Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

#41
To start with, in Spain, only 35% of electric bill is the actual price of electricity, the rest is 65% of combined taxes, "green taxes", "renewable energies tax", etc. The same with gas prices. In any case, if do some research, you easily will find out how so-called anti-global warming policies caused enormous increase in energy and gas prices.

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/wp/sh...is-toxic-especially-for-our-poorest-citizens/
A quick scan of the link that you posted says that green taxes are between 6% and 11%. That's quite different from the 65% that you are quoting.
 
#42
The first link says "The electricity bill would drop to 65% by eliminating the 'political costs'". It then breaks down this percent by the different taxes, unless I'm mistaken it doesn't mention eco taxes at all (I'm using google translator, so please point out the line if I've missed it). The second link that you gave confirms it's 11% in the UK. I'd be surprised if it was higher than this in Spain.
 
#43
It ultimately is not relevant whether some political conspiracy is using global warming to advance their goals if we're only asking the question, "is anthropogenic global warming real?".

Decoupled from politics, the scientific answer on both theoretical and empirical grounds is a definite "YES".
 
#45
Nope. 1) taxation is mainly green tax, and "prima" means renewable subsidies. 20.1% + 21.8%. you do the math.
Prima means premium doesn't it? That's not necessarily renewable tax. Unless it specifically states that somewhere I wouldn't make the assumption, the premium could cover all sorts of things. And that's only 21.8% anyway, you can't then add on the general Tax that won't have anything to do with renewables. I can understand you being upset about the amount of taxes, but I don't see this as an argument against climate policies.

So far I've seen some graphs about sea ice that show the ice is actually declining over the long term, and some tax figures that show up to 11% (at least in the UK) is eco-tax. Quite different from the rhehtoric that was being bandied about earlier. The arguments I've heard so far all sound like propaganda and spin. Anyway, I appreciate all your efforts in finding those links for me.
 
S

Stephen Timmis

#46
Just out of curiosity: why are you asking this? Are you trying to construct some ideological generalization based on ethnicity?

Also, let's get the terminology clear: the original euphemism for the geo-political wealth redistribution scam was "Global Warming". Then, when the reality that no such warming was taking place became impossible to hide, the euphemism was conveniently changed to "Climate Change". In order not to play globalists' game, I prefer to stick to the original term.
Wrong - Global Warming was the term used, and so Right-Wing focus groups concentrated on changing the agenda, and wanted a term people could "live with" rather than GW that scared people. "Climate Change" was the term selected by the Right-Wing because people did not feel threatened by Climate Change, and so did not want it stopped. Global Warming was considered menacing, and people wanted action against it. The truth is the opposite of what you say.

I am interested in the class-based perceptions of Climate Change. My guess is that the wealthy, car driving, energy-guzzling, privilaged, mainly white, middle classes will be most opposed to the concept of Global Warming. My guess is that Men are more anti GW than women as well. I am not sure, but that would be my guess. The problem with asking here is that this forum is likely to be a White, Male, Middle-Class, Privilaged conclave overall as well.

My guess would be that the very people most likely to be sceptics of Paranormal Activity are the very same demographic that are anti Climate Change. I think Middle Class White Males are mor prone to arrogance than any other Social group on the planet, and this is a product of 500 years of Imperialism. If Religion helps them to dominate the World they will use it, but if religion opposes their desires then they will oppose religion. What matters in history is not science or religion, but what rich, powerful men can force others to accept.

With respect, Senor Vargas, your tone here has been disgusting to behold.
 
#47
..."is anthropogenic global warming real?"...
There are several questions:

1. Is global warming real, and over what timescales?
2. Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2 or natural factors?
3. Is it dangerous?

In a nutshell:

1: It is real: taking it back to the mid-19th century, the earth has warmed a little: about 0.8 deg. C--but we have been coming out of the little ice age.

2: Anthropogenic CO2 may have had some contribution to make, but there are natural factors: the sun (and not just solar irradiation), possible effects of cosmic rays and their effects on clouds, etc. We don't know what all possible natural influences are, and they may dominate. The predictions of climate models have consistently exaggerated temperatures and the climate sensitivity in response to CO2 doubling. They plainly don't model reality very well.

3. Cooling is much more dangerous. In human history, warm periods have been beneficial, and cold ones, disastrous. Let's hope we are not headed for another Maunder- or Dalton-type sunspot minimum.
 
