Area for all other political discussion
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Biggus Robbus
#564179
This is a split from the tech support thread. I do not want to continue debate there.

My view is dragging climate (change) science into a political discussion undermines it. All that matters at the end of the day with regards to climate science is what the peer reviewed climate science journals say.

Climate change denial is a subject for psychology not climate science.

This forum is for other "political" discussion. However I hope the mods/admin are generous enough to allow me to conduct this discussion here.

To support my point.



Yes I know a Youtube video. Not a scientific journal. However I will dig out the science if necessary.
 
By Timbo
Membership Days Posts
#564217
The literature on the subject almost invariably avoids political positioning or any hint of advocating policy. Reduction in GHG output is absolutely a political issue, given that governments are the only ones in a position to forcibly take the toys away from the biggest emitters. Unfortunately, the latest fashion seems to be to say "look at China and India, they're much bigger emitters than the Western nations", which works until you look at the per capita figures and realise that a Chinese person and and Indian put together don't output as much as your average American.

If you'd like a pure thread on the science behind climate change, please feel free to start one in the 'off-topic'. This thread right here is perfectly suitable for discussion of the issue from a political and sociological perspective.
#564220
BR, you may want it to be treated as a purely scientific subject, but that boat has sailed.

Face it, I want to have sex with Eva Green. Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which fills up first.
#564232
It is only the science that matters at the end of the day. Sadly we used to trust scientists as we got rid of CFCs after all.

Dragging climate change into the political arena is a win for the climate change deniers. That said I suppose this goes further. It is testimony to the purveyors of shit, that massages the egos of morons, that we are even having this conversation.
#564233
Timbo wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:41 pm
The literature on the subject almost invariably avoids political positioning or any hint of advocating policy. Reduction in GHG output is absolutely a political issue, given that governments are the only ones in a position to forcibly take the toys away from the biggest emitters. Unfortunately, the latest fashion seems to be to say "look at China and India, they're much bigger emitters than the Western nations", which works until you look at the per capita figures and realise that a Chinese person and and Indian put together don't output as much as your average American.

If you'd like a pure thread on the science behind climate change, please feel free to start one in the 'off-topic'. This thread right here is perfectly suitable for discussion of the issue from a political and sociological perspective.
Okay that's a thought provoking well constructed post. Let me chew on that.
#564289
After chewing.

The issue is dragging science into politics. Scientists give us their conclusions based on data, data that comes as a result of reproducible (reproducible being a fucking important word in science) experimentation. That's why we were taught to be diligent when it came to writing down equipment and method in science lessons at school.

It is a political statement to say that science is the most noble intellectual pursuit because it teaches intellectual humility. You have to be humble and let the evidence frame your views rather than letting your views frame the evidence.

I go to sites where I see climate scientists being dragged into political debates.

I do find this sad because at the end of the day only the hard science matters. The fact that morons ignore climate scientists, while thinking their idiocy is of value, is a real fucking travesty.
 
By Timbo
Membership Days Posts
#564317
The false debate around the scientific accuracy actually isn't anywhere near as big an issue in political circles as you'd think. The science itself is quite messy, and people without proper training in understanding the output of climate models often misunderstand the meaning of scenario-based reporting. As the understanding of feedbacks with pretty wide ranges of output gets more in-depth, the range of outputs from the most comprehensive models gets more and more vague. However, with the notable exception of Canada, everybody, even the US under Trump, is playing ball on international cooperation. Unfortunately, the dialogue now is much more about adaptation rather than mitigation. This is very much a political issue. We are on the precipice of an enormous population boom in the southern hemisphere, particularly Africa, which is likely to coincide with colossal food shortages. We are losing farmland at the rate of around 1% a year worldwide, and need to somehow double our production by 2050. There is good evidence to suggest that many river deltas along which millions of subsistence farmers live are likely to be backwashed with salty seawater rather than downwashed with nutrient-rich silt as sea levels rise. It is already too late to prevent this kind of thing from coming. That means we need political solutions.

The biggest problem in the mitigation arena comes from the classification of countries that came about just after the end of the cold war. Therefore we have well-developed EU members outputting with gay abandon because they are still classed as transitional economies, for which the rest of us must pay to abate their mess.
 
By Daley Mayle
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#564326
Biggus Robbus wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:51 pm
Not necessarily.

We accepted CFCs were bad and got rid of them. The travesty is that the ego massaging of halfwits is getting worse.

Basically the kinda shit the Mail does.

Talking from a place of total ignorance about such things I would guess that resolving the damage to the ozone layers caused by CFCs was relatively easy. It did not require any effort on the part of the human population, it didn't cost us anything and it didn't impact on the fossil fuel industry and business profits.

The reverse is true when it comes to climate change.
The Group of Seven

What if George Osborne joins? That’s the kis[…]

Labour, Generally.

Didn't think this hand grenade would be lobbed. […]

Nothing will ever be the fault of their noble Brex[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

All dressed up in rhetoric of the same insincere a[…]