All you have is the hope that maybe you’re not causing the end of the world.
You still may be causing the end of the world. The best the anti-AGW side offer is uncertainty. Well, we knew we had that.
This shouldn’t have to cause you to lose your democratic sovereignty. But if you reject helpful suggestions to your democratic sovereignties, and continue to contribute to drought and famine around the world, guess what? Your democratic sovereignty just isn’t that important.
By fearing a total global revolution for scientism, you guarantee its existence. He who saves his democracy shall lose it, and he who loses his democracy shall save it.
Zigzagger thinks that believers in AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are jumping the gun in trying to force international covenants to stop burning fossil fuels. He sees this as anti-democratic and therefore bad.
But massive drought and displacement of several nations (not to mention the effects of de-alkalinizing the atmosphere and hydrosphere, which might actually cause an extinction event and “end the world”) are worse than losing democracy. If democracies refuse to go along with new regulations because the regulations are ostensibly anti-democratic, being imposed from outside; then those democracies provoke a reaction against them, and against their sovereignty as democracies.
I hope that clarifies what I was saying. I don’t expand into Very Simple English well, as I am bad at code-switching; so I’ll let someone else try that if necessary.
At core its a kind of Pascal’s Wager, but with Extra Added Validity:
If the AGW deniers are right and we do something, we lose some growth potential.
If the AGW deniers are right and we do nothing, we gain even further growth.
If the AGW deniers are wrong and we do something, we win - catastrophe averted.
If the AGW deniers are wrong and we do nothing - catasptophe.
IOW the downside of the deniers being believed but wrong is hugely worse that the downside of them being right but not believed.
Ah, I think I see. That actually is a very, very good point - which is more important, democracy and maintaining sovereignty or preserving the earth as a place where human beings can survive? That of course presumes that you believe that AGW is a fact and is happening. There is SO much at stake here that we simply can’t afford to get it wrong.
ETA: Askance snuck that in while I was composing. I think your logic is good; unfortunately I don’t think the lowest common denominator or our decision-makers get it.
The issue is framed based on an unsupported preposition though.
Namely:
Letting corporations do what they want is a democratic principle.
This isn’t necessarily true and historically has often been the precise opposite of the truth. Corporations act in the interests of their shareholders, which may be diametrically opposed to the majority of their stakeholders or even their own long-term interests (tragedy of commons, if AGW is correct). A hierarchical structure where those at the very top appoint those below them that attempts to enrich themselves and a small adjunct group strikes me as the antithesis to democracy: feudalism.
I’d advocate public debate and referendum, with equal time given to detractors and scientists (I’m not optimistic though, it’s hardly likely scientists will command more public opinion).
Not to mention that there are three auxiliary effects to attempting to combat global warming. The first is forcing society to be more efficient. We already know fossil fuels will run out eventually, the transition will be simpler given that research is devoted at earlier periods to alternative energy sources.
The second is that we may be compounding or need to mitigate the effects of entirely natural climate change. I remember positing that on another forum several years ago and got the response “this is why nobody listens to people that believe in global warming”. I think that argument is short-sighted. Society exists to serve the interests of humanity as a whole and where resources are abundant, perhaps other animals. It would be a naturalistic fallacy to presume that anything that happens naturally is “good” and that to alter its course would be “bad”. Unless one is a millenial dispensationalist, it is certainly in humanity’s best interests to preserve pleasure for as many people as possible. I presume a few boardroom executives think they’re capable of being the warrior-philosophers in a devastated Earth though.
Also, limiting a corporation’s right to pollute probably has health benefits completely independent of whether one believes in global warming or not.
I like it, I really do.
Next question is of course what kind of dictatorship would you prefer, and where would you like it based. Remember we’re quashing democracy here - so no messing about with consulting people, debate or anything like that. What we need is muscle - or better still guns. And camps of course for deniers, democracy people and other vermin.
Anyway, choices are: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot - or maybe you have some other role models.
World Capital: Probably has to be Beijing, or maybe even Berlin - anywhere in the US would be a distant fifth or sixth.
So that’ll be warmer than the Medieval Warm period would it?
Chaucer reports growing grapes in York in the UK. Now who would you believe, Chaucer (and many others) or an activist analysing a very limited amount of tree rings from 700 years ago.
The Vikings in Greenland of course were crazy - they buried their dead in the permafrost; nobody knows how they did that.
And then of course was the Roman Warm period - a time when the chroniclers of the day made up stories about how warm it was to lull future generations into a false sense of security.
Spend the money on something we are reasonably sure will work - like a cure for Malaria, Water wells, Cancer, Education. Not flying activists around the world to conferences to make up stuff to scare us.
Of course it was this stupidity that got me interested on this issue, ahhh memories.
Once again, this is just sour grapes because paleo scientists a few decades ago only showed the local warming conditions of regions in Europe, unfortunately (for deniers, that is) science marches on and then paleoclimatologists looked for more records not just in Europe.
Based on the latest data and reconstruction, we can say there was warming in Europe, but not as much as today and elsewere the global temperature was not like Europe, hence the latest reconstructions that show that there was an unprecedented rise in temperature observed that is going on now.
So the “lord” -the paleo scientists- gave it, the lord took it away.
The moronic behavior is from the deniers that have decided that the incomplete early graphs of the reconstructions are still the correct ones, forever and ever, and all the new evidence found in the meantime should be ignored.
Dunno where your getting your new evidence from. The original palaeontology resulted in the iconic Hockey Stick graph of Dr Mann - since comprehensively disowned (except by him). You should read more; when the graph from the (very small number of very local) trees did not show an upward slope for recent times - HE DISCARDED THE RESULTS and performed “Mike’s Trick” of grafting on the real thermometer data. Well, if that’s not massaging things for the right result, I’m not sure what is. I don’t care who signed this off - I’m not buying it.
When Mann’s emails become public (they’ve spent over million dollars trying to keep them a secret) we’ll see not only what he did, but who helped him do it.
The number of proxies that can be relied upon from this period is small - and come from restricted stock - like bristlecone pines in the Yamal and similar. Very, very local if you ask me.
But then the Chaucer and the Romans could not be relied upon - must not be relied upon. Couple of quotes I’m sure you’re familiar with:
‘We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’. “ Attributed to Jonathon Overpeck in an email to David Deming.
And of course we should not forget:
“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984
because paleo scientists a few decades ago only showed the local warming conditions of regions in Europe, unfortunately (for deniers, that is) science marches on and then paleoclimatologists looked for more records not just in Europe.