Slashdot Mirror
8 In 10 People Now See Climate Change As a 'Catastrophic Risk,' Says Survey (trust.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Thomas Reuters Foundation: Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe, a survey on global threats found Wednesday. The survey of more than 8,000 people in eight countries -- the United States, China, India, Britain, Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Germany -- found that 84 percent of people now consider climate change a "global catastrophic risk." That puts worry about climate change only slightly behind fears about large-scale environmental damage and the threat of politically motivated violence escalating into war, according to the Global Challenges Foundation, which commissioned the Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 report. The survey, released in advance of this week's G7 summit of advanced economies in Italy, also found that 85 percent of people think the United Nations needs reforms to be better equipped to address global threats. About 70 percent of those surveyed said they think it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions -- specifically designed to deal with a wide range of global risks. Nearly 60 percent said they would be prepared to have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen.
Fake News. La-la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
While I fully agree with climate change being a catastrophic risk, a global organization with enforcement power will immidiately become the most valuable target for lobbying in the world.
I believe we'd see such an organization effectively ruled by the very interests it's set to regulate within a few years at most.
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
54 out of 100 Senators and 234 out of 435 Representatives, and Twitler don't.
The numbers don't line up.
Humans will adapt.
Stupid humans who insist on living where the floods are coming ... well, Darwin has a plan for them and their families.
But humans have done stupid things for 20K years and we are still here. A good friend bought a home in Tampa, on the water. I think he's an idiot. The same for people living below sea level in New Orleans. Idiots.
Stock tip - buy companies with experience in dike building. https://www.fastcompany.com/30...
I live at 900 ft above sea level. No earthquakes or hurricanes here. No flooding nearby - though it does happen within 20 miles and we do have occasional tornadoes.
I've lived at sea level, in a hurricane zone, and had 2 ft of water in my home. I moved. Hopefully, my family has passed Darwin's test.
This just isn't the case. I'll talk about the UK because I'm more familiar with it, but other countries will have similar stories. Changes have been made to energy consumption, rules brought in on recycling, incentives given for electric transport, stress on public transport - people see and vote for these things. Yes - every party. Clearly some in the UK want to go further than others, but there is no party that has no policy in this area.
This didn't happen by magic - this happened because the public consistently and repeatedly voted for candidates that had policies leaning more in that direction. And again - before someone tries to make this a domestic political scrap, this was for every party of every stripe. People do do things when given the chance.
It really doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 people see climate change as a real threat. As long as the top 1% keep earning billions of dollars off the status quo, and understand they will be protected from the effects, nothing is going to change.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Right, this survey found that 8 out of 10 people will lie to a surveyor. Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to. It's the same thing with every problem caused by a group. Everyone complains about traffic while moving further away from their workplace and not wanting to ride the bus or carpool.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
rules brought in on recycling In other words, people being FORCED to change their behavior. If people were truly WILLING to make changes to their lifestyle, you would not need rules, people would do these things without them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think I have the perfect guy for that job. He's experienced with delivering, spreading and repeating that kind of information.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, but for the vast and clear majority of earth's history, humans didn't want to survive on its surface. Including 50 million years ago.
But then again, we also have not even been around for even a sliver of geologic time. Like the old joke says
Planet 1: Dude, you look horrible, what's going on with you?
Planet 2: I have homo sapiens
Planet 1: Ah, don't worry. It will pass.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The point is they voted for people to make the rules. In many cases they already were doing something about them, and they wanted those rules to be the norm. They were willing, they made the change, they voted for the change to be normalised, and now it is.
I also recommend reading about what levels of CO2 are toxic to humans, because I don't give a fuck what plants need if I'm dead.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So ... kill all Muslims to fight global warming? Is that your message? Or why do you conflate them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you "ready to make changes to your standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe"? OK, here we go.
We believe that the most likely reason for what seems an unnatural climate change is the huge amount of CO2 emissions provoked by humankind ('s industrialisation) during over the last 200 years. As far as you are willing to do all what is in your hand to minimise the impact of this likely-to-be-so-dangerous output of our modern society, I understand that you are ready to stop using:
- Any machine requiring combustion to run. Examples: all your vehicles (electrical or similar ones can run without generating CO2, although they have certainly generated some at different points like when being built, transported, repaired, etc.; they also generate CO2 indirectly via power plants as explained below), including the ones you use sporadically and/or transport gods which you use in any way (planes or ships) and even the ones used for your amusement (motor sports).