#48
Passions are running high in this podcast and thread amongst those decrying the concept of climate change. In fact, passions are running so high I have to ask myself, who cares so much about the study of climate that they would become so outraged? This usually only happens when ideology is at stake, such as a visceral distrust in government (I'm not dissing that, just sayin'). Judging from the level of anger, the climate change bashing seems to me like it must be a stalking horse for a larger ideological agenda or platform or framework or whatever. I'll show you my ideology if you'll show me yours;).

.
And it seems to be escalating. I’m finding myself agreeing, to some extent, with some of my least favorite posters. I think Marx was right, except its Ideology that’s the true opiate of the masses and most everyone else as well:)
It makes me wonder about the extent to which ideology plays in the proponent side of these debates on the paranormal of which side I generally identify with. It seems the level of vitriol might be an indication of how ideologically possessed one may be. And that perhaps ideology may be connected to a more primitive tribal part of the brain.
I’ve always been sympathetic to the human caused position for global warming largely because of the politics surrounding it. It appeared to me that it was only right wing nut cases that were climate deniers. I admit I haven’t made much of an attempt to investigate the other side until now and I still find myself as I look at the data presented on this thread and read some of the links to be leaning toward the man made side. To be honest, I find myself more willing to read the links that support my bias. Follow the data –What data? Maybe not so good!
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#49
To attempt to generate another parallel conversation, which goes to the heart of what I think this podcast is about, I have to say the discussion got especially interesting to me, around 44 min, when Alex brought up the larger point of our involvement in worldly issues (action) and its relation to growth of spirituality or "enlightenment".

Alex to Rick:
I think when we try too hard to incorporate those (policy issues & the larger spiritual perspective) into together, we get lost and mired into, really, the same kind of worldly issues that pull us down in more obvious ways when we're consumed with interest in material things, with money, with ego, with power. And I think that it's very, very hard to NOT get involved in those same issues and be interested in the things that you're talking about.

And that's why I guess what always plays in the back of my mind - I have to say when I've heard YOU talk about these issues, Rick, but when I've heard OTHER people talk about these issues, is: it's kind of a, from a spiritual enlightened standpoint, I just have to put it really simply, it always feels like, you know, it's somebody saying "God needs our help", you know. And there's so many people who have said that over the ages...
And then Rick makes a nuanced, interesting reply in his own right.

Whether we're talking about political or worldly action, or "simpler", day-to-day/ordinary life "action" vs. inward-looking self-growth, there are so many divergent, even opposite viewpoints across religious & spiritual traditions. Partly by temperament, partly by what feels persuasive to me, I'm more inclined towards the viewpoint Alex is defending here, even though in my own life my work happens to be directed towards practically helping people. But it's always a puzzle/mystery. Possibly there are many paths, and perhaps people have different "destinies" in this fashion.

To play the devil's advocate (toward myself and Alex), I'd have to challenge here a bit and say: but the spiritual "data" that comes from NDEs, mediumship, etc., does not all point towards an "inward", let-the-world-be direction. A lot of it is: concentrate on good deeds, on doing unselfish things. (But then you have the other experiences that point towards a completely different standpoint: never mind the deeds, don't "force" anything, just start by accepting and loving yourself as you are and everything will unfold from there as it should be).

For example, getting acquainted with some of the 19th century/early 20th cent Spiritualist literature (meaning mediumistic communications), I was struck at how a lot harder a lot of this stuff is morally on us than a lot of religious doctrines. To take one example: Allan Kardec and The Spirits Book, which is very esteemed by the Spiritist/Spiritualist crowd and those who study that material (including Michael Tymn). Take a gander at one of the question-and-spirit-answers in the book that I think relates directly to what's at stake in this podcast:
Life of Contemplation.
657. Have men who give themselves up to a life of contemplation, doing nothing evil, and thinking only of God, any special merit in His eyes?

"No, for if they do nothing evil, they do nothing good; and besides, not to do good is, in itself, evil. God wills that His children should think of Him; but He does not will that they should think only of Him, since He has given men duties to discharge upon the earth. He who consumes his life in meditation and contemplation does nothing meritorious in the sight of God, because such a life is entirely personal and useless to mankind; and God will call him to account for the good he has failed to do." (640.)

http://www.spiritwritings.com/kardecspiritsbook3chapt1.html#Aim
Does anybody else find this completely insane? Personally, I find this really off-putting, and I just don't buy it. (Regarding a lot of the Spiritualist literature, I'm put in the paradoxical and awkward position of accepting the reality of [some] mental and physical mediumship, while not buying some of the "moral" messages that come through within those same communications, and not buying into the superpsi explanations either.)

