Curbing climate change: Study finds strong rationale for the human factor

January 1, 2018, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis
Changes in human behavior in response to climate change, such as installing solar panels or insulating homes, alter greenhouse gas emissions. A new study for the first time measures the effects of these "behaviorally adjusted emissions" on the climate. Credit: CC0 1.0 Universal

Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it, according to a new study that for the first time builds a novel model to measure the effects of behavior on climate.

Drawing from both social psychology and , the new investigates how human behavioral changes evolve in response to and affect change.

The model accounts for the dynamic feedbacks that occur naturally in the Earth's climate system— projections determine the likelihood of extreme weather events, which in turn influence human behavior. Human behavioral changes, such as installing solar panels or investing in public transportation, alter , which change the global temperature and thus the frequency of extreme events, leading to new behaviors, and the cycle continues.

Combining climate projections and social processes, the model predicts ranging from 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, compared to 4.9°C from the climate model alone.

Due to the complexity of physical processes, have uncertainties in global temperature prediction. The new model found that temperature uncertainty associated with the social component was of a similar magnitude to that of the physical processes, which implies that a better understanding of the human social component is important but often overlooked.

The model found that long-term, less easily reversed behavioral changes, such as insulating homes or purchasing hybrid cars, had by far the most impact in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and thus reducing climate change, versus more short-term adjustments, such as adjusting thermostats or driving fewer miles.

Lead author Brian Beckage explains how understanding the human perception of risk from climate change and the associated behavioral responses is key to curbing future climate change. Credit: NIMBioS/UVM

The results, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, demonstrate the importance of factoring human behavior into models of climate change.

"A better understanding of the human perception of risk from climate change and the behavioral responses are key to curbing future climate change," said lead author Brian Beckage, a professor of plant biology and computer science at the University of Vermont.

The paper was a result of combined efforts of the joint Working Group on Human Risk Perception and Climate Change at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) at the University of Maryland. Both institutes are supported by the National Science Foundation. The Working Group of about a dozen scientists from a variety of disciplines, including biology, psychology, geography, and mathematics, has been researching the questions surrounding human risk perception and climate change since 2013.

"It is easy to lose confidence in the capacity for societies to make sufficient changes to reduce future temperatures. When we started this project, we simply wanted to address the question as to whether there was any rational basis for 'hope'—that is a rational basis to expect that human behavioral changes can sufficiently impact climate to significantly reduce future global temperatures," said NIMBioS Director Louis J. Gross, who co-authored the paper and co-organized the Working Group.

"Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses," Gross said. "The key result from this paper is that there is indeed some rational basis for hope."

That basis for hope can be the foundation which communities can build on in adopting policies to reduce emissions, said co-author Katherine Lacasse, an assistant professor of psychology at Rhode Island College.

"We may notice more hurricanes and heat waves than usual and become concerned about , but we don't always know the best ways to reduce our emissions," Lacasse said. "Programs or policies that help reduce the cost and difficulty of making long-term changes or that bring in whole communities to make long-term changes together can help support people to take big steps that have a meaningful impact on the ."

Explore further: Understanding the climate impact of natural atmospheric particles

More information: Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change, Nature Climate Change (2018). nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0031-7

Related Stories

Why hot weather records continue to tumble worldwide

October 26, 2017

It sometimes feels like we get a lot of "record-breaking" weather. Whether it's a heatwave in Europe or the "Angry Summer" in Australia, the past few years have seen temperature records tumble.

How can man-made climate change be proven?

November 9, 2017

If observed climate variables such as temperature or precipitation change over time, it raises the question as to whether human influence plays a role. To investigate this, scientists are applying a method for estimating ...

Early climate 'payback' with higher emission reductions

April 3, 2017

Climate scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre have shown that the early mitigation needed to limit eventual warming below potentially dangerous levels has a climate 'payback' much earlier than previously thought.

The human fingerprint on Europe's recent heat

June 30, 2017

This June, Europe experienced some remarkable heat. Temperature records were smashed across the west of the continent with extremely hot days followed by warm uncomfortable nights for many.

Recommended for you

How the Elwha dam removals changed the river's mouth

January 19, 2018

For decades, resource managers agreed that removing the two dams on the Elwha River would be a big win for the watershed as a whole and, in particular, for its anadromous trout and salmon. The dams sat on the river for more ...

178 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BackBurner
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2018
Another "wet streets cause rain" analysis.

People install solar when governments fund them through tax breaks and outright grants. It's not a response to environmental changes, it can't be since there aren't any.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2018
Thanks for the flip dismissal of mountains of factual evidence and effects research, JackBarn.

We can take it upon your good word that we may all rest easy in the certain knowledge that we have nothing to fear, because you said so.
mackita
1.8 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2018
Well, just another fat dumb American separated from reality, who believes that people refrain the usage of oil just for green eyes of alarmists. The primary motivator are rising prices of oil escalated by various crisis. It's not accidental that Kyoto protocol has been signed in Japan, which depends on fossil fuel imports the most.
mackita
2.2 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2018
Another "wet streets cause rain" analysis.
The combination of alarmists and sociologists in contemporary society creates layer of parasitic luddites, who tend to reverse causality arrow by their very definition.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 01, 2018
It's the far lefts dream to use AGW to promote their liberal progressive agenda, which manifestly involves social engineering of human behaviour. So by them it is expected to not only solve a difficult problem but to also control or coerce human behaviour en masse? This is typical naiveté of the political left, to operate counter to human egoism. Tragically, they aren't the first to think this way in history.

It is not worth trading AGW solution for socialistic government, the latter more of a threat to personal liberty, while the former requiring migration, technological solutions, and migration, ..all of which free market capitalism, egoism, and liberty can provide.



marcush
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2018
Yes it's a shame we have a constant set of anti-science trolls at such a good science site. But in the end they are just anonymous comments with no credibility. As you can see by the number of comments that address them, most people give them the attention they deserve, i.e. none.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2018
I put in a PV system because it was the right thing to do. The fact it has actually saved significant money was not figured into the equation.

But we have no power bill now. Not for the entire household and TWO electric vehicles, a 2015 VW e-Golf, and a 2013 Tesla Model S P 85.

The biggest savings are with the cars, which would cost us 3 cents/mile for the VW and 4 cents/mile with the Tesla, but we provide our own power so the cost is nothing now. And no maintenance - no oil changes, no tune-ups, no transmission work, no emissions systems, no trips to the gas stations.

We can do it now for all those reasons, and save money and time all at once!!
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2018
"It's the far lefts dream to use AGW to promote their liberal progressive agenda,"

I feel sorry for folk whose view of the world is corrupted by emotions out of their control, but it should not make us diverge from what we need to do to save America.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2018
"It's the far lefts dream to use AGW to promote their liberal progressive agenda,"

I feel sorry for folk whose view of the world is corrupted by emotions out of their control, but it should not make us diverge from what we need to do to save America.


No emotions, at least not like AGW alarmists. It's fact and undenied that at the core of the liberal progressive, and certainly democratic socialist philosophy, .... is social engineering.

The very article above is about 'human behavioral changes', and yet you call my response emotional?

