Oghier
2021
Much depends on how high you set the bar for proof. It’s unlikely that scientists will prove that a specific extinction event is imminent. However, if they think it’s reasonably possible, that possibility alone should be enough to shake us into dramatic action. Should.
Except they don’t think it’s reasonably possible. It’s just something that happened once, for reasons we don’t understand, on a world we know was radically different from our own. But it’s presumably possible, and no doubt the world’s climate will radically change in drastic fashion again. It’s also possible that an asteroid will exterminate us, but that shouldn’t cause us to panic and bleat on about the Cretaceous extinction event and Jon Rowe’s feeling that a rock is scheduled for impact shortly, so we start retreating to caves now. That doesn’t spur dramatic, constructive reaction, it prompts ridicule, despite the fact that we need constructive steps to mitigate that sort of event too. Every time one of those goofy extrapolations gets posited it just distracts and gives ammo to deniers who advocate inaction.
ShivaX
2023
Except it doesn’t matter what you say they’ll advocate inaction. They have a vested interest in inaction. It makes them a shitload of money. God Himself could appear in the sky and tell us all we’re going to die unless we do something, and they’d advocate inaction.
Thank you :) I was feeling a bit unsure about how to post this next particular article for this thread, but you just gave me the perfect opener, as God has spoken.
US Catholics ready to follow Pope’s ‘marching orders’ on climate change :
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/pope-encyclical-climate-change-catholics-us-response
Got any more buzzwords to use? Alarmists? How about scientists, because that is what they are. I am not the only one drawing these parallels. This is how climate science works, we use past data and compare to current trends. Drawing parallels is part of this work, whether or not they pan out is what science is, you hypothesize, theorize and use all of the available data and technology to see if those conclusions you have made are correct. You don’t call someone an alarmist for asking a question, making a theory, or some crazy hypothesis that bucks traditionalism. 9 times out of 10 the status quo is correct, and a lot of science is proving what you already know to be true, but certainly standing back and shouting down any research or even questioning the status quo as alarmism is naive.
Like any extremism, I think that it is counter productive, anyone holding a “The End is Nigh” placard over this has probably gulped one too many cups of kool aid. I won’t try to argue my points over parallels between the Permian extinction and now, because it isn’t my job to do so, much smarter people will do that. But if we are going to call the current climate change part of an extinction event, we should probably compare conditions now to what we know about all of the 5 previous extinctions. That is all we can do.
Take it this way, Darwin was wrong about evolution, many of his theories on the mechanisms are incorrect, but he asked the right questions. If he would have listened to his church, we probably wouldn’t know his name. You hardly get anything 100% right the first time, so let the scientists do their work. Skepticism is good, but with science you also have to be able to at least entertain some crazy ideas, and play devil’s advocate.
wahoo
2026
I would think the invasive species problem more of a problem short term than anythjg else. You have everything from zebra mussels and pythons rapidly destroying the ecological balance and I am concerned that a food web can’t modify so rapidly. It is the intersection of global trade and warming(lion fish)!
I am if firm belief that a key solution is increased trade and prosperity for
Third world countries. But not popular becaus first world has some real losers there.
Sure, and we’re doing both now, heh.
Alarmists are the equivalent to deniers, as both ignore the science or distort it for personal agendas. There’s no better way to get personal focus and attention that to declare a 0.5 degree change in temperature is a stepping stone to Permian extinction event or, depending upon your audience, that a hailstorm is a precursor to Noah’s flood 2, and so there are great incentives to overlook the absurd mental gymnastics required to advance that theory.
Of course science needs to challenge the status quo and seek to expand our knowledge, which is why hostility to critically examining assumptions (or taking offence to defences of those assumptions) are both counterproductive and often politically motivated.
I am legit curious about how Darwin was wrong about evolution though - please elaborate when you can.
Netherlands ordered to cut greenhouse gas emissions:
A Dutch court has ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020, in a case environmentalists hope will set a precedent for other countries.
Campaigners brought the case on behalf of almost 900 Dutch citizens.
They argued the government had a legal obligation to protect its citizens from the dangers of climate change.
Government lawyers did not immediately comment on the ruling at the court in The Hague.
Jasper Teulings from Greenpeace called it a “landmark case”.
“It shifts the whole debate. Other cases are pending in Belgium, the Philippines. This is the start of a wave of climate litigation.”
This is such a slippery slope imho, even though i recognise the usefulness of this as a test case in the coming difficult times ahead (in relation to AGW). I would much rather litigation is focused on the corporations whose activities are the drivers of CO2 increase, going for the government is ultimately just going after yourself. However if it jolts government into a realization that they can be sued by ‘the people’, it might break their current tendency to be bought out by the corporate interest that is the root of the problem? So maybe a small but important step forward to the real breakthrough needed, that of holding companies legally and financially responsible for the environmental and climate damage their activities cause.
CraigM
2029
I wonder how this will impact Royal Dutch Shell, or will they somehow exempt themselves by twisting the government focus to only end users.
Obviously it’s hard to tell without knowing exactly what’s been ordered, but most emissions attributable to Shell, whether through their own activities or through the oil they extract, aren’t going to take place in the Netherlands. Also, the parent company of the group is a UK company.
Here’s the text of the judgment in English, by the way. I’m still not clear on exactly how “Dutch emissions” are defined, but it seems like it’s physically in country rather than by jurisdiction of incorporation.