- All the industrial processes requiring some combustion and outputting goods/services which you consume at any point (directly, a big proportion of the current power plants; indirectly, all the remaining ones by relying on combustion-based processes at any point to complement their usual activity or as part of required manufacturing, transportation, etc. processes; note that the aforementioned electric vehicles are also generating CO2 indirectly via the way in which the electricity they need is generated). Forget about your clothes, your supermarkets, your computers, etc.
- Any scientific, research facility or study involving the consumption of relevant amounts of energy. You have to get rid of all the universities, research centres, big research facilities, etc.
-etc.
Let's assume that you do all this, that you also convince the whole humankind to join you and that we can reach a stage where the worldwide CO2 generation gets down to about the natural levels (= plants + animals + us generating just a bit more). In that case and by assuming that our theories are right (the climate variation isn't provoked by natural causes) how are you planning to remove all the additional CO2 generated so far? Perhaps this is already enough to provoke an inevitable catastrophe within the next years, who knows for sure?
I am a firm believer in each-single-bit-counts kind of approaches and also think that environment-concerned ideas are rarely a bad thing. A completely different story is building up a world of lies and misinformation where you can save the world just by buying a brand new car! Step by step, always in the right direction, but never falling for magical, crazily stupid or manipulating nonsense. Out of all the problems of our planet, CO2 generation is one of the less important ones simply because we cannot perform relevant changes on this front (or perhaps we could but don't really want). Sadly, most of CO2-concerned policies are promoted by commercial, egoist, short-sighted interests whose main goals are helping themselves rather than the planet.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Glaciers have covered most of Greenland for the past 2-3 million years. Not hundred.
This space intentionally left blank
if its floods then it is too late... a minor flaw in your ignorant post
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'd say its more accurate, from the group of laymen I use for my "What do the masses think" questions, to say that at least 8 out of 10 people don't give a toss what happens to the environment. And they aren't even that stupid.
>"it may be time to create a new global organization -- with power to enforce its decisions[...]have their country give up some level of sovereignty to make that happen."
THAT would be the worst mistake ever, especially for the USA. We have already seen many of the things "the world" would want to do and much of it runs contrary to the Constitution.
Cool. Looks like the number of rational folks out there is up to 2 out of 10 now.
Whether or not you believe humans are responsible for climate change, the evidence is clear that climate change is occurring. A great many of the follow on consequences of climate change are highly predictable and many of them are bad. As such, logically it is almost irrelevant whether or not humans are the driver of the change even though the evidence seems bullet proof that we are responsible. Either way it clear that it is happening and it is equally clear is something we need to plan for and quite likely attempt to mitigate. You don't have to believe humans are responsible for it to be logical for us to take substantial action on the problem. It's really no different in principle than a volcano erupting - we still have to take action to address the consequences.
Of course the sticky bit of the problem is that dealing with the issue requires human action which will come at a cost. The only (sort of) sane reason to not act to deal with climate change is because someone has economic self interest interest in ignoring the problem. It's understandable if not justifiable. There are of course a few illogical reasons why people oppose taking action the most notable of which seems to be tribalism. Thing is that whether people believe in it or not they will end up dealing with the problem sooner or later. The cost of dealing with it sooner is lower but human nature being what it is it's not clear if that will happen before there are some severe consequences.
The percentage of believers doesn't prove facts. It proves belief.
Missing the point. The point is that when enough people get behind an idea it becomes possible to take meaningful action. This is a political survey regarding the effectiveness of scientific communication. The science is what it is and this survey does not deal with the science. The debate is largely a political and economic one and this seemingly is ammunition in that debate.
Don't know if global warming will be our demise. Do know 2 things. Some people lie and some people will believe anything. Humans would be funny, if there weren't so many of them.
Nearly nine in 10 people say they are ready to make changes to their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe
Well of course they would. Faced with a clear path to avert catastrophe, people will take it. If you tell people "do this thing, or your life will be ruined", they'll probably do that thing. The problem is that the path to averting climate catastrophe is too abstract from peoples' daily lives. Right now it's more like "do this thing, and depending on whether or not other people do similar things, your life might not be ruined."
