Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 161 to 181 of 181

Thread: Greta Thunberg

  1. #161

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,316
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    How did being an intergovernmental organisation make it partisan? I can guess, but I want to hear your take on it.
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

    Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.


  2. #162
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

    Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.
    mic dropped.

  3. #163
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    1,507
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My PPoV is that there are too many facts that prove that climate will change in future.

    The more important question is the portion of climate change that is man made. Is it essential enough that we are an important factor of that change and are we able by changing our behavior to slow down that process?

    No one has proven that mankind is the main cause of climate change with certainty, but also no one has disproven that climate change is caused of climate change with certainty.
    I see only a lot of interpretations of whats going on in a way to defend the own point of view, either to affirm or refuse the hypothesis of mankind as cause of climate change.

    My view is to use the same way of thinking as Blaise Pascal applied. How shall we deal with uncertainty when we are able to choose and a wrong decision can have a fatal consequence?
    In that case of climate change:
    Reduce all activity that has an negative impact to our environment with the chance to slow down climate change
    or
    business as usual with a unknown certainty that future generations of humans will pay the price for our actions?

    A little more self-restriction for todays generation vs. huge personal restrictions forced by the natural environment.

    And there is one important aspect: Laws defined by humans are changeable, the laws of nature aren't.

    It's our choice...

  4. #164
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Because it has scientists advising in the domain of public policy, whereas before the scientists were focused just on the science itself (even if they drew the same conclusions). Since they advised on public policy, this lead to a reaction on the part of those lobbyists with short term interests in mind you mentioned, kind of like "well if they can do it, so can we". And the propaganda about climate change not being real promoted by said lobbies works with some people mainly because they have the perception the IPCC is imposing something on them, and mixing science with politics.

    Of course that is my understanding, I could be wrong, but as of now that's how I see it.
    That's pretty good. I agree.


    Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.

  5. #165

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,316
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Anyway, I take the position that climate change is agnostic to economic system. There are many capitalist enterprises that manufacture renewable energy technology, for instance, while the divide between left and right on the issue is frankly ridiculous. Any other external threat to humanity (like a comet) wouldn't cause this much obstinate foot-dragging.
    I agree that climate chnage is agnostic to economic system.

    To comment on the whole energy debate, I do think it's possible to convert to forms of energy other than fossil fuels and still have a good economy, not that we have a choice since we will run out anyways (of fossil fuels). I don't think it's possible to convert solely to what is termed 'renewable' energy, you need nuclear (fission or fusion, though the latter is not avaliable yet despite being very promising from what I can tell) and hyrdoelectric to pick up the slack since wind and solar depend too much on variable factors at this point. But I do think you can have both a good economy and preservation of things like biodiversity and the climate.

    I guess what gets me is when some environmental advocates, the more radical ones at least, seem to dismiss economic concerns entirely. Greta said it herself in the speech she gave recently in NYC when she called economic growth a "fairy tale". I get that you need more radical people not so much to get things done, but to remind the more moderate folks of a given ideology of what their principles are and keep them from being too wishy washy and complacent. I just don't agree that politcians aeren't doing anything wrt to climate change, you could argue it's not enough, but going to extreme too fast would damage the economy, and I think policians are aware of that, and not only wrt to how it affects their careers but also how it would affect our societies. I'm not a big fan of politicians, but I do get what they seem to be doing here, I think Greta is wrong when she says they don't care and tries to get them to follow exactly what she prescribes. Emmanuel Macron's response to her comments, mainly that the kind of radicalism she espouses can antagonzie our societies (if it's taken too literally) seem spot on.

    Neither the dismissal of the climate in the name of the economy nor the dismissal of the economy in the name of climate are founded positions to hold.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 10-01-2019 at 08:48 PM.


  6. #166
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sx/Sp
    Posts
    3,592
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Reyne View Post
    Looks LSI on this pic. Reminds me of putin or Stalin

  7. #167
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But why would there be a coordinated effort to exaggerate the effects of climate change in the first place? Some of the claims surrounding climate change are indeed exaggerated―we're probably not going to go extinct as a species, for instance, and I do hope that no serious scientists are saying that. But if there is 97% consensus among experts that it's happening, and that its effects will be significant to the way our societies are organized―for the worse―then, surely, that has to raise a red flag.

    Suppose there are hidden motives at play. If we're allowed to dismiss someone's argument based on a possible nefarious agenda, then we're allowed to dismiss the other side using the exact same precedent.

  8. #168
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,335
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

    Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

    The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Carl Jung on Si)

    My Pinterest

  9. #169
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,018
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

    Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

    The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.
    Putting all the facts and figures aside, yes, there is something mythological at play.