AGW is a problem to be addressed, but it's not a purely gov regulation and gov social engineering problem, it's a technological problem, adaptation, migration, market, ....

I put in a PV system because it was the right thing to do.

Great,... if this is not economically the best choice for free consumers, how are you going to get the masses to do likewise. Who is this "we" you speak of?
greenonions1
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2018
if this is not economically the best choice for free consumers, how are you going to get the masses to do likewise
wind and solar are winning out based on economics. It is early days - so we have not seen the economics of scale really kick in. Hold on to your hat when they do. My state - Oklahoma is a laggard in terms of solar - but recent programs are proving very successful. https://www.oge.c...S9nQSEh/ Solar programs - like wind are selling out. Of course there are truly no free markets - as all forms of energy receive government supports - so fawning over the 'free market' regarding energy shows you know very little about the energy world.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2018
Great,... if this is not economically the best choice for free consumers, how are you going to get the masses to do likewise. Who is this "we" you speak of?"

Selective reading? Why not go to the end of the post where we find out the payback for the improvements? They are liberating, saving us from gas stations, power bills, tune-ups, oil filters and leaks, timing chains, emissions requirements, injector clogs, and pollution.

When the general public realizes the benefits of the changes, the polluters will be gone.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
Of course there are truly no free markets - as all forms of energy receive government supports - so fawning over the 'free market' regarding energy shows you know very little about the energy world


It's a manner of expressing, not necessarily Laissez-faire capitalism, but rather freedom of choice in capitalism,..... so stop with your characterizations of what others don't know.

"...the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world." - Obama

wind and solar are winning out based on economics


I welcome this as good news.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2018
so stop with your characterizations of what others don't know
Many on this board show a deep lack of knowledge of the energy world. You cannot separate politics/economics/energy. The attack on renewable power is unrelenting, and there is great hypocrisy. Condemnation of subsidies for renewables - while worshiping the 'free market' - with not understanding the depth of government supports for all energy sources. Climate change is a beast of a problem - and we are slowly accepting that on a global basis. The conservative media does a crappy job of keeping conservatives dumb and happy. Here is an alternative view if you are interested - http://www.resili...ollapse/ Happy to do my part in pointing out the hypocrisy and ignorance.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2018
Another new year with the same Pathological Lies from the AGW Cult and their Pathological "Science". Perhaps this year the Chicken Littles will stop burning fossil fuels instead of braying about it, like the jackasses they are.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
h20dr
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 02, 2018
"Many on this board show a deep lack of knowledge of the energy world. You cannot separate politics/economics/energy. The attack on renewable power is unrelenting, and there is great hypocrisy."

What I DO know though is the Paris accord and climate change link is the biggest attempt at fleecing of America in history and thank God we dodged that bullet.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2018
Bad news for Deniers: Being clean and climate-conscious is good living and good business.

We cut our electricity and gasoline costs to zero. And don't need no oil changes, neither.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2018
"In each of these scenarios, the best plan is energy diversity. You are pretending that you can predict the future and it's dangerous. This is why your movement remains fringe, . . "

Nope. I deal with probabilities not fear factors. And you are still in the 20th Century.

Since we are still connected to the grid for other reasons, our own system IS diversity of source. And with two electric vehicles, our own PV system, and soon a home battery, I can be independent.

And clean.

And quiet.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2018
No emotions, at least not like AGW alarmists. It's fact and undenied that at the core of the liberal progressive, and certainly democratic socialist philosophy, .... is social engineering.

The very article above is about 'human behavioral changes', and yet you call my response emotional?


Of course your response is emotional. Also ideological. And also hypocritical.
Your comment reveals your rabid, naked devotion to Freimarket Capitalism, and exposes you as the NeoLibertaRandite Corporatist which you are, and which always provides the springboard for virtually every vaguely worded and insinuating comment you post here, and even those few which clearly and directly address an issue

You bemoan the menace of Big Government "Social Engineering", and yet are perfectly content with Big Government "Economic Engineering" via subsidy, tax relief, deregulation, and repeal of labor and environmental safeguards.

The very definition of hypocrite.

contd
gkam
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2018
"Get real, you're setting us up for a fragile future."

How silly. I am doing the opposite, as my system powers the neighborhood in the daytime, when the utility is most heavily loaded and takes it back at night when it is cheap and easy to make for the power company.

So I am a load when the system needs loads for its baseload plants and a generator when that is needed at peak.

And since I actually do have the system and autos, I AM real.

How about you?
Caliban
5 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2018
AGW is a problem to be addressed, but it's not a purely gov regulation and gov social engineering problem, it's a technological problem, adaptation, migration, market, ...


We can all agree on this. But their are differences WRT with what proportions of those resources the problem should be dealt with.

NEWSFLASH: No, the freimarket is not the only or even the best tool. And in any case, the freimarket only involves itself with an eye toward profit, and --more importantly-- profit made perpetual by the privatization of any and all energy resources, which endgame you foreshadow in this flippant, hypocritical comment to gkam:

contd

Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2018
cont

I put in a PV system because it was the right thing to do.


..." 'Great,... if this is not economically the best choice for free consumers, how are you going to get the masses to do likewise. Who is this "we" you speak of?' ",,,


As if no "free consumer" would be interested in solar/PV , unless it were offered by a for-profit, privatized Utility and distributed over a grid, JUST AS IN THE CURRENT FOR-PROFIT REGIME.

This is the one shrill note you continuously twang, and over such a long time, that the only conclusion one can form is that you must be a paid troll of one or another conservative t'inktank.

contd

Chris_Reeve
Jan 02, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2018
contd

It is not worth trading AGW solution for socialistic government, the latter more of a threat to personal liberty,


This is complete nonsense. access to free or subsidizsed Education, Healthcare and financial support actually increases demand. The only problem for NeoLibertaRandite Corporatists is that it isn't only for consumer goods --i.e., profits.

for this reason, you always conflate the two by raising a few strawMonster arguments, with the clear imputation that Socialism is the same as Communism, which is a blatant Falsehood:

..." 'while the former requiring migration, technological solutions, and migration, ..all of which free market capitalism, egoism, and liberty can provide.' "...


Meaning, of course, that ONLY the freimarket can save us.

Which is pure bunk. The obvious and superior approach is regulated Capitalism in service to a Social Democratic government, which shares both the burden and reward with the We, the People.

mackita
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
China to build 700 new coal power plants - outside China. They apparently don't quite follow psychology of alarmist studies...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
@Caliban, your diatribe was mostly about what you think that I think, rather than what I actually said,... complete with vague characterizations of my history of posts,... which btw are mostly about physics, so right off you're factually incorrect.

the [free market] only involves itself with an eye toward profit, and --more importantly-- profit made perpetual by the privatization of any and all energy resources


And there are other benefits as well. As Obama even stated, the free market is the greatest economic force for economic progress. This force is orders of magnitude more powerful than demonstrably fiscally incompetent government trying to operate counter to human egoism. It's better to take advantage of human egoism, which anyone with a brain can see, is why free market capitalism works so obviously well.

The point here is that any future energy technology will have to subject to market forces in order to viable long term.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
... in order to be viable long term. This is called reality. Indeed, there are many countries with leaders that believe AGW is an issue to be addressed,... so why don't they just ban oil or gas cars. I'm mean if there is no limits to being a naïve dingbat, and free market forces are not a reality to contend with,.. why not just impose regulations to coerce people to buy EV?

The obvious and superior approach is regulated Capitalism in service to a Social Democratic government, which shares both the burden and reward with the We, the People


So, you rant against libertarianism and free market capitalism, only to promote Social Democratic government? Do you mean "democratic socialism", or "liberal progressivism",... no matter. One must be profoundly ignorant of history or embarrassingly naïve to think that a gov run economy and/or social engineering with heavily regulated economy would make a better society.
malapropism
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2018
@Caliban
You seem to be having trouble with this really basic concept of "energy diversity". It means pursuing ALL options -- not just the ones you imagine to be "clean".

There's too much at stake here.

In fact, you are the one who's wrong in this regard - "diversity", by dictionary definition, means simply that there is more than one class or choice of something, where each of the diverse "things" has some variation to the others. The number of classes of things being diverse can be as small as two but certainly need not be the entire set of such things (or, as you put it, "ALL"). In case you miss the point, in energy production this could be eg. solar PV and wind farming, if they are sufficient, and does not militate for including fossil fuels in the mix.
One point I do agree with you on is that in this issue (global warning) there is too much at stake. We have a responsibility to future generations to lessen impacts of problems we may be causing, in the best ways we can.
greenonions1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2018
mackita - just posting headlines from trade journals who have a vested interest in promoting a specific agenda - is shallow. Do some real digging on the coal situation. Your statement is also factually wrong - your own article says that most of the plants being referenced are in China. Also your article states that "dangerously high pollution levels have forced the closure of hundreds of coal mines.. in China" Coal may not be dead - but it is certainly terminal. Here is a more balanced look at global coal - https://www.thegu...ng-facts
Read the headline - you could learn a lot.....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2018
'while the former requiring migration, technological solutions, and [adaptation], ..all of which free market capitalism, egoism, and liberty can provide.'


Meaning, of course, that ONLY the [free market] can save us.


I never said that. You have a habit of attempting to own both sides of the argument. That is intellectual corruption.

As I have told you before and as I have posted many times,... 1) I called for a massive international/gov funding of a Manhatten'esque ProjectⒸ for energy technology, then let the market scale it,... 2) I'm not actually against reasonable gov regulations that are compatible with existing economic forces.

Zzzzzzzz
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
Noumenon, your sad and desperate need for validation of your psychotic delusions has extreme states of emotional upheaval at its very core. The verbal diarrhea you spew is an accurate description of your diet. When you practice fecal regurgitation at the fantastic rate that you manage to maintain, your breath REALLY STINKS.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
... what is certain is that economies must be strong in order to transition off of carbon based energy. This de facto rules out government central planning, any form of socialistic gov (all socialism has failed), and liberal progressive social engineering of human behaviour and coercive and arbitrary economic regulations.
Merrit
4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
Climate change aside, it still makes sense to use unlimited sources of energy for our everyday needs rather than burning through our reserves of fossil fuels. The fact is we will need to switch over at some point regardless. Climate change is just another reason to make the change. Why not change now and avoid making a bigger impact on the environment? Really any change to our environment can lead to issues. An ice age would be as bad or worse then the flooding the ice caps melting will cause. Until we know better avoiding any major changes to the environment is the safest solution.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
all socialism has failed
I wish people would stop with such childish and simplistic dichotomies. First you have to define socialism. Then you have to study every community in the world that has met your definition. And what is a mixed economy? Which is of course what almost every country in the world has. Is Medicare socialism? I would say that has not failed. We must have a level of government planning - or you have chaos. Show us an example of a country with no socialism. Sure we all want a good economy - so we can take care of ourselves. In my view - capitalism has failed. Listen to Monbiot if you want to expand on that theme - https://www.youtu...;t=2128s I want regulations Nounenon - I don't want nukes without constraints.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2018
mackita - just posting headlines from trade journals .. is shallow. ...Here is a more balanced look at global coal - https://www.thegu...ng-facts Read the headline - you could learn a lot.....
You must be kidding me... :-) Just sending the links is even shallower, don't you think? In addition, I'm completely neutral to subject - I'm just adding it for more info. I don't like coal as well, but I want to replace it by overunity and cold fusion findings, not by "renewables", which just convert the fossil-fuel crisis into raw source crisis (not to say, they're actually increasing the fossil fuel share and consumption on background).
mackita
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2018
Is Medicare socialism?
It's indeed socialistic trait based on FORCED solidarity. My main problem with Medicare is, it enabled to escalate cost of medicals for many greedy Big Pharma companies, thus making medical care in some cases even less accessible than before for USA citizens, because it deformed demand-supply equilibrium. It's an example of failure of state capitalism: the road to the hell is pawed with good intentions and USA should learn first the pros and cons of medical care from European countries which already have longer tradition with it.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
In my view - capitalism has failed


Capitalism has been and demonstrably is, the greatest force for economic progress in human history, and by logical extension the greatest force that has advanced the human condition in history.

Anyone who would deny this plain fact, is orders of magnitude more deranged than one who would deny that AGW is an actual issue. Indeed, if one conducted a poll of AGW alarmists, I would bet that 99.9% of them were either socialists (established meaning greenonions despite your confusion), or a democratic socialist, or a liberal progressive.

The greatest threat to personal liberty, is the liberal progressive and their army of social engineers.Ⓒ

mackita
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
Capitalism has been and demonstrably is, the greatest force for economic progress in human history
Most of us would survive in pure capitalism not a single day. It's time to balance the left-right ideologies by utilizing the best parts from both dual approaches and throwing these ones which apparently don't work.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2018
Capitalism has been and demonstrably is, the greatest force for economic progress in human history
Most of us would survive in pure capitalism not a single day. It's time to balance the left-right ideologies by utilizing the best parts from both dual approaches and throwing these ones which apparently don't work.


All the greatest economies of the world are capitalistic societies and standard of living has increased for most in its wake, exponentially on account of it. I did not mention Laissez-faire capitalism anywhere here nor is there any basis that most would not survive it, while existing now and typing on their expensive computer.

In most countries they are already balance, which is what is in constant political debate, pulling one way then the other.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
mackita
Just sending the links is even shallower, don't you think?
No I don't. The link I sent was a very in depth view at the current global situation regarding coal. It showed how trite your reference to 700 coal plants being built outside of China was. It showed that you do not read for depth - just for headlines.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2018
Capitalism has been and demonstrably is, the greatest force for economic progress in human history, and by logical extension the greatest force that has advanced the human condition in history

And as a result of capitalism - we are going off the cliff. Here is another perspective than yours - http://www.resili...ollapse/ You are also clearly not aware of the level of poverty that exists in the U.S. (which of course is actually a mixed economy) - and also not aware of the gaping wealth disparity. Unrestrained capitalism is a monster. Donald Trump is a perfect example of that monster. There are new models now emerging. I don't think it will be long before we will actually be able to have a complex dialogue about the preferred economic system - rather than your 5 year old bumper sticker nonsense.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2018
You are also clearly not aware of the level of poverty that exists in the U.S. (which of course is actually a mixed economy) - and also not aware of the gaping wealth disparity. Unrestrained capitalism is a monster. Donald Trump is a perfect example of that monster.


Absurd.

Wealth disparity is not a problem of capitalism, it's a natural consequence of freedom.

Furthermore, the poor don't create jobs, businesses do, people seeking wealth via their free inclinations to do so, natural egoism. The rich buy things that employers people, and pay the vast majority of income taxes. IOW, in a free society where private property rights are protected, ..... there is going to be wealth inequality. The notion that this is a problem to be fixed, was invented out of thin air by the idiot left.

The USA unemployment rate is less then 5% for those looking for work, and the standard of living is quite well for those who care enough to put an effort in.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2018
Anyone with a brain can plainly see the standard of living is higher in countries with societies that are free with capitalistic economies and that capitalism is the dominant form of economic structure in the world,..... and not by accident. Climb out of your own ass and get a clue. Examine major countries that attempt socialism,.... and compare the results.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
There isn't a finite amount of wealth as if to be distributed, as if it's "unfair" that some have more than others. Talk about a 5 year old mentality,.... whining little liberal bed wetter 'that he has more than me'.

Wealth is created. That Jeff Bezo's controls billions and is personally wealthy only matters because he created that wealth to begin with, and in the process created thousands of jobs, thousands of small businesses. Why would Bezo's or Gates create value and thus wealth where it did not exist beforehand were it not for profit motive and free choice of consumers? That is not a problem to be solved. Again, "wealth inequality" is literally an invented problem by the left.

Wealth inequality logically is not a problem in a free society, it's literally a consequence of that freedom.

TrollBane
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2018
Noumoron blathers about capitalism being correlated with wealth, ignoring the burgeoning disparity in those 'developed' societies, while carefully ignoring the genocide, slavery, dispossession and exploitation that enabled industrialization and technical advancement.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2018
Somehow it's confusing to you that capitalism is the greatest force for economic progress and thus the human condition,.... yet you claim to have insight into what the global average temperature will be one hundred years from now and how this will effect mankind?

There is a direct correlation between the clueless political left and AGW alarmism. The pinheaded above should do a social study to investigate this.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
Noumoron blathers about capitalism being correlated with wealth, ignoring the burgeoning disparity in those 'developed' societies, while carefully ignoring the genocide, slavery, dispossession and exploitation that enabled industrialization and technical advancement.

Trolls like Noumenon are best ignored. I am no longer smelling him.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2018
Noumoron blathers about capitalism being correlated with wealth, ignoring the burgeoning disparity in those 'developed' societies, while carefully ignoring the genocide, slavery, dispossession and exploitation that enabled industrialization and technical advancement.


Things got broken in history. Slavery was obviously not compatible with freedom and therefore an invalid form of capitalism.

You seem to ignore the tens of millions in China and Russa who died as a direct result of central planning economics,.... but hey at least there was no inequality.

Zzzzzzzz
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
"Many on this board show a deep lack of knowledge of the energy world. You cannot separate politics/economics/energy. The attack on renewable power is unrelenting, and there is great hypocrisy."

What I DO know though is the Paris accord and climate change link is the biggest attempt at fleecing of America in history and thank God we dodged that bullet.

You "know" this? I doubt you know much of anything.
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2018
@Caliban, your diatribe was mostly about what you think that I think, rather than what I actually said,... complete with vague characterizations of my history of posts,... which btw are mostly about physics, so right off you're factually incorrect.

the [free market] only involves itself with an eye toward profit, and --more importantly-- profit made perpetual by the privatization of any and all energy resources


And there are other benefits as well. [...] to human egoism. It's better to take advantage of human egoism, which anyone with a brain can see, is why free market capitalism works so obviously well.

The point here is that any future energy technology will have to subject to market forces in order to viable long term.


Noh, bro-- you went and said it already, and with uncharacteristic clarity for a change. And everyone has now read your comments.

Don't think that you'll squirm off your petard with a little hair-splitting.
Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2018
@Caliban
You seem to be having trouble with this really basic concept of "energy diversity". It means pursuing ALL options -- not just the ones you imagine to be "clean".

There's too much at stake here.

In fact, you are the one who's wrong in this regard - "diversity", by dictionary definition, means simply that there is more than one class or choice of something, where each of the diverse "things" has some variation to the others. The number of classes of things being diverse can be as small as two but certainly need not be the entire set of such things (or, as you put it, "ALL"). In case you miss the point,[...]I do agree with you on is that in this issue (global warning) there is too much at stake. We have a responsibility to future generations to lessen impacts of problems we may be causing, in the best ways we can.


You've misattributed those statements; they are not mine.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2018
Noumenon
Wealth inequality logically is not a problem in a free society, it's literally a consequence of that freedom.
So in your world view - if one child is born into a world with billions of dollars at their disposal - to buy every luxury one could imagine. Another child is born into the same world - with nothing - and dies of treatable disease - not having the resources to pay for a doctor - that is not a problem. Notice that neither child did anything to deserve their lot in life - it is just a function of the economic position of their family. Your twisted world view is right up there with that of Idi Amin - who died in a palace in Rhiad. You think that wealth disparity is not a problem - and poor babies are just lazy - otherwise they would be born rich. Welcome to the prosperity doctrine of Paul Ryan and Paula White.....
malapropism
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
@Caliban
You've misattributed those statements; they are not mine.

Apologies. You're quite right, the post should have been to:
@Chris_Reeve.

greenonions1
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
Noumenon
There is a direct correlation between the clueless political left and AGW alarmism
While obviously your terms 'clueless' and 'alarmism' are provocative - I think research has shown a correlation between the political right (certainly here in the u.s.) and denialism - that would support your premise. That is perhaps what today's article is about. That as people become informed about the crisis of climate change - it affects their behavior. The cult of the right that watches Fox etc. are in a bubble - and seem terrified of losing their political grip. Sadly - such cult like groupthink - tends to shut down alternative ideas - labeling many creative thinkers as clueless - it seems because of the perception of threat to the cult. The weeds are growing up through the cracks. Socially responsible economic systems that are popping up around the world would be a good place to start if you are interested in progress.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
Another child is born into the same world - with nothing - and dies of treatable disease - not having the resources to pay for a doctor - that is not a problem. [.....] You think that wealth disparity is not a problem - and poor babies are just lazy - otherwise they would be born rich.


Of course Noumenon never said anything of the kind. Honest discourse should preclude one from hi-jacking both sides of the argument. Why do you think it's okay to rape your neighbors dog? See, I can do that to.

In point of fact, and despite your profound dishonesty, I said that wealth disparity is a non-problem in a Free Society. Naturally, children born in oppressive societies is a problem,... as I already pointed out the tens of millions who have died as a direct result of countries using gov economic central planning in an attempt to solve inequality. This is a fact of history....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
.... and elements of economic central planning and general collectivism permeates the liberal progressive's and democratic socialist's political philosophy, as a modus operandi .... and is directly opposed to how humans actually behave.... free market and egoistic individualism. Indeed, they believe the latter two natural instincts are a problem to be solved,.... thus the above "study".