Avoiding catastrophic climate change will take a huge collective action. But since each of our individual actions have a small effect on their own, it's hard for our brains to balance the pain/cost of those actions with a benefit. Few people are willing to lower their standard of living without a clear link between their particular sacrifice and avoiding catastrophe.
I'm not sure I'm providing any insight into how to solve this problem, but rather that it's not too surprising to see the results as worded.
I suspect it is more likely that they voted for people who made the rules, not that they voted for those people to make the rules. I think it unlikely that the politicians stance on this issue impacted their vote one way or the other.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's just not the case. 'Green' position became electoral gold - politicians moved that way in order to attract more votes.
It was relatively milder, but you go there now and see hw much headroom is left between "green" and "milder".
And while the medieval warm period was, in fact, a thing (with parts, notably the coastal regions, of Greenland being rather greener than today)- it was so incredibly localized that it did not affect global average temperatures at all.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"But is it true?" comes to mind as the next question.
They are honest about WANTING those things. 7 in 10 want them until they find out it requires something like changing a lightbulb. 1 in 10 of them are willing to put the effort in and change their behaviour.
as less interesting than Trump news.
"Green" land was an example of medieval marketing BS. The reason it is called "Green" land was the same reason almost every state in the US has a city called "Mount Pleasant", "Greenville", and "Springfield".
It's to make the place sound inviting. Norsemen were trying to establish permanent colonies on Greenland, and wanted to attract people with the prospect of a green fertile island. (it was in reality, a cold frigid place)
Yes, there was a few hundred years in the medieval period where the earth warmed slightly. And, yes, Greenland was slightly warmer than today. It still was a harsh, frigid place to live and work, and even colonies set up back then tended to collapse because of the harsh conditions. It was hard to get permanent settlements to thrive.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
They moved that way to attract the votes of the people who are single issue voters on that subject. Most people do not care one way or the other on such issues. Of course the worst part is that recycling rules generally favor businesses which "recycle" over policies which improve the use of materials (that is, it puts money into the pockets of companies which collect recyclables, whether or not there is any use for the products so recycled, or any value to the environment from doing so).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I’ll believe global warming is a crisis, when the people who scream it’s a crisis start to act like it’s a crisis themselves.
I took a Pole once and got charged with the federal crime of kidnapping.
A poll of 10 people revealed 9/10 thought taking a Pole was a bad idea.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Again, the nature of democracy means that is simply not the case - there wouldn't have been enough numbers for a majority if that were true, and the mainstream parties would not have shifted position. They aren't single issue voters - such voters were likely voting for the Green Party anyway.
Everyone SAYS they want cleaner air, less pollution, and to stop global warming. They just want everyone else to stop consuming so they don't have to.
There is a social psychology where people are only willing to change/sacrifice if people around them are doing the same. This is why we need individuals that will get the ball rolling and why we need entertainment media to put a lot of positive emphasis on things that are good for the environment without being so extreme as to alienate the audience. If every home makeover show included changing homes over to solar and battery then you would have a lot more people doing the same.
Behavior (both social and individual) is based on feedback loops, so the stronger the feedback the faster the change.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Most political AGW "fixes" involve taxing CO2, not methane. Methane produced mostly by farmers, who lobby heavily, and are in Iowa the first presidential caucus. If you are interested in winning elections and don't care about solving AGW you need to not admit methane is a bigger problem, which is what liberals do.
Taxing CO2 is taxing the middle class, which to liberals is perfectly acceptable. As the DNC has shown, screw the middle class and lose the "blue wall". Instead of admitting they hate the working class they come up with "Its the Russians" when they lose.
Now that the reason they tax the wrong things is covered, lets see what happens with that tax money... It goes to Solyndra, which ended up producing nothing of value and was split up and sold off in pieces. However they did donate heavily to Obama's election. Along with Fisker Auto (not even an American company, but owned by Al Gore), and A123 again who heavily donated to the DNC and was sold off to China.
So looking at how the DNC deals with AGW, they tax people who they think aren't likely to hurt them in elections, and give that tax money to people who help them get elected and don't seem to care if it helps with AGW at all.