    People have always been obsessed with the end times. In the 15th century it was fashionable in Christian Europe to think the Apocalypse would arrive at the start of the 16th Century.

  10. #170
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    This whole climate change narrative is loaded with projections. There are symbolic motifs like the revenge of Mother Earth, the rising waters, the apocalypse. People get carried away by it. So it is hard to be objective about it. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about the obvious mythological connotations.

    Didn't the gods even in ancient times punish us humans with bad weather?

    The really interesting thing about climate change is what it says about our unconscious.
    I agree with you that laypeople have a tendency to interpret opaque scientific conclusions through archetypal symbols and anthropomorphisms. Climate advocates will also often frame the issue by invoking moralizing language that (intentionally or unintentionally) attempts to elicit a sense of decency, like the need to act as responsible stewards towards a 'dying' planet―a clear theme of charity, perhaps of a religious kind, towards the weak and the destitute.

    But if that forms the basis for dismissing the arguments of climate advocates, then climate change skeptics should also be dismissed for doing the same thing. Mankind's right to exploit the planet for its own benefit is often claimed by these people; whether or not that's true, it has parallels with the old testament theme of the conquest of Canaan, the promised land which was given by God for the Israelites to usurp. Yet another oft-invoked theme is the limited agency of man to alter the natural world. This is plainly false, but it is analogous to the mythological theme of the smallness of mankind in the face of an omnipotent deity.

    Virtually every issue that becomes political is quickly wrapped in one or another mythological cloak, not just climate change, and emotionally-laden arguments abound everywhere. Fortunately (or unfortunately), facts don't care about our feelings.
    Last edited by xerxe; 10-02-2019 at 08:06 PM.

  11. #171
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    2,591
    Mentioned
    257 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Put it this way: there has been a general warming trend shown since the 1880s until today. In what manner that will change in the future and by how much is still up for debate. So far the models produced haven't been shown to be accurate enough to say.

  12. #172
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    That's exactly what I'm wondering. What would the purpose be, who has what to gain? People could say for example that this study in China is all a farce to prevent the Chinese from having to reduce their emissions in a time period of rapid growth: Chinese scientists warn of global cooling Because there could be political motivation people might take it less seriously. Personally, I think it's probably legitimate but very likely a microclimate effect. In other words, the area around the lake shows patterns in temperatures that don't necessarily reflect global trends.
    I didn't know about that study, and I'll definitely look into it. From what I previously understood, the global cooling trend was known about decades ago, and that it has been reversed by man-made global warming.

    I was also under the impression that the Chinese government was taking climate change very seriously. It (along with India) has planted an enormous number of trees to combat deforestation. It's also in the process of imposing severe restrictions and regulations on what can be built.

    It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination―China continues to build polluting industries and energy generation facilities. But, over the past several years, Chinese emissions from growth have remained neutral, and China is on track to meet its Paris 2020 targets. It has also become the leading manufacturer of renewable energy technology (like solar panels).


    In other words, no, I don't think studies and data should be dismissed out of hand because of possible political motives. But, there isn't actually a consensus. There's a lot of data and studies against the models produced and the numbers projected by global warming enthusiasts. I keep seeing it quoted that 99% of scientists agree, etc. but then you look into this and you see that the IPCC just removes dissenting opinions because their whole GOAL is a consensus. They have to present a unified front.

    A lot of times when you look not at the headlines, but the actual studies behind the headlines you see a slightly different picture from what's being presented. Sometimes that picture only vaguely resembles the headlines.
    I didn't know that. I'll definitely look into the allegation that the IPCC promotes research selectively. But is the IPCC the only authoritative source? This page from NASA's website lists a number of other authoritative bodies that make the same claims about climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.

  13. #173

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,316
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    They didn't draw the same conclusions. And they were turned into advocates.



    People like to act like there's a total consensus and it gets bandied about a lot "proven fact" blah blah, but that's far from reality. The loudest advocates who preach to the media and give them dramatic headlines aren't the whole picture. They're just the only picture most people see.

    --Obviously those who make money off of all the industries that create emissions will have their own agendas to push, it'd be silly to deny it. But that doesn't mean you're getting "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" from others pushing their agendas either.
    The IPCC does not publish any original research. All they do is look at the greatest number of scientific studies possible and determine an average of what the effects of climate change will be based on those studies, and try to influence public policy as a result. The IPCC neither projects the worse case scenarios nor the best case scenarios, it is like a mean of these scenarios.

    Of course, this methodology is questionable.