Yeah, in a way it does make sense that this happens in Holland first, they are probably the most at risk from rising seas than any other country in europe. Still to change that watery Dutch future they need global clout sadly.
A great interview with one the ‘men of this century’ imho - Sir David Attenborough:
The full interview is coming to the uk and use this Sunday, should be an excellent view :)
Well, his theories are just the beginning of what we understand about evolution. We have moved very far in the past 150 years. For instance, he didn’t know anything about genetics at the time, and how traits would be inherited. This is how evolution works. Natural selection was the big winner of all of his theories. Without the knowledge of heredity, Darwin’s intial thoughts on how Natural selection occurred were not accurate. Without the knowledge of DNA, he supposed that animal traits (beak sizes, etc) were passed from mother and father to offspring straight off, and that the environment was physically shaping these changes. This was Lamarckian “soft inheritance” theory, and it is wrong, genetics shape evolution, not physical traits. The classic giraffe example is that giraffes stretch their necks to reach plants higher and higher off the ground, parents that stretch their necks more pass those longer stretchy necks on to their offspring, and we see an increase in neck size over the years, as the offspring with stronger and longer necks survive more. This is mostly correct, but misguided. The neck length is genetically pre-determined and a genetic trait mixed during conception between mother and father (or maybe just one side, I don’t know the particulars on that trait). The thought back then was that traits gained by the parents during their lives would be passed on to their offspring. (As if the parents were altering their own genes as they went along)
What is interesting is the recent discoveries that LaMarck’s theories of soft inheritance might actually have some merit. There have been studies in mice and rats showing that obesity can be passed down from their father’s side solely from food intake (test rats/mice are identical genetically). Therefore non genetic traits are passed from parent to offspring in some cases as well.
Missing the key Gregor Mendel heredity discoveries of dominant and recessive traits and genes. But there is so much more to evolution than natural and sexual selection, there are random mutations, dead end evolutionary paths, etc. Evolution theory has come a long way in 150 years, as I am sure climate change theory will do so too.
Yeah Darwin was ahead of the curve in a big way in his time, but that was a different era and the actual science behind evolution has come a long way. I think Timex read your previous comment as not being in support of Natural Selection and Evolution, and was hoping to find that chink in your armour ;)
I suppose if your 90 then you really have little reason to be concerned about the future of the planet?
US climate deniers call Paris summit ‘a threat’ to the world:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/26/us-climate-deniers-call-paris-summit-a-threat-to-the-world
The godfather of climate denial has warned that a United Nations deal on global warming would spell “economic suicide” for America and a disaster to the world, according to a leaked fundraising letter.
In the rambling 13-page letter, Fred Singer, a retired rocket scientist who rejects the science underlining climate change, appeals for at least $425,000 (£270,212) to stop what he called the “radical, economy-wrecking and sovereignty-destroying UN climate pact”.
The letter, penned on behalf of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Cfact), an ultra-conservative group that denies the existence of climate change, suggests growing desperation about the prospects of a climate change deal emerging from the Paris meeting. Cfact did not dispute authenticity of the document.
There are some prize sentences in the letter!
Supreme Court Rules In Coal Industry’s Favor
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency made a mistake when it told electric power plants to reduce mercury emissions. The high court says the EPA should first have considered how much it would cost power plants to do that.
…
But many also sued — along with the coal industry and more than 20 states. They argued that the EPA should not decide to adopt expensive new regulations without first considering what implementing those rules would cost them. In essence, via Monday’s decision in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court told the coal industry (in a 5 to 4 vote), “You’re right.” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
…
Now, this ruling only applies to the Clean Air Act and its mercury standards. But Holmstead says it could affect future EPA regulations. Here’s why: Usually companies still have to comply with regulations even while they’re fighting them within the court system. In the case of mercury, industry spent billions to comply even while it was suing to stop the new rules. And, even though the nation’s top court didn’t throw the regulations out, it said EPA has to reconsider its decision on costs.
So, Holmstead says, businesses may now cite this ruling to insist that the EPA wait for the courts before enforcing new rules. “While you’re going through that process [of litigation],” he says, “you need to put the regulation on hold. And what happened today certainly makes it much more likely.”
So, if I understand this right, it’s not good enough that the EPA considers cost when determining how to implement regulations, they must also look at cost before even determining whether there should be regulation at all. And that last bit, about waiting while things make their way through the courts…that could mean years more of bad practices, even if the decision is that the EPA was right all along. This does not bode well for regulation of any kind in the future.
Timex
2037
It seems like a totally legitimate requirement, to have the regulatory agency consider implementation costs when creating regulations. Otherwise you run the risk of creating regulations without actually knowing what the overall impact on the economy will be.
The problem I have with this isn’t the fact that “considering costs” is being required, it’s the fact that “considering costs” can mean years upon years of court battles while the pollution continues. It’s not like the EPA puts out new regulations without a ton of public input and consideration already. What this decision does is allow industry to drag out implementation for ridiculous amounts of time while the EPA has to prove somehow that the damage being done is costly enough to even move on to the process of figuring out how to stop it.
Timex
2039
But it’s just saying that the epa needs to consider the industry costs of implementing changes to meet their regulations, before implementing the regulations.
I’m not seeing how that is unreasonable. How can you possibly make effective regulations without understanding how those regulations can be met?
Let’s just rename EPA to CPA - Corporate (Profit) Protection Agency.