Put me down as the guy who looked at the solutions put into place to solve AGW and noticed it doesn't actually help but is a money scheme for the DNC instead.
At atmospheric concentration of several percent CO2, our lungs can't perform gas exchange to move CO2 from our blood to the air, and we die. That is about 100 times as much as is in the air right now (~400 ppm), and many times the point at which we have other things to worry about.
So don't put "CO2 levels that are toxic to humans" high on your priority list of things to worry about.
You forgot to pole Poll-land.
From MIT's Technology Review:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
So why aren't we talking about spending a few hundred million into engineering R&D to come up with this potentially real and very inexpensive kind of a solution as quickly as possible? Why are we instead talking about huge bureaucracies and trillions of dollars in carbon taxes for forever? That's because we're allowing politicians etal come up with the solution, instead of engineers and scientists.
They demand the end of commercial air travel. After all, it's not necessary to humanity, (we lived without it until less than a hundred years ago), and it puts out a lot of CO2, and it's not possible to electrify in the foreseeable future.
Until then, it's "make someone else change or pay so that I can keep my perks."
OK 8 In 10 People ....yes but what do the cats think?
1 in 10 of them are willing to put the effort in and change their behaviour.
And 1 in 1000 are willing to switch to cold showers. But somebody else should make changes.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So, what you are saying is: Nearly 9 in 10 people are complete liars.
First, I really don't know what to think about climate change vs. solar influence vs. normal centuries long ebbs and flows of our 4 billion year old planet. However, my gut tell me this. If you say it long enough and beat the drum loud enough, then whatever your message it must true, right?
And while the medieval warm period was, in fact, a thing (with parts, notably the coastal regions, of Greenland being rather greener than today)- it was so incredibly localized that it did not affect global average temperatures at all.
Research is indicating that the medieval warm period was much more global than those with financial interests in it being regional will admit.
Humans, Human Civilization and the environment all did much better at warmer temperatures.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If you would be patient, we're almost done with that. Autonomous electric vehicles will be hitting the streets in the next two years, and they will be so cheap that no-one will ever want to own a car again
LOL, so they have global warming on your planet too?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Sorry, but when was Greenland green?
Geez, it ain't hard to find....:
To investigate the possibility of climatic cooling, scientists drilled into the Greenland ice caps to obtain core samples. The oxygen isotopes from the ice caps suggested that the Medieval Warm Period had caused a relatively milder climate in Greenland, lasting from roughly 800 to 1200. However, from 1300 or so the climate began to cool. By 1420, the "Little Ice Age" had reached intense levels in Greenland.
They took these measurements from ice cores. Does it not stand to reason that the ice in those cores existed at the time being measured? See where I'm going with this?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible.
The extremely high costs have historically had a lot to do with politics, fear of nuclear energy, and contractors taking advantage of the fact that it's "scary stuff".
Almost every time a new plant is schedule to be constructed, it turns into a big battle with groups fighting against it and requires expensive site surveys, safety studies and more. (Well, perhaps not in Communist countries where the people don't really get any say-so anyway -- but safety seems to take a back seat to just getting something up and running anyway, in those situations - a la Chernobyl.)
Here in the U.S. - there has often been a lot of poor long-term projecting of energy needs, also contributing to high cost of nuclear plants. For example, the power plant not far from where I used to live in St. Louis, MO, Callaway County Nuclear plant, had a whole lot of issues in the past including no need to operate it at above 50% or so of its generation capacity because power demands just didn't grow as quickly as they anticipated when it was constructed. (I also recall some issues where construction materials for the cooling pipes didn't wind up meeting the promised standards, leading to an inability to run the plant at full power until that was redone.) It received the top safety rating for risk of damage due to an earthquake though, and is apparently running quite profitably today. That didn't stop a lawsuit in 2014 though, trying to prevent it from getting its operating license renewed, over new rules allowing above-ground storage of spent fuel after years of failed efforts to build a permanent national storage site in Nevada.