And you find similar viewpoints across NDEs as well.

I don't know if anybody else has any thoughts they'd want to share on this line of inquiry.

Oh, and happy new year.
 
#50
Wrong - Global Warming was the term used, and so Right-Wing focus groups concentrated on changing the agenda, and wanted a term people could "live with" rather than GW that scared people. "Climate Change" was the term selected by the Right-Wing because people did not feel threatened by Climate Change, and so did not want it stopped. Global Warming was considered menacing, and people wanted action against it. The truth is the opposite of what you say.

I am interested in the class-based perceptions of Climate Change. My guess is that the wealthy, car driving, energy-guzzling, privilaged, mainly white, middle classes will be most opposed to the concept of Global Warming. My guess is that Men are more anti GW than women as well. I am not sure, but that would be my guess. The problem with asking here is that this forum is likely to be a White, Male, Middle-Class, Privilaged conclave overall as well.

My guess would be that the very people most likely to be sceptics of Paranormal Activity are the very same demographic that are anti Climate Change. I think Middle Class White Males are mor prone to arrogance than any other Social group on the planet, and this is a product of 500 years of Imperialism. If Religion helps them to dominate the World they will use it, but if religion opposes their desires then they will oppose religion. What matters in history is not science or religion, but what rich, powerful men can force others to accept.

With respect, Senor Vargas, your tone here has been disgusting to behold.
I can't tell if this is more sexist, Marxist, or atheist, but whichever it is, it shows quite a lot of built in prejudice. Regarding your comment to Enrique, please curtail your desire to write remarks of that nature.

Speaking of the assumptions you've made, you might consider me to be a bit of an anomaly then because, demographically speaking, I don't match your expectations at all. I am a white male from Minnesota, a vegan, artist, former resident of Hollywood and New York who worked in entertainment and media, currently live in a socialist country (the Netherlands), do not have a car, had long hair and am good at Yoga. However, I am a conservative (or to be pejorative, a "right-winger"), do not buy the idea of climate change based on the flaws I've seen in the model, I do accept the reality of paranormal experience, do believe in God (though not as strictly represented by come religious doctrines) but do not go to church.

In my PhD-related work I have found that it is very difficult to make behavioural predictions based on demographic data except in very narrow contexts.

AP
 

Alex

Administrator
#51
To attempt to generate another parallel conversation, which goes to the heart of what I think this podcast is about, I have to say the discussion got especially interesting to me, around 44 min, when Alex brought up the larger point of our involvement in worldly issues (action) and its relation to growth of spirituality or "enlightenment".

Alex to Rick:


And then Rick makes a nuanced, interesting reply in his own right.

Whether we're talking about political or worldly action, or "simpler", day-to-day/ordinary life "action" vs. inward-looking self-growth, there are so many divergent, even opposite viewpoints across religious & spiritual traditions. Partly by temperament, partly by what feels persuasive to me, I'm more inclined towards the viewpoint Alex is defending here, even though in my own life my work happens to be directed towards practically helping people. But it's always a puzzle/mystery. Possibly there are many paths, and perhaps people have different "destinies" in this fashion.

To play the devil's advocate (toward myself and Alex), I'd have to challenge here a bit and say: but the spiritual "data" that comes from NDEs, mediumship, etc., does not all point towards an "inward", let-the-world-be direction. A lot of it is: concentrate on good deeds, on doing unselfish things. (But then you have the other experiences that point towards a completely different standpoint: never mind the deeds, don't "force" anything, just start by accepting and loving yourself as you are and everything will unfold from there as it should be).

For example, getting acquainted with some of the 19th century/early 20th cent Spiritualist literature (meaning mediumistic communications), I was struck at how a lot harder a lot of this stuff is morally on us than a lot of religious doctrines. To take one example: Allan Kardec and The Spirits Book, which is very esteemed by the Spiritist/Spiritualist crowd and those who study that material (including Michael Tymn). Take a gander at one of the question-and-spirit-answers in the book that I think relates directly to what's at stake in this podcast:

Does anybody else find this completely insane? Personally, I find this really off-putting, and I just don't buy it. (Regarding a lot of the Spiritualist literature, I'm put in the paradoxical and awkward position of accepting the reality of [some] mental and physical mediumship, while not buying some of the "moral" messages that come through within those same communications, and not buying into the superpsi explanations either.)

And you find similar viewpoints across NDEs as well.

I don't know if anybody else has any thoughts they'd want to share on this line of inquiry.