    And yes, there is manipulation of the masses being commited by the IPCC, because they make claims in a way that are emotional and reductionistic in order to create fear/panic in the average citizen in order for people to accept certain policies. This is typical of environmental causes. For example, the polar bear and giant panda being used as mascots for saving biodviersity, when neither species is essential to it in comparison to insects, algae, fish, etc which have less emotional appeal as mascots. I'm not a fan of saying things for emotional effect so I agree that such methods are questionable, and that it's turning science into propaganda. Propaganda does not have to be ill-intended in order to qualify as such, and its consequences can be good, bad or neutral.


  14. #174
    now with Corona Virus Protozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    251
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    I don't give a flying fuck how the message is delivered. Facts are facts, and skepticism about climate change is at the same level as flat-earth theory.
    Maybe we're in the sophist age of disenlightenment where even substantiated science and facts can be twisted into mere conjecture. All hail President Camacho.

  15. #175
    user123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    294
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LSE?

  16. #176
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    7,206
    Mentioned
    825 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

    Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

    I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

    "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet

  17. #177
    Let's go to fairyland Minde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amongst the stars
    TIM
    EII/INFj E9w1sp
    Posts
    4,199
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

    Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

    I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

    "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet
    Word of warning about Impossible Burgers, from a vegan doctor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f24kR3hGaQ0 TL;DW: Probably ok for occasional consumption, but has some worrying ingredients.

    I love animals and have seriously considered veganism, or at least vegetarianism. And modern animal farming is often not only cruel and debasing to our humanity, but very harmful to the immediate and greater environment. That said, I have discovered my personal biology requires a certain amount of animal products for optimal health. And from what I've been learning, a well-raised animal is going to enhance the environment, not destroy it (e.g. poop that becomes fertilizer that makes for better crops, and less farting). It will also have magnitudes greater nutrients.

    If I'm going to eat an animal, I want it to have the best life it can and to die as painlessly as possible. Not only is that humane but it's becoming more and more obviously practical.

    My in-laws are considering purchasing a couple of steers to raise for meat. If they do, I plan on visiting the cows, loving on them as much as they'll let me, and assisting with making their lives good. They will live in a big field with lots of grass and eat apples from hundred-year-old trees for dessert. And when we kill them I will cry. I will honor them by facing what I do, and by not wasting what they offer. The modern popular cuts are only a part of the sustenance a whole cow can provide. Healthy cow liver has invaluable nutrients, particularly if a woman wants to be pregnant / have kids. Bones and connective tissues make collagen-rich broth. Etc.

    Looking away from death makes it easier to do.

    All of that said, I do eat mostly plant foods. Thankfully while I need animal products, they're more like supplements/sides than main dishes.
    INFj / EII / FiNe
    ()



    "Have courage and be kind." - Cinderella's mom

    "Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue." - Francis Thompson

  18. #178
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    6,133
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe XLI
    Last edited by inumbra; 01-10-2020 at 01:25 PM.

  19. #179
    Sumdumho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    TIM
    Te-ILI-C 1w9so/sx153
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    I don't know if this is the best place to post this article, but this thread seemed to be the closest one on the forum that I could find after a short search on "saving the planet".

    Full disclosure: I love steaks, salmon, and bacon. Hell, I love Burger King Whoppers. But I've been reading and I watched some documentaries about how I can live longer, and I consequently went mostly, intentionally, vegan. Not to save the planet, but just to save me.

    I didn't have a burger for almost a year, and then Impossible Meats joined forces with Burger King to make a meatless Whopper. And I'd say it is 95% as good as the meat version, and is much easier on my arteries.

    "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ng-save-planet
    Its likely not at all easier on your arteries. Cholesterol only blocks arteries if inflamation from high triglicerides destroys them. Cholesterol is the building block of cells and there to repair the arteries when the inflammatory shit rips them up. Those vegan burgers have tons of inflammatory shit, if they didnt, plant substitutes would have tasted like meat a long time ago.
    Everything happens for a reason.

  20. #180
    artless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I listened to an interview she did on NPR as well as the one linked in post #16. She strikes me as archetypally Beta. Very passionate and expressive even for someone with Asperger's.

    I glanced through previous comments and saw it mentioned that she claims to be a realist who focuses on the facts. With all due respect to Ethical types, she would not be the first to overestimate and exaggerate her rationality. Especially in service of a cause she holds near and dear to her heart. I think what she demonstrates in her actions, especially her conviction about the utility of symbolic action, rather than taking the truly pragmatic approach of finishing school to become a climate scientist or lobbyist with tangible authority and influence points to her being an ethical intuitive.

    I think EIE is compelling.

  21. #181
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    424 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    She VI's as an LSI 1w2

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •