Climate Change

[canpakes]

The irony in all this is that the Right has been using this tactic to scare their sheeple for more than two decades now. FOX News has been pressing fear and outrage on just about everything. From, they're coming to get your guns, to the Socialist Democrats are coming to take away your healthcare, to the Left wants to murder children to the Left wants to ban Christmas, etc etc etc. Nothing but manufactured outrage to keep the naïve sheeple voting for them. Every day it is gloom and doom, on the verge of apocalypse, whenever a Democrat is elected.

I’m pretty sure that climate change issues are independent of political party, but I am interested in hearing more about the sacrifices that I’m told we (as Americans, as a country, whatever; the ‘we’ is not usually defined) are going to be making if we embrace some common-sense thinking about the subject.

It would seem that always talking about these unidentified sacrifices is a pretty big fear and control play itself.

Credit goes to Cultellus for providing the example of parents not being able to idle their cars while waiting to pick up kids at a school somewhere, but this sounds like more of an argument about unnecessary pollution and air quality anyway (as is the hypothetical anecdote about registering old trucks relating more to maintenance).

[ceeboo]

The credibility issue that a few of us have been proposing is not with science or scientists,

What's your problem?

At the moment, you.

I think I have my daily fill of Chap engagement for the day. I'm willing to start fresh tomorrow, if you're interested. If not, that's fine too.

[Chap]

What's your problem?

At the moment, you.

I think I have my daily fill of Chap engagement for the day. I'm willing to start fresh tomorrow, if you're interested. If not, that's fine too.

I am lacerated by my sense of loss. How will I manage without your wisdom and moral counsel, always so generously shared with those in need of it?

[canpakes]

For your benefit, I will try this again: The credibility issue that a few of us have been proposing is not with science or scientists …

OK. Are there any issues raised by science or scientists that you believe merit concern or action of some type?

[Res Ipsa]

I should hope the science is relatively clear. There is 40+ years of the world's accumulated climate science in a comprehensive report published last month. The first section of the IPCC AR6, The Physical Science Basis, can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ If one wants to be up to date on the science of climate change, this is the place. This section will be used as the basis for the sections to be published over the next year:

February 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
March 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change
September 2022: Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2022

So far, I've only skimmed the report. When I get time, I'll sit down and read it. In the meantime, the crew of climate scientists at Real Climtate have published several articles on what they see as the highlights of the report. They've also updated their blog software for the first time in forever... https://www.realclimate.org They have a nice "start here" section for people with varying levels of understanding of the science. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/a ... tart-here/ Finally, I can never recommend strongly enough Spencer Weart's website for an in depth history of climate science: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

As I get time, I'll use the report to comment on some of the issues raised in the thread so far. As you long timers know, this is an issue I've followed closely for what seems like forever.

[Res Ipsa]

The irony in all this is that the Right has been using this tactic to scare their sheeple for more than two decades now. FOX News has been pressing fear and outrage on just about everything. From, they're coming to get your guns, to the Socialist Democrats are coming to take away your healthcare, to the Left wants to murder children to the Left wants to ban Christmas, etc etc etc. Nothing but manufactured outrage to keep the naïve sheeple voting for them. Every day it is gloom and doom, on the verge of apocalypse, whenever a Democrat is elected.

I’m pretty sure that climate change issues are independent of political party, but I am interested in hearing more about the sacrifices that I’m told we (as Americans, as a country, whatever; the ‘we’ is not usually defined) are going to be making if we embrace some common-sense thinking about the subject.

It would seem that always talking about these unidentified sacrifices is a pretty big fear and control play itself.

Credit goes to Cultellus for providing the example of parents not being able to idle their cars while waiting to pick up kids at a school somewhere, but this sounds like more of an argument about unnecessary pollution and air quality anyway (as is the hypothetical anecdote about registering old trucks relating more to maintenance).

Well, one major sacrifice is being forced to switch to more efficient light bulbs that have a lower total cost (purchase price plus electricity cost) than inefficient, incandescent light bulbs. Yes, the sacrifice is to save money.

[Chap]

Credit goes to Cultellus for providing the example of parents not being able to idle their cars while waiting to pick up kids at a school somewhere

Cultellus was upset about that? Stopping parents spewing out exhaust gases from a queue of stationary vehicles into an area full of little kids whose developing lungs will really, really not like having all those pollutants sprayed into them each time they take a breath?

Cultellus feels that is an example of him being asked to make a sacrifice?

Why is it bad to idle vehicles?

Idling vehicles contribute to air pollution and emit air toxins, which are pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. Monitoring at schools has shown elevated levels of benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and other air toxics during the afternoon hour coinciding with parents picking up their children. Children’s lungs are still developing, and when they are exposed to elevated levels of these pollutants, children have an increased risk of developing asthma, respiratory problems and other adverse health effects. Limiting a vehicle’s idling time can dramatically reduce these pollutants and children’s exposure to them.

This is not some weird liberal obsession. It's just an acknowledged medical fact about children' lungs.

[huckelberry]

https://youtu.be/Gj7Zft8aiRc

Watch that one, ceeboo.

That will tell you more about credibility than some faux BS that people hate science.

Grandmas in the kitchen;
Papas drunk past dawn;
We sit out on the front porch,
Just a pickin' on the songs;
And there's blood on the table,
Cause we work for what we have;
And I was raised in this land,
I guess that's something you don't understand.

I watched and listened. In watching there is some story about planners and a golf course and police coming to the door. To relate these together one might figure some legal shinnanigins have been deployed to oust these folks from where they grew up. So? did some New York yankee come south and manipulate things to increase his golf course? Or perhaps like Papas they drank to much, never got out of parents home and all fell too far behind in the mortgage. I can have some sympathy for either of these to tragedies but I do not think the guns will help out a bit. But that could be the problem, thinking guns flags and a Bible on the table is going to solve problems.

[canpakes]

Cultellus was upset about that?

To be fair, Cultellus used opposition to idling as the reason to assume a lack of credibility from opponents of idling (presumably) if those same folks then talk about climate change. Or something. I’m sure that Cultellus can do a better job of explaining it.

[Chap]

Cultellus was upset about that?

To be fair, Cultellus used opposition to idling as the reason to assume a lack of credibility from opponents of idling (presumably) if those same folks then talk about climate change. Or something. I’m sure that Cultellus can do a better job of explaining it.

This 'lack of credibility' thing again?

In interpreting historical documents, there is a rule taught to students called the 'principle of maximum charity'. That rule is to try as hard as you can to find a way in which the thesis of the document. however foolish, confused and mistaken it may seem to a modern reader, might have made perfectly good sense to its author. Sometimes you have to accept that the author may just have been stupid, ignorant, or mendacious, but you don't start from there.

The same applies to my reading of some posters on this board. But I really do fail to see what kind of sense these continual complaints about unspecified positions or persons 'lacking credibility' on climate change issues might make. Who are these posters talking to? Who are they talking about? What do they think should be done about this supposed problem, and by whom?

Frankly, I am beginning to suspect it may be something like this:

- Once people were able to get away with denying that climate change (in the form of global heating) was actually occurring. Now that is no longer possible unless one does not mind looking ignorant.

- After that there was a time when people could accept global heating as a fact, but could still dispute that it was largely due to human activity. Nope, can't do that any more.

- Then you could try saying that it was too late to do anything, so why bother? Nope, that option is no longer open.

And that, I suspect, is where all the complaining about supposed 'lack of credibility' comes in. It's about the last remaining way of avoiding talking about the hard questions of what we now need to do to avoid our grandchildren cursing us when we lie in our graves.

What a waste of precious time ...