Greta Thunberg

[xerx]

Without Reagan the IPCC wouldn't exist.

Right. I wish that modern conservatives would be willing to return to the more civic-minded conservatism of their forebears, even if it does come packaged with a hefty dose of Reaganite supply-side economics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...igins_and_aims

That said, the bolded is the reason why climate change became a partisan/political issue.

How did being an intergovernmental organisation make it partisan? I can guess, but I want to hear your take on it.

[Ave]

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.

[timber]

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.

[xerx]

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.

[Ave]

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.

[Ave]

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.