While obviously your terms 'clueless' and 'alarmism' are provocative

I concede this point. Let me fix this.... There is a direct correlation between the political left and an exaggerated threat to an otherwise valid concern of AGW.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
I think research has shown a correlation between the political right (certainly here in the u.s.) and denialism - that would support your premise.

We agree, but they don't bother doing counter studies such that I pointed out, which of course shows a bias in what these "studies" are choosen. Such libertarians and conservatives are foolish imo by not being all over the problem of AGW if for no other reason than to undermine the leftist political hi-jacking of the issue. After all, there are reasonable things that can be done.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
And as a result of capitalism - we are going off the cliff. Here is another perspective than yours - http://www.resili...ollapse/
The people aren't socialistic or capitalistic - they're just selfish and lazy. For example the scientists are undoubtedly most active in protection of nature today - but also the most ignorant to breakthrough findings (cold fusion, overunity) which could reverse the damage of environment. Instead of it, they promote controversial solutions like biofuels, GMO, hydrogen economy and similar schemes, which are doing environmental situation even worse - just for the sake of their momentary grants and job carriers. So I don't actually like, when someone argues by socialists, conservatives or liberals, because our nature and future is threatened equally by both groups (and I personally think that ignorance of mainstream science did way more damage than conservatives).
greenonions1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
Noumenon
Of course Noumenon never said anything of the kind
Yes you did Noumenon. Here is the quote.
Wealth inequality logically is not a problem in a free society, it's literally a consequence of that freedom
The child born with nothing vs Donald Trump jr is income inequality. You openly state that it is not a problem. You are correct that it is consequence of a 'free society.' Capitalism contains positive feedback loops. Rich people have the ability to multiply their wealth. They use their wealth to buy the government - and then stack the deck. Look at the new tax bill - that gives a new tax hand out to the multi billionaire who is signing the bill. The idea of a democracy is that one vote equals one vote. But the rich distort this system - and wealth becomes power. But back to the article. People across the globe are understanding the beast of climate change - and change is happening. It is the Koch's and their friends who are obstructing.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2018
"What you guys repeatedly demonstrate is that you will impose your fearful ideology into my own personal choice and security every opportunity you have."

You are projecting conservative character onto the rest of us.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
The liberals have no right to accuse Trump from ignorance of environmentally better solutions during last few months, once the scientists ignore (and intentionally deny) them too - for whole century.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
Chris Reeve is singing to the choir, but doe not even know the words. Don't preach diversity to me, I am a former utility engineer with a power company with the most diverse set of power sources on Earth.

For myself, I have dual-fuel emergency generator, a PV system, soon to be with batteries, and two electric cars.

Our grid is powered by hydro, nuclear, (no coal), natural gas, utility-scale PV, wind, geothermal resources, landfill gas, concentrated solar, and is equipped with utility-scale batteries for efficiency and efficacy.

Are you folk still sucking up coal fumes?
mackita
1 / 5 (1) Jan 03, 2018
Our grid is powered by hydro, nuclear, (no coal), natural gas, utility-scale PV, wind, geothermal resources, landfill gas, concentrated solar, and is equipped with utility-scale batteries for efficiency and efficacy.
How much raw source, coal and energy for their mining this system actually consumes on background? Regarding your qualification of "former utility engineer", it was already doubted here few days before. But my problem is rather with your occupational bias: it's not so surprising, that utility engineers support building of grid and utilities, farmers support growing of (subsidized) canola oil, the nuclear researchers and engineers support nuclear energy, coal miners support coil and so on - but where the actual support of environment is behind all of it?
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018


Another child is born into the same world - with nothing - green


Of course Noumenon never said anything of the kind. [...] In point of fact, ... I said that wealth disparity is a non-problem in a Free Society. Naturally, children born in oppressive societies is a problem - Noumenon


Yes you did Noumenon. Here is the quote.

Wealth inequality logically is not a problem in a free society, it's literally a consequence of that freedom


Please reread carefully. You said "into the same world", as if to generalize my statement, when in fact I had already qualified it by stipulating "in a free society" which is not the case every where.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2018
This has nothing to do with Venus.

Keep on topic, please.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018
The child born with nothing vs Donald Trump jr is income inequality. You openly state that it is not a problem.


"Income inequality" is a made up phrase by the left. It is meaningless in a free society. Disparities are a natural part of life,.... competition and survival of the fittest is purely natural and instinctual. Nature can't be wrong. Your beef seems to be with nature.

It is a fact of history that when gov forces everyone to be equal by central planning, millions end up in graves. Anything that counters natural forces will fail in cataclysm.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
It is the Koch's and their friends who are obstructing.


As long as world economies continue to float on a pool of oil, to some measure, they are only protecting an de facto legitimate market demand. It's odd that they left thinks that investors are somehow specifically committed to oil/coal,.... when in fact they would just assume make profit on whatever energy source is presently scaled and lobby for it as well.

A free society can't guarantee everyone is equal, by definition it guarantees everyone will not be equal,... free to be better.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Merrit
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2018
@chris your arguments are crap. First of all, basing our energy production on what ifs is retarded. Using your logic everything should be built deep underground and the surface should be abandoned. Only known issues should be planned for like making building built near vaults earthquake proof etc. then there is the fact that fossil fuels are a limited resource. It is questionable at what rate earth is replacing them, but we are currently using them much faster than whatever that is. Becoming less dependent on fossil fuels is better for the future of our economy and our environment. Also, the whole Venus thing is irrelevant. We haven't been studying it long enough to know the significance. Venus has a ton of built up heat. It would make sense if there were periods where it released more than it received and periods where it didn't. The heat doesn't need to be stored at the surface either. We know very little about what goes on in Venus atmosphere. That is why we are studying it.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Merrit
3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
Cont. while the climate scientists may be wrong about their predictions, they have a lot of data backing them up and simply ignoring them is also retarded. The thing is we won't know if they are right until it is all ready too late. Nothing drastic probably needs to be done right now, but slowly moving away from fossil fuels in the best option for the long term.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Merrit
4 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018
@chris you are the one who wants to plan for foreign countries attacking us and super volcanoes going off. You might as well plan for alien invasions and asteroids too or even transformers blowing our sun up. When taking everything into consideration the best option is building deep underground where the most scenarios can be avoided. My point is your point is completely retarded.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
Noumenon
Please reread carefully. You said "into the same world"
That is correct - and Trump jr is born into the same world as the child born into the ghetto. No - income inequality is not a "made up phrase by the left" Look at yourself - you make outrageous statements - and when called out for your rubbish - you start twisting everything in all directions. The capitalist system has some major flaws - one of which is the positive feed back loops that enable the rich to amplify their wealth - and then distort the whole system to their own advantage. We are now starting to call out those flaws. One of them is that the system is based on the necessity for growth - when natural resources are finite. This is insanity. Hence today's article - talking about people beginning to see the insanity - and make adjustments - like gkam with solar panels. Listen to the Monbiot tape if you are interested in learning. I doubt it.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
Gripe away, Deniers, you are losing the argument to science and the sharp slap of reality.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Merrit
5 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
@chris policy holders need to take realistic scenarios into consideration. As I have said before fossil fuels do not make sense for the long term even when you ignore climate change. I would actually advocate nuclear power to cover fossil fuel energy production until renewables can cover the energy requirements.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Merrit
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018
@chris it doesn't matter how much oil is in the earth when it is being used faster than it is replenishing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it will run out eventually. I am not predicting when. It is retarded and childish to get caught with our pants down by running out before our economy can run without it.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Merrit
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
@chris I am not advocating any drastic measures. The world isn't going to end tmr or the day after. They don't necessarily need to give incentives to renewables either. But, they should be taxing fossil fuels for the same reason they tax pollution. It is economics 101
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
Peak oil is irrelevant now. We will only need it for feedstocks.
Merrit
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2018
I didn't say anything about peak oil. I am talking about zero oil. When the supply begins running out prices will skyrocket. Owning a car that runs on gas will be worthless when it costs 200 dollars a gallon
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
"Humans may be the dominant cause of global temperature rise, but they may also be a crucial factor in helping to reduce it,"

