Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

Kaija - thanks. I've spotted the word "terrifying" in one of the links. Has that replaced the "catastrophic" from 30 years ago?

No. It's still catastrophic.

Even Exxon are interested in renewable energy sources.

"ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company President Sara Ortwein echoed Eriksen’s sentiments. “We are encouraged by recent advances in wind technology, particularly for niche applications such as offshore oil and gas operations,” she said."
energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/science-technology/win-win-oil-gas-renewable-energy/

If nothing else because we will run out of fossil fuel. And it's coming fast, climate change or not.

Worth reading:
www.google.pt/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/21/oil-majors-investments-renewable-energy-solar-wind?client=ms-android-samsung

No. It's still catastrophic.

You don't actually believe that, do you. Seriously? Do you, at the bottom of you heart, genuinely believe that?

"You don't actually believe that, do you. Seriously? Do you, at the bottom of you heart, genuinely believe that?"

Well, I certainly do. When 97% of the world's scientists tell me that, and the 3% telling me something else are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, then why wouldn't I?

More interestingly, why don't you believe it?

Well, I certainly do. When 97% of the world's scientists tell me that, and the 3% telling me something else are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry, then why wouldn't I?

It's like still believing that smoking isn't related to lung cancer.

Or that the MMR vaccine causes autism, or in creationism.

"It's like still believing that smoking isn't related to lung cancer."

Remind me which of Trump's team believes that? I forget.......

"You don't actually believe that, do you. Seriously? Do you, at the bottom of you heart, genuinely believe that?"

I'm over 90% convinced that man made global warming is a real threat. Even if I was only 10% convinced I would still support investing in measures to reduce the risk. I have looked at the evidence against with as open a mind as possible (honestly), and while I don't believe that all the climate change sceptics are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry (some are) it just doesn't stand up against the evidence for climate change.

I have a STEM background, but am not an expert on climate change and although I have tried to educate myself I remain very, very ignorant. Therefore to a certain extent it comes down to who I trust the most - the 97% of scientists who agree on climate change or the 3% who don't.
There is financial interest in both sides of the argument- but in the short term probably more money to be made by denying it than confirming it.

I would love to be confident it is all a hoax - that must be a really comfortable belief to hold. By the way, my career is in an industry reliant on the continued use of fossil fuels so it is actually against my own personal interests to accept the reality of man made climate change (short term at least!). And I am still 99% convinced by it. From the bottom of my heart, yes - but much more importantly, by using my brain.

Climate change was pretty catastrophic for the Akkadian empire.

'Climate change was pretty catastrophic for the Akkadian empire.'

Was it all the fossil fuel they were using?

There is financial interest in both sides of the argument- but in the short term probably more money to be made by denying it than confirming it.

Definitely.
Research and investment into alternative energy sources has only picked up recently, as fossil fuel reserves get dangerously low (see push for fracking) as well as more evidence of global warming.
But, it is a risky investment, as many attempts will fail and only a few will be successful. Still, alternatives are becoming cheaper and more feasible, which really didn't seem realistic even a decade ago.

It is also not a bad idea for many countries to become independent of those who have been lucky enough to have fossil fuel reserves. Too much of the world economy rests on the Middle East, for example, as well as Russia and the US.

Ask yourselves who benefits from oil and gas dependency.

Alternative sources of energy do, in fact, give power to the people, much more than oil or gas.
Isn't that a good thing?

Claig, I don't think anyone is arguing that climate change is a new phenomenon. But that the rate of climate change (which so "coincidentally" coincides with industrialisation) is unprecedented. Even if you were to deny that the current changes are not at all due to human activity (when a great deal of evidence suggests they are), then you would surely still support some intervention (flood defences, different crops etc) to prevent a catastrophe?

'Climate change was pretty catastrophic for the Akkadian empire.'

Was it all the fossil fuel they were using?'

What a silly question.
It shows that rapid climate change (as is happening now) can be catastrophic. As per the link, you can see that the sudden change may have been triggered by a volcano eruption. It clearly had more of a regional impact, than global, but that is also part of the problem with global climate change. The impact at the level of vulnerable communities (see extreme weather impact in New Orleans, for example), can have major consequences further away, due to increased migration and more conflicts.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire#Collapse

Lweji's put it much better than I did.
One thing I have noticed when trying to understand both sides of the argument is that those arguing that man made climate change is real are much better at providing their sources and responding to opposing arguments, even addressing conflicting evidence. Those arguing against (not all) seem much more dogmatic in general. Maybe that is just a natural defensive stance as a result of being in a minority though. I am always deeply suspicious of people who say they are 100% convinced by something because they just know.

"Ask yourselves who benefits from oil and gas dependency".....
It's not - Claig's "elites" is it? Surely not!

"you would surely still support some intervention (flood defences, different crops etc) to prevent a catastrophe?"

Of course I do. I was the one who called for the legendary Su Burrows, flood warden of Wraysbury, to become Prime Minister and replace the nicompoops and "Lords" and that lot of luvvies who run us.

We all know the game, the EU Directives on the stickleback etc. We all want dredging and we know why it isn't done.

Fortunately, Trump understands the elite's game, he is aware of their agenda and he is onto them.

"Wrsybury will not go under"
"Sussex will not be druv"

or as Muse sang in the Song Uprising which I will not link to again, but ought to really,

"they will not control us
we will be victorious"

now that we have Trump on our side and they are stumped.

I'm waiting for claig to tell me that the fall of the Akkadian empire due to rapid climate change was a clever Chinese hoax.

Claig, do you have any idea how much it would cost to build the infrastructure and technology necessary to protect us in the west from the worst effects of climate change? It's an unimaginable amount of money. Much more than just a bit of dredging. And it wouldn't protect us completely, nor would it do anything to help those in more vulnerable parts of the world.
Of course those are long term costs.
A much more rational approach would be to increase investment now to try to reduce the man-made component of global warming as much as possible. Expensive (and potentially unpopular) in the short term, a huge saving in the long term.
I've got my fingers crossed that some of the good influences surrounding Trump win, I don't know much about Ivanka Trump but the more I hear the more I like her: www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/opinion/say-what-al-gore-ivanka-trump-and-donald-trump.html

Or Alyosha will be right, and the impending nuclear winter will cancel out global warming to produce a happy medium.

I wish there was a thread where we could talk about this sort of thing rationally.

Claig, I really have to say I was greatly impressed by your response to the latest debate. That's exactly how a productive and intelligent discussion should be conducted.

The Muse quote in particular was a genius argument. Top class.

You do know the best arguments and you do use the best arguments, indeed.

In fact, I'd say Trump class.

Or Alyosha will be right, and the impending nuclear winter will cancel out global warming to produce a happy medium

You really may be on to something. It would explain a lot.