 'gotchya' fishing expedition conducted by someone who I do not believe is acting in good faith. There is nothing incongruous about living within a societal structure that essentially forces certain types of behaviour, while at the same time wanting to see that structure reformed to limit the consequences of said behaviour.

While I agree that personal behavioural changes are important, the attempt to put the onus on the individual is insidious and unhelpful. If we, as environmentalists, think that we are going to persuade people - who are otherwise sympathetic to the notion that we shouldn't be *********** with the climate system - by blaming their individual choices, then we're on a fools errand. This point is especially pertinent if we consider our interlocutor was only recently lambasting the thread as a failed attempt to persuade the unpersuadable (which I categorically reject, the purpose of swatting denier memes isn't to persuade the deniers, it's to make sure anyone who stumbles across the discussion and who is persuadable is not persuaded by the wrong arguments), if the concern here really is an honest attempt (it's not, but let's assume it is) to persuade an audience, then boiling the whole thing down to an issue of personal responsibility is a monumentally counterproductive exercise.

I guess that is closer to the point I was trying to get to.

 

[macdoc]

Yeah - he is/was trolling .... and not interested in the climate science at all.

 

[Trakar]

Both fair comments with which I do not disagree. But for the purposes of the thread, trying to frame the discussion as a confessional, designed to deligitimise all but the pure of heart, is not helpful. Especially when conducted as a blatant diversionary exercise.

I adopt certain behaviours to mitigate my impact too, but I also engage in behaviours that I know are contradictory to my beliefs. I'm certainly not going to discuss them in the context of a diversionary 'gotchya' fishing expedition conducted by someone who I do not believe is acting in good faith. There is nothing incongruous about living within a societal structure that essentially forces certain types of behaviour, while at the same time wanting to see that structure reformed to limit the consequences of said behaviour.

While I agree that personal behavioural changes are important, the attempt to put the onus on the individual is insidious and unhelpful. If we, as environmentalists, think that we are going to persuade people - who are otherwise sympathetic to the notion that we shouldn't be *********** with the climate system - by blaming their individual choices, then we're on a fools errand. This point is especially pertinent if we consider our interlocutor was only recently lambasting the thread as a failed attempt to persuade the unpersuadable (which I categorically reject, the purpose of swatting denier memes isn't to persuade the deniers, it's to make sure anyone who stumbles across the discussion and who is persuadable is not persuaded by the wrong arguments), if the concern here really is an honest attempt (it's not, but let's assume it is) to persuade an audience, then boiling the whole thing down to an issue of personal responsibility is a monumentally counterproductive exercise.

I guess that is closer to the point I was trying to get to.

Understood and generally agreed with. Even with all I try to do, I fly commercial more than I should, simply because I can afford to and I put too high a value on my time. It isn't about purity it is about making the changes that we can and a willingness to keep improving what we can improve. Perfection should never become the enemy of improvement.

 

[lomiller]

Anyway, whether by accident or design, you have succeeded in disrupting the thread with off topic discussion. This is the science section for discussing the science behind AGW. There is a politics section for discussing your hatred of green political parties. There is a seperate thread for discussing climate change amelioration. Perhaps you could try discussing why you think we are headed for eventual catastrophe if we dont reduce our greenhouse emissions. If you think that is a fruitless excercise then why are you here disrupting this thread?

This. It’s becoming pretty obvious The Atheist wants to debate political ideology not science, technology or even policy.

 

[bit_pattern]

I reported the OT posts, which the mods have, sadly, not seen fit to action.

 

[bit_pattern]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150602130636.htm

Greenhouse gas-caused warming felt in just months
Date:
June 2, 2015
Source:
Carnegie Institution
Summary:
The heat generated by burning a fossil fuel is surpassed within a few months by the warming caused by the release of its carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a new study says. The release of CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to the trapping of heat that would otherwise be emitted into outer space.