The people who keep arguing we should use other "renewables" refuse to recognize the fact that wind and solar power aren't "always on" power sources. You generate nothing after dark with solar, and the wind doesn't blow constantly at a good rate of speed. The work-around for that always revolves around ideas of implementing large storage batteries, which greatly increases the cost of those projects and reduces reliability. (Batteries are based on chemical reactions and they wear out. Refurbishing them amounts to gutting them out and rebuilding their insides, making that process almost equivalent to just manufacturing new batteries.)
Look up the sunspot cycle and you'll have your answer, if, you are willing to be open minded and believe it!
It sure likes you are ready to believe just about anything.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If you're naïve enough to believe that the world is ready for a global organization that can enforce it's wishes on sovereign nations, maybe you should consider some of the idiocy that's come from the UN previously.
https://www.unwatch.org/from-t...
https://www.globalpolicy.org/c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
As soon as liberals evacuate Florida, New york city, and coastal California due to rising oceans I'll believe they are serious about global warming.
Until then they are full of shit.
So, they're full of shit until the effects of what they've been warning of get so bad they have to evacuate their homes? Really, that's your bar?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
And again - some make-up of that 50% or 90% will be 'green' policies. If I 45% agreed with you before, but now like your climate change policies it might tip me over the 50% needed to vote for you.
Also, they could lead by example. Ride the bus, get your tubes tied (and your kids' & grandkids' tubes tied if you have them) and start paying an additional 20% income tax to combat climate change. No more private jets. Do that for a year and the rest of us might be willing to go half as far.
Let me guess: You think Al Gore is a hypocrite because he flies on planes.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
...Algore, Leo, Obama, and all the other celebrity AGW champions jetting around the world Signalling their Virtue are ready to curtail their lifestyles.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
In the UK the cost has little to do with protesters or politics. In fact the UK government has been extremely generous to nuclear operators - it build all the original plants, then gave them to commercial operators basically for free, with a guarantee that it would pick up most of the cost of decommissioning, plus the usual subsidies like free insurance.
The problem are all to do with the technology itself. For example, the long term profitability of new nuclear is in doubt as renewable energy is replacing it. That's why the people building this new plant demanded a guarantee of extremely high prices and guaranteed sales for the lifetime of the plant. In Europe the decommissioning requirements are stricter too, because land is more valuable here, requiring the site to be made habitable again rather than just burying the reactor there until it becomes safe enough to move.
As for renewables, fortunately Europe is quite large and has plenty of distributed wind power. While batteries do wear out, they don't wear out as fast as people think and as we move to electric vehicles there will be vast numbers of them that can be re-used before being recycled. There are also other forms of energy storage. More investment is needed of course, which is why people want the subsidies for nuclear redirected.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I will have to call b.s. on this survey from a newly founded global warming alarmist organisation. You want a real survey, here it is : http://data.myworld2015.org/ Climate change is DEAD LAST.
In other words, people being FORCED to change their behavior. If people were truly WILLING to make changes to their lifestyle, you would not need rules, people would do these things without them.
So, you have noticed that people generally don't change until circumstances force them to. Congratulations, welcome to reality. Do you pretend you are not also this way? Sure, if men were angels no government would be necessary. And if my aunt were a man she'd be my uncle. You can be pissed about it if you want, but it changes nothing and only results in you being pissed off.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
And everybody wants to save the planet but no one wants to help mom with the dishes.
According to this page: https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms, the maximum allowed workplace exposure limit is 5000ppm, and the hard-limit appears to be 40000ppm. People start reporting drowsiness or bad air at 1000 to 2000ppm.
A risk is something that has an element of potentiality. In the case of climate change, the catastrophe is already assured. The only question is whether it will be severe, very severe or "collapse of civilization"-level. Calling a "risk" is, once again, making it sound a lot more harmless than it is.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
But then we won't be entertained by any more, " crazy Florida man does xyz " stories.
Save Orlando at least. DisneyWorld and Universal are there.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I don't even admit to being from this planet!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
We had a chance to make a real difference with climate change some 20 to 30 years ago. We chose to argue about it instead of developing the science and executing a plan. No use arguing about it anymore, climate deniers can say whatever they want and I simply don't care. They'll eat their words within their own lifetime, which will be at least something they can eat during the cycles of famine.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Exactly what I was going to say, but I will add that this is what allows us to conclude that Conservatives are less educated than Liberals.