Since the point of this entire article is that changes caused by human behaviour can only be altered by human behaviour, I find the rash of insane comments... insane. Is it really a controversial position to say that solving a problem we created requires us to implement a solution?

What's the alternative? Alien intervention? We created the problem ergo we will need to solve it. Sheesh.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2018
Is it really a controversial position to say that solving a problem we created requires us to implement a solution?
only to those who don't comprehend reality due to their inane internal ramblings and musings of pseudoscientific delusional dogma

.

and now for something completely the same:
watch the gish-gallop from the eu flow while the philosopher talks about himself in the third person and certain other attention whores seek validation for their isanity by presenting misinformation due to being burnt
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2018
George kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath offers the following;
I put in a PV system because it was the right thing to do
Yeah easy to be idiologically correct when youre spending your wifes hard-earned retirement money eh?
So I am a load
Well we agree there georgie.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2018
@chris/hannes the eu pseudoscience idiot
Insanity is likening people who reasonably doubt that we can predict the climate in 50-100 years from now to
stupidity is assuming that because you, yourself, can't figure out the physics due to a dogmatic refusal to actually learn the math and science then that means no one else possibly can

this is also called Dunning-Kruger
https://en.wikipe...r_effect

insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing over and over expecting different results

you know, like attempting to have a rational evidence-based conversation with a pseudoscience idiot who believes in the electric universe

you can never comprehend the beauty of science
and I can never stick my head that far up my arse

Therefore it stands to reason that ridicule is the only option, especially considering you've already made at least 13 blatantly fallacious claims that have been directly refuted with evidence I personally linked to you more than once
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
No - income inequality is not a "made up phrase by the left" Look at yourself - you make outrageous statements -

You only think that statement is "outrageous", because like all bed-wetting liberals, you're emotionally driven and not logical.

The statement IS made up gibberish, if applied to a free country with a capitalist economy,.... as, [this is the part you should read with care] ...as inequality is a necessary component of such a society,... if freedom, protection of private property, and competition are necessary components,... then de facto the notion of 'wealth inequality being a defect' is logically incompatible within such a system.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018


The capitalist system has some major flaws -


You can nit pick any system. It is demonstrably the best while gov central planning has demonstrated catastrophic failure.

You are worried about the conjectured effects of AGW on people who don't exist yet generations into the future, but yet fail to understand what effects central planning and collectivism had on people who actually lived and died in the tens of millions,.. all to "fix" inequality !

when natural resources are finite. This is insanity.

Again you demonstrate that you don't understand capitalism,... it ensures that scarce resources increase in cost, thus opening up opportunity for alternatives to compete.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
Wrt AGW it is questionable whether free market capitalism can solve this issue alone, which is why I have advocated for a Manhatten'esque project for energy technology then let the market scale.

The ideological far left don't like nor understand capitalism, in a way that is independent of AGW, therefore they are a-priori bias when it comes to solutions.

THE current world economy is for the most part capitalistic. What is insane is the belief that this can be changed, AND AGW solved at the same time.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
.... capitalism needs an immediate feedback mechanism to react to, and I think the "too late" argument of AGW is sound.l,.... however greenonions, you're arguing on the basis of inequality against capitalism. That is irrational and emotional and 5 year old like, in complaining what others have as if wealth was finite.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
We do not need Law of the Jungle Economics.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2018
Wrt AGW it is questionable whether free market capitalism can solve this issue alone, which is why I have advocated for a Manhatten'esque project for energy technology then let the market scale.


And this is the precise idiocy of your NeoLibertaRandite religion. It --and you, as its devoted acolyte-- insist that the unerring and perfect engine of freimarket capitalist innovation will solve every ill.

Where, then, are all the nascent entrepreneurial businesses that a champing at the bit to enter the market with their shiny new technology to combat the problem of AGW and environmental degradation?

Answer: they're all lined up at the trough, greedily squirming to stuff their snouts into the stream of Public Funding.

Because Private Freimarket Industry has a long history of not sinking its profits into R&D for new tech development, preferring, instead to wait for Publicly-funded tech to mature enough to be harvested for deployment at immediate profit.

Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2018
The ideological far left don't like nor understand capitalism, in a way that is independent of AGW, therefore they are a-priori bias when it comes to solutions.


The "ideological far left" understand Capitalism far better than you do, for the simple reason that they don't spread jam over its faults to make it go down easy. It is a robust and serviceable economic system, but has to be kept under regulation,lest --like our wonderful, ubiquitous swine-- quickly reverts to its destructive, rapacious, violent feral morphology once it escapes domestication.

This is, of course, an A PRIORI understanding, since Capitalism and its multitude of faults have been apparent for far longer than we have been aware of AGW. Attributing this as bias, therefore, is --once again-- only more of your too-clever-by-half polemic.

contd
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2018
contd

THE current world economy is for the most part capitalistic. What is insane is the belief that this can be changed, AND AGW solved at the same time.


Insanity is your claim that Capitalism can't be changed. Did you just now suffer from a head injury?

Capitalism has, can, and must be, changed, in order to combat AGW. The technology and effort required to implement the solutions require the mobilization of both industry and labor on a massive scale.

Unfortunately, since Capitalism is the only engine we've got, then it will have to be placed under bridle and harnessed to the sled of Soceital and Environmental Health, forgoing --for the meantime-- a goodly portion of its profits, in order to accomplish The Common Good.

All you are doing with your strident red baiting is to bemoan a temporary reduction in profitability, especially with regard to an already moribund fossil fuels industry.

Be smart, invest in renewables now, and stop your sobbing.
gkam
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
"Be smart, invest in renewables now, and stop your sobbing."

They will refuse to do so because it is our idea, not theirs.

BTW, we are saving enough money with the PV system and the two electric vehicles, we just ordered home batteries from Tesla. It is mainly because we live in earthquake country, . . and just after the order we had one.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
"Be smart, invest in renewables now, and stop your sobbing."

They will refuse to do so because it is our idea, not theirs.


More's the pity for them, then, because, while all the renewable tech is in development and initial employment, that is the time to invest.

