Climate Change Thread

[Pannonian]

I do not think we can "conserve" our way out of this one. Assuming that it is anthropomorphic (and the large bulk of research suggests that it is) we can certainly mitigate things and work for long term improvement, but we are not in a position to reverse a century and a half of impact overnight.

As a species, we seem to address crises better through advances in technology rather than any other route. Fission plants, Wind and Solar where practicable, Geothermal and hydro where doable....and we can save all of the lovely petroleum and use it for those huge and decidedly useful carbon molecules rather than burning it.

Conserving will help and is something we can do right now without delay. The ideological issue is that there is a political bloc, ironically calling itself conservative, that has anti-environmentalism as part of a package of beliefs. As "liberals" believe in environmentalism as part of their package, so "anti-liberals" must therefore oppose it as part of their package. Any science, politics or indeed prudence must take a distant second place to the primary goal of contesting the "liberals". You can see this in other areas as well.

[Furunculus]

I think you'll find that oppositional dynamic is limited in its reach across the conservative group, and nearly equally (non) prevalent in the liberal group too (in spread and intensity).

[Pannonian]

I think you'll find that oppositional dynamic is limited in its reach across the conservative group, and nearly equally (non) prevalent in the liberal group too (in spread and intensity).

The liberal group generally supports the traditional basis of science, ie. evidential research, scientific method, etc. The conservative group generally supports faith-based arguments with a scattering of minority-supporting scientists (which is the opposite of how peer review is supposed to work). The democracy of peers is supposed to be based on a growing consensus of informed opinions that are qualified to pick through evidential-based arguments. Unfortunately, the democracy of nations means most people are not qualified to pick through these arguments, but get an equal vote to those who are, and overwhelm and overrule scientific arguments. Democratic but religious nations such as the US get to see this in the clearest form, but the US right is exporting this to elsewhere as well.

[Husar]

I think you'll find that oppositional dynamic is limited in its reach across the conservative group, and nearly equally (non) prevalent in the liberal group too (in spread and intensity).

You're only saying that to oppose the liberal, admit it!

[Montmorency]

I do not think we can "conserve" our way out of this one. Assuming that it is anthropomorphic (and the large bulk of research suggests that it is) we can certainly mitigate things and work for long term improvement, but we are not in a position to reverse a century and a half of impact overnight.

We could negate it if we mobilized like the Wehrmacht were marching on Moscow (reports that the Germans had crossed the border and beyond were long ignored for some reason...). Continuing as we are is permitting a total overrun. Unfortunately, climate change is much less concrete and discrete than a human threat; our psychology works against us. What do you think the prospects are for the political process to produce responsible and decisive action? If we need to feel more pain to be spurred to action, then that's an admission of defeat IMO. The whole descending into warlordism with the fragmentation of the modern world-system seems likelier than the kind of spontaneous comity convenient to many sci-fi narratives.

What a waste of human prospects.

The liberal group generally supports the traditional basis of science, ie. evidential research, scientific method, etc. The conservative group generally supports faith-based arguments with a scattering of minority-supporting scientists (which is the opposite of how peer review is supposed to work). The democracy of peers is supposed to be based on a growing consensus of informed opinions that are qualified to pick through evidential-based arguments. Unfortunately, the democracy of nations means most people are not qualified to pick through these arguments, but get an equal vote to those who are, and overwhelm and overrule scientific arguments. Democratic but religious nations such as the US get to see this in the clearest form, but the US right is exporting this to elsewhere as well.

You would be mistaken to attribute all of it to the genuine skeptical recalcitrance of those conservatives allegiant to faith and religion. Many American Republicans, at least in the elite, understand quite well the trends and their implications - it's just inconvenient to their masters in the business community, except where intervention can be called for to shield their assets.Notice how the latest phase of WSJ-tier messaging has been that climate change is somehow good or tolerable because there are potential business opportunities to be found. This is no argument; some human can find a business opportunity at the bottom of the crater of a thermonuclear blast, or comet impact. The balance of positives is lopsided.

Useful article on right-wing climate environmentalism.

I think you'll find that oppositional dynamic is limited in its reach across the conservative group, and nearly equally (non) prevalent in the liberal group too (in spread and intensity).