Al Gore, Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, and many more ARE hypocrites. They produce more CO2 in a single year than I have produced in my entire life. If they're serious about how catastrophic it's going to be, why haven't they ceased their own air travel? They can attend meetings via teleconference, travel by electric vehicles/sailboats, and vacation locally. Why is it all the climate conferences are attended physically by thousands of air travellers? They should be via teleconference only!
The original poster stated that saying that "8 in 10 are willing to change their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe" does not mean anything. That in fact 10 out of 10 are not willing to do anything unless forced to do something. mcalli used the fact that in the UK the politicians had forced people to do something as evidence that people were willing to do something without being forced.
I am not pissed, except at someone claiming that people support the government forcing people to do something is evidence that people are willing to change without being forced to change.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
James Burke (creator of the "The Day The Universe Changed") covered a lot of the issues with methane back in a 1990 TV program called "After the Warming:"
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11...
which the farming and petroleum industry worked vigorously to discredit because both create or leak large amounts of methane into the environment as side-effects/externalities/pollution of their profit making businesses.
Looking up info on that program now provides more links to FUD spun by industry groups than accurate information. There are errors in this now 27 year old program, but the basic points are sound.
Organizations never want to pay for the externalities, negative side-effects and pollution their activities create. That will have to change or we'll need to get off this planet before we are buried in externalities.
That is not anti-business. That's a call for responsible enterprises that properly resolve the externalities they create.
Facebook is billions of individual "Skinner Boxes." And if you use it you are the pigeon!
Driving is a catastrophic risk. Eating and not eating are catastrophic risks. Breathing air the composition of which is untested is a catastrophic risk.
"Milder" and "Greenland" is like "moderate" and "Westboro Baptist Church".
Yes, there may be moderates among them. But their moderate is still in the batshit insane religious nutjob category.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A different and less flamey way to say this is what people say they will do and what they actually do are often very different. You can't trust people to be honest about themselves in a poll and many polls are essentially useless to predict actual behavior. This is well know to any researcher studying behavior (e.g. psychology, sociology, marketing, politics, economics, etc.) where they often purposely avoid direct polls, will trick study participants, and/or find other data sets that better indicate what people actually do and think.
There are those that will insist nuclear can't be economical even though the existing fleet in the US and France and other countries has provided economical energy for many years. Unfortunately, there are some that have decided no matter what the facts are, the only solution they will accept is wind and solar and the next wonderful unproven source like tidal. They will argue with false facts and NEVER EVER talk about the challenges those energy sources face. They act like its all been figured out because the headlines sound so wonderful. Most of the biggest Solar Wind proponents can't even adequately describe the challenges.
Thanks for the tip, other AC, but I am not planning to join your group. I have never posted anonymously and will not start now, much less out of fear to anyone or anything. Also bear in mind that the moderators are (at least, theoretically) randomly-selected logged-in users with a good track record. Until some weeks ago, I used to get mod points quite regularly, but not so much lately (more logged-in users?).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Humans, Human Civilization and the environment all did much better at warmer temperatures.
Better than what? Seems to me with all the science and education and, you know, no black plague we are doing pretty good, and would like to keep it that way. We have identified a threat with the same tool that got us to this halcyon age. Stop trying to pretend science is panic or conspiracy.
Yes, methane emissions are worse per ton than CO2.
But as ShanghaiBill says, there's just a lot less methane being released -- at least until the tundra melts.
Because I can only do so much
Clearly.
I could open a window, but I'm gonna turn on the AC instead!
It's not fear, it's the license to troll. With a gazillion sock puppet accounts, those with no life have the advantage. The shitbags deserve the incessant trolling and didn't play nice, so here we are.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Better than what? Seems to me with all the science and education and, you know, no black plague we are doing pretty good, and would like to keep it that way. We have identified a threat with the same tool that got us to this halcyon age. Stop trying to pretend science is panic or conspiracy.
The Black Plague happened during the Dark Ages, also known as LIA, Little Ice Age, one of the things that lead me to realize that warmer is better.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It sounds like fear to me. I prefer to not post in articles about certain issues because of not feeling like getting involved in sad situations. If I thought that there is a real problem as the one you are describing, I would certainly fight it (and/or eventually stop using the site). I like Slashdot and am not willing to let a bunch of virtual mobsters to convert a sensible community into a fear-based crap.