Once the tech and market mature, then BigCarbon will be snapping it up to re-monopolize fuel and power generation/distribution, and investment will be much more expensive and at much less return.

Alas- "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink", as they say.

No matter, Evolution is constant and implacable, and those who lack intellectual agility in the age of information will be grist for the mill.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
Of course, it should be obvious that much of the shillery one sees on popular newssites and blogs is intentional distraction, diversion and mis/disinformation, to discourage people from doing what is in their best interest --such as investing in, adopting, and promoting-- renewable energy, which will hold down the cost BigCarbon will have to pay to buy it all to renew and re-establish their monopoly of energy, once fossil fuel is rendered obsolete.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2018
@Caliban
Of course, it should be obvious that much of the shillery one sees on popular newssites and blogs is intentional distraction, diversion and mis/disinformation, to...
it also doesn't help that most of the media are owned by a small percentage of the population whose primary purpose is making money rather than being accurate in the news

that may sound like conspiracist ideation to a lot of folks, but ...
Capitalism has, can, and must be, changed, in order to combat AGW
yes and no

there must be changes, and that is absolutely true... but I think a lot of people are afraid of those changes because they fear losing money (or control). Those people fear losing money because of fraudulent people getting government grants and being epic failures, like "solar freakin' roadways".

the problem all comes back to basic scientific literacy, really

greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2018
Noumenon
Again you demonstrate that you don't understand capitalism
I think I have a pretty good understanding of capitalism. I am talking about real world capitalism - as practiced by many countries - such as the U.S. Feedback loops within that capitalism - allow rich people to amplify their wealth - and then to buy the system - and rig the system in their own favor. Capitalism has no conscience. There is nothing in capitalism to stop one group - from hoarding - and watching another group die of starvation. Slavery is a good example of unfettered capitalism. Capitalism will happily soil the environment - which is why we have laws such as the laws against lead in gasoline. Capitalism is not the only option - and centralized distribution is not the only alternative. It is you conservatives who have the blinders on - too busy worshiping at your altar of capitalism.
leetennant
5 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2018
The US doesn't practice capitalism. It's veering towards old-school fascism. I blame the US education system, which has taught a simplistic and inaccurate binary view of economic policy for a very long time now. Most of us know that capitalism isn't a switch you turn on or off. There's no state of capitalism vs not capitalism. There's a spectrum of policies built around a concept of private ownership.

Actually, this is slightly unfair. I see this in the UK and in Australia as well. I find it gobsmacking that the same people who rail against a variety of state interventions are perfectly happy with welfare as long as its corporate welfare, subsidies if they're corporate subsidies and illegal activity if it's corporate activity.

Why should the government fund coal but not solar? Why should BHP pay no tax while I pay tax? Yelling SOCIALISM as though that resembles an argument is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2018
I blame the US education system, which has taught a simplistic and inaccurate binary view of economic policy for a very long time now
@leetennant
Actually, from what I can see, they don't teach economic policy at all in schools. They may mention it topically or perhaps define the terms in the simplistic binary view that you mention, but I can't see where most schools teach anything even remotely related to modern economics with the exception of perhaps personal accounting or checking, loans, credit and the like (excepting advanced limited number courses for the students, mind you)

this may be anomalous as I am passing on information gleaned from the children I converse with regularly in the local schools. One thing I might mention is that my grandkids school is in the top ten in the nation... (something to consider)
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience cultist reeve/hannes
One of the strongest arguments against altering our current form of government ...
one of the strongest arguments showing the need to reform government is the fact that they have to resort to these methods because of the epic failure of science literacy in society

when a person is so dogmatic that they cling to a blatantly false, disproven pseudoscience regardless of the reams of evidence that demonstrate they're wrong, then it is a problem of the person

when this is prevalent in a society, rather than a small group of anomalous individuals, and it's showing up in the elite, presumably educated people, then it's time to consider reformation

ignorance is a disease cured by education, but stupidity like yours is incurable as there is no evidence presentable that can lift the veil of delusion from you
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience religionist
From the Conclusion to The Golem - What You Should Know About Science

Science and the citizen

blah blah blah

cont'd)
regardless of your gish-gallop: you can always find dissenters to proven facts

you are the perfect example to this as you continually advocate for a known pseudoscience while it's been proven false

if science can do anything well, it is that it can prove something false
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2018

Stopping climate change means doing it yourself, not waiting for the guvmunt to do it for you.

Anonymous internet posting does nothing.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience religionist reeve/hannes
"The 'public understanders', as we might call them, seem to think that if the person in the street knows more science -- as opposed to more about science -- they will be able to make more sensible decisions about these things.

How strange that they should think this; it ranks among the great fallacies of our age. Why? -- because PhDs and professors are found on all sides in these debates
Misleading and definitely not applicible to the climate change issue

this is where your argument breaks down completely

One can also find PhD and professors who argue for creationism, but that in no way proves or supports the argument that creationism is real because those PhD's and professors are religious as well as making an argument from ignorance

this is the key problem with 90% of the arguments against AGW: most of the anti-AGW arguments are not only politically motivated, but also due to ignorance of the subject
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience religionist reeve/hannes
What Bauer is arguing is that a huge mistake (often made by the science understanders) occurs when people point to the obvious successes of science to explain these simple inanimate systems as justification for belief in the less empirical, less simple scientific claims
logical fallacy detected
argument from ignorance

this is especially true in arguments you've made against climate change (and astrophysics)

just because you can't comprehend the empirical evidence doesn't mean no one else can, and this is the crux of the argument against your inane gish-gallop rantings here on PO

Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience religionist reeve/hannes
Science works with hypotheses rather than with truths
and again, you demonstrate the ignorance that I pointed out above
you're ignorant of the scientific method, for starters: https://en.wikipe...c_method

starting with a hypothesis is the beginning, not the end result

your demonstration also shows your ignorance of terminology, which is different than common use
surely a hypothesis is an educated guess, but science doesn't just *stop* at that point, it has to be tested, data gathered and the refined, altered or *gasp* rejected ( see: https://en.wikipe...c_method#/media/File:The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg )

pseudoscience skips the last part of that process accepting something that is proven false by Theory, which has "withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge"

your own gish-gallop continually proves my point ITR
TrollBane
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2018
Nou... "You seem to ignore the tens of millions in China and Russa who died as a direct result of central planning economics,.... but hey at least there was no inequality." Straw man argument.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
"People advancing the 'Scientists have been wrong' gambit are typically vague and imprecise in their usage of the term, "wrong." It is often implied that wrong is being used in the sense of "totally factually wrong," rather than merely incomplete, which is inconsistent both with scientific epistemology and with the history of science. It's at odds with scientific epistemology, because knowledge in science is generally conceived of in a fallibilistic and/or probabilistic manner rather than in a binary one. It's at odds with the history of science because it is not generally the case that the data used to support a theoretical claim is entirely 180 degrees mistaken, but rather that the theory is being replaced by a more complete one which, in many cases, simply looks differently. Sure, theories can be expanded and the meaning and implications of experimental data can be conceptually reframed, but new theories can't be in direct contradiction .cont..
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2018
can't be in direct contradiction with the aspects of the old one whose predictions corresponded with experimental data. Unless it can be shown that all prior data consistent with the predictions of the older theory was either fraudulent or due to systematically faulty measurements, this is simply not a viable option.
Another way to put it is that old facts don't go away so much as their explanations can change in light of newly discovered ones.
This is reflected in what is called the correspondence principle"
A paraphrasing of Nels Bohr by the credible hulk http://www.credib...-gambit/

Seems appropriate considering the gish-galloping EU Kook's multiple cut and paste comments.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2018
The difference between science and Chris Reeve is that Science has a long history of incorporating new understanding of the physical universe and modifying or dispensing with older understanding accordingly in order to move forward.