Oh, and happy new year.
thx for trying to rescue this thread, Ian :) I agree... all the interesting question lie beyond the global warming arm waving (whether real or not).

As to the action/non-action... again, I agree, there seems to be a lot to sort out. I was just listening to an excellent interview on Rick's BATGAP show and the guy related a story about how his guru ran this one guy ragged with chores around the ashram. The guy complied without complaint, but wondered if he would progress given that he never had time to meditate. finally, after six year, his master said, you're done... you're karma has been burned off. he then went on to achieve success very quickly.
 
#52
Whatever caused the PETM (which isn't known, but might include vulcanism or cometary impact), it wasn't catastrophic for life. Had it been so, we wouldn't be here talking about it. The rise in CO2 associated with that period was probably mainly due to the warming causing outgassing from the oceans. Al Gore (in his film Inconvenient Truth) deliberately obfuscated the fact that CO2 rises follow temperature rises by up to 800 years rather than precede them. If CAGW enthusiasts want to invert causality and say that CO2 caused the PETM, well, they would, wouldn't they?

As for Arctic ice, it hasn't melted and is in fact recovering; meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice is expanding, which is why we currently have the comical situation of a vessel sent to examine sea ice retreat being locked into the ice down there.
Whatever caused the PETM (which isn't known, but might include vulcanism or cometary impact), it wasn't catastrophic for life. Had it been so, we wouldn't be here talking about it.
I agree but the release of gas to give the global temperature increase back then took place over a much longer time than we are releasing CO2 so allowing life to adjust. At present species are going extinct at 1000 times the background rate. This is thought to be the Sixth Mass Extinction - man made. Also from what I've read it took 100,000 years for the atmosphere to adjust back to pre PETM conditions. Are we in for 1000's of years of very bad weather? Surely this has only just started.



As for Arctic ice, it hasn't melted and is in fact recovering;
This interactive graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center for the Arctic

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

The 1981-2010 average has a minimum at just about 6.28 million km2. If you click on the dates 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 the September minima range from 5.1 million km2 down to 3.41 million km2 (2012 figure). The lowest is almost half the average!! Another 3 or 4 years? Down to 2 or even 0.5 million km2? The last is almost ice free in September.

For the maximum cover there is recovery each year but see for each year it's below the average.

Then there's the latest prediction we may get a 4 C rise globally by 2100. Even a 2 C rise will be pretty bad! But I've also read that the Arctic regions warm the fastest globally.
 
#53
The USA and Europe are comparable in size, but Europe has over twice the population and is culturally far more diverse. What annoys me a little is the propensity of Americans to interpret everything through the lens of their myopic division of the World into Democrats and Republicans. There are far more shades in Europe. I'm a Brit, right? We think differently from Americans, just as we do from the French, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, Spanish and all the rest.

My views on the global warming issue have nothing to do with my political views, which can't be categorised as right or left. For the most part, I think politics stinks and my opinions of politicians of all stripes is extremely poor. Global warming is, or should be, a scientific issue, but most politicians aren't scientifically educated, so are easily led by the nose by green activists because they want to look good. They'll let it drop like a ton of bricks as soon as some semblance of sanity returns. There are signs this is starting to happen.

Americans should stop with the cultural imperialism and the projection. The world just around the corner will belong to the emerging nations, who won't be giving up their chance for industrial and economic development because of a Western fad.
 
#54
Alex mentioned a presentation by Judith Curry at Georgia Tech University. Sounds interesting, where can I find it?
 
#56
Global warming is, or should be, a scientific issue, but most politicians aren't scientifically educated, so are easily led by the nose by green activists because they want to look good.
Or they are easily led by oil industry money. Look, we have to decouple the argument about who benefits from global warming policies from the question "does it exist?".

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is based on 100+-year old physics. And we're releasing 30 billion metric tons of it into the atmosphere every year.
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

Sorry but the laws of physics don't care that we won't like the extra taxes and regulations that might be needed to combat global warming. Nature does not care about our personal freedoms or our standard of living.

We need to start discussing solutions. But it might be possible that solutions exist which do not impact our standard of living. A crash research program in renewable sources of energy is a must. And we must not shy away from long-shot energy proposals like nuclear fusion (both hot and cold?). Innovative and even radical science is required. Science funding is such a small percentage of national budgets that even large increases should not have a noticeable effect on taxpayer pocketbooks.

Or we may have to make sacrifices to save the Earth. Physics does not care either way.
 
S

Stephen Timmis

#57
Last edited by a moderator:
Top