I am not sure if I fully understand your post. Are you implying that you (or your other accounts) are the author of the last down-vote I got? Just in case that there is even the slightest doubt, note that this is the only account which I have ever used (+ have always modded fairly and by exclusively focusing on the post content, never on the author; I think that I have down-modded just once or twice) and all the up/down mods I have ever got have been voluntarily given by people who I don't know (or at least didn't tell me about that). I have never "trolled" (still not even sure about the exact meaning of this expression; I mostly hear it from very aggressive people trying to attack others who don't agree with them), I am just trying to enjoy the site, show my ideas, meet people like me, share knowledge/learn, etc. You know? Be part of a community which I like, where I am not sure that you, your fears and expectations belong.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
That's one of the things government does: get everybody doing the same thing when necessary.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Human CO2 output is equivalent to one or more Yellowstone-sized supervolcano eruptions per year. Source is Gerlach, '08 if memory serves. He has written various papers and articles comparing human activity with historical volcanism.
Now, I'm sure I don't know about the resolution of various proxies and datasets, and unless you have some published research on the matter your opinion is worthless too. However, unless you can point me out any past period in Earth's history where multiple supervolcanos were going off on an annual basis, I'm afraid the idea that this CO2 spike is happening at an unprecedented rate has to go unchallenged.
Frankly I don't know where you get off lying about this subject.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Except we've hijacked that cooling period and are very quickly warming. https://xkcd.com/1732/
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
It's been ten years and you're still harping on about Al Gore? Ten years and that's all you know about climate science? Ten years of that being the only thing you have to say about the subject? Did your brain ossify at an early age or something?
Christ almighty man, get some different lies at least.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You know, the rest of the world is wondering just this every time there is a "discussion" about global warming in the US. But then again, we're usually also shaking our head over the fact that you're the only country outside the Islamist world that takes crap like Creationism serious.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I like that idea. You do that, take those 11 people and ... what do you mean, they don't let you?
I know this is alien to you, but you might have to learn that the hard way: People don't like to be told what to do. No, not even by the all-knowing, ever-so-wise US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, the problem is that many people view the changes they're being asked to make as useless / feel good only.
For example, if I told you to give me all of your money and I can guarantee I would find a cure for cancer--you'd be skeptical, and rightly so.
People for years have been lectured on what's "good" for them, often finding later it was wrong.
Why would you be surprised that many are skeptical now?
Nuclear Power produces no CO2 emissions. Yet I've had self-identified greens almost foaming at the mouth to tell me how bad it is, because RADIATION. Then, in the next sentence, they're lecturing me on the science of global warning and how limiting methane emissions from cows in California will solve climate change.
Everyone's illogical on the subject, depending their personal weirdness.
oddly enough, I consider it my duty to always lie to anyone conducting a poll.
I'm often surprisingly shocked by this:
How many people go on and on about global warming, or refugees, or any other number of hot button topics-- but won't help a friend fix a car, or help their family with a small task, or find it OK to steal things from a a store because "they're corporate".
There's a radio personality the other day who always harps on animal rights and refugees, and just admitted a few years ago that they helped a friend steal a car.
You know who I trust? the one who helps mom with the dishes.
"The main reason nuclear has been so costly isn't because the technology itself isn't feasible."
A lot of _that_ has to do with the conventional uranium cycle being pretty rotten at producing electricity and pretty good at producing nasty byproduct stuff which happens to be handy to build nuclear weapons with - which means paranoid levels of security are required - and that's before you get into the issue of mixing radioactives and water under high pressure. (steam explosions and leaks happen. It's a fact of life. The best fix is not to mix them)
Thorium cycle is a lot harder to weaponise and a lot easier to generate electricity with. Molten Salt systems were already proven in the cold war but discarded in the rush to make more bombs. Thankfully the chinese and others are now reopening investigations into the technology which should have been at the core of the civil nuclear program from the 1970s onwards.
Fusion might happen but it;s unlikely to be in my grandchildrens' lifetime. We need to get on with decarbonising _now_. Nuclear waste is a vastly overblown issue and with MSRs the volume is reduced by a factorof 100+ anyway.