This mechanism is entirely undeveloped in the spotty-bottomed troll calling itself Chris Reeve.

Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2018
It seems that people should be able to criticize science without somebody in the room taking personal offense. You are not the same thing as science; when I question science, the claims of science, this is an act of independent thought ...

... unless, that is, you've constructed your worldview on some false notion of what science actually is, and are now defending this poorly constructed worldview which you never invested any actual time into questioning ...


No offense taken. Simply pointing out the fact that you continually criticize Science as having been incorrect in the past, and therefore, by implication, that it is incorrect in the present, all the while yourself failing to note that it is self-correcting.

You continue to scrape on this saw, despite repeatedly and on an ongoing basis, having your error pointed out to you.

This is why I say that your mechanism for self-correction is absent.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
Each time that I am talking about science and somebody else is talking about me, that means something. Thinking is not a crime, and in fact, it can even exhibit beneficial side effects.


Try basing your comments upon actual facts WRT what is currently known and understood about the physical universe, rather than pseudoscience and your personal worldview, and your comments will draw far less in the way of criticism.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2018
Thousands of characters quote-mined from cherry-picked critics in service to flogging a dead horse later, @Chris Reeve, despite a flood-post fury, fails to make a point that is only valid in one specific regard, in fact only managing to prove it in the negative.

The well-understood, acknowledged practical imperative of specialization is actively counterbalanced by interdisciplinary working groups, collaboration, conferences, symposia, steering committees, and international cooperation.

The criticism that no generalists with overall comprehension of a particular --and even multidiscipline-- areas of Scientific knowledge exist is a blatant falsehood.

What is certain, ironically, is your clear intention to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of Science in general to advance your own favored brands of pseudoscience, ignoring the obvious fact that your pseudoscience would fail on the same basis as you claim has befallen well-documented and replicable established Science.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2018
There are currently 450 petagrams (1 petagram = 1,000,000,000,000 kilograms) of carbon in plants on Earth. Without humans, there would be 916 petagrams of carbon stored in plants; humans are responsible for reducing this biomass by over 50%. In the 1990's, human fossil fuel use emitted 6.4 Petagrams of carbon (PgC) per year, and in from 2000-2008, 7.7 PgC/yr. It just seems for me, that planting new forests could easily offset the negative effects of fossil fuel burning. And vice-versa: the deforestation in the name of biofuels (like the palm oil) usage could easily make more damage, than the whole fossil industry in the light of these numbers.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2018
Very good of you @Chris_Reeve to recapitulate your recapitulated recapitulation of your ad nauseam argument.

Just in case anyone missed it the first thousand times.

It didn't hold water the first time you flooded everyone with it, and after repeated floods, it still doesn't hold water.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 06, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2018
I understand the critique.

Citing it
overnovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovernovenovernovernovernovernovernovernovernover again does not invalidate Science or the methodology.

Nor does it validate your pet theories, regardless of how very "innovative'' you may feel them to be.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Jan 07, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2018
@Caliban
make sure to report it

.

.

@chris/hannes the pseudoscience eu acolyte
Why do you think that you can understand science without systematically learning its critique?
because, as scientists, mathematicians or those in fields which are required to actively utilise the scientific method regularly, we are conversant in critical thinking and, as noted already by Caliban... we "understand the critique."

you are (maybe) a literature grad
(but obviously, you missed a sh*tload of courses on research and critical thinking)

You have absolutely no experience in actual application of science, facts or using the scientific method other than as an abstract idea

you also think that if a single individual is dissenting on popular opinion it holds the same weight as the evidence backed Theory in science

it doesn't - and it never will (this is evident even in your own regurgitated gish-gallop) because that is not how science works
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2018
Recall that it was ENGINEERS who discovered radio waves from space -- not the scientific community. The astronomical community was so satisfied with their cosmology just before WWII that they insisted the radio signals must be either a mistake or a hoax. Research into cosmic radio waves would have to wait until after the war when there was a surplus of free gear.
.


So this entire screed is based around the hilariously inaccurate notion that engineers are somehow not employing the scientific method?

What do you think science is?

No, wait, I didn't ask that question and I don't need your answer. Sorry, sorry.

Oh, and, Chris? Start a blog or something. Please. That way the crazies can find you and we can avoid you. This is getting particularly deranged.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
As if any confirmation of Agenda were wanting, I stumbled across this article in The Society for Scientific Exploration's free online publication, "Edge Science":

https://scientifi...7GaQk%3D

With the byline: Chris Reeve.

I encourage you all to read it.

Except that you already have. Chris Reeve, as it turns out, and, one supposes, to no one's surprise, is an --by his own admission-- an uncredentialed non-scientist web developer who has nobly taken upon himself, single-handed, the reformation of Scientific Endeavor.

What we have seen posted here by him, over and over, has been largely excerpts from that article --or one its drafts-- with which he has been using as bait to draw negative comments from his fellow posters in this and (by his admission) other forums.

contd
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2018
contd

The article is a fleshed out version of his posts here, done up with bullets and a few inset photos of, for the most part, "science controversies" not referred to in the article, and with the most explosive of conclusions:

Chris Reeve is building a website devoted to "scientific controversies" and, again, one assumes, his plans for reforming Science, making a naked appeal for traffic across the site. Also he here reveals his nonexistent scientific credentials.

How original, innovative, and groudbreakingly noble of Chris Reeve to make a buck promoting "Science Controversy" and his single handed crusade to remake --in his own image-- the whole of Scientific endeavor.

If you play your cards right, Chris, you could ride that Gravy Train to Fame and Fortune, and take those piles of cash to the bank.

Or at least be able to afford the bus fare to the Food Bank, if your girlfriend doesn't have it handy.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2018
"Or at least be able to afford the bus fare to the Food Bank, if your girlfriend doesn't have it handy." Girl friend? How generous of you. I would have suggested mom.
Noumenon
not rated yet Jan 18, 2018
Combining climate projections and social processes, the model predicts global temperature change ranging from 3.4 to 6.2°C by 2100, compared to 4.9°C from the climate model alone.


When the AGW-Alarmists fail to use an otherwise valid concern enough, to promte thier social engineering solutions, they toss on another layer of scientifically unfounded speculation to increase the exaggeration even more.

A recent study published in Nature, calls into question the scientific validity of such alarmist predictions,.... and further supports my contention (proven in another thread) that amongst climate scientists, the alarmists gibberish advocated by the Caliban and others here, is a minority view.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.