Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

[RedLeader]

“In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal Monday, Steven F. Hayward, senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, declared that climate change as a pre-eminent policy issue has officially "run its course." And if you're looking for someone to blame, he suggests, don't look at President Trump, look instead at left-wing activists who've let their social justice and "green utopian vision" sabotage viable solutions.

"All that remains" of the climate change political movement, writes Hayward, "is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers." Most national governments, he explains, have been steadily "backing away from forced-marched decarbonization." The arc of climate change as a policy priority, he declares, can officially be dated from 1988 to 2018.“

Yawn. There is plenty of physical evidence. That you and your like can't comprehend it will surely be comforting to you.

Yes. Me and the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley... so much alike.


Lol.

[The Outsider]

Yawn. There is plenty of physical evidence. That you and your like can't comprehend it will surely be comforting to you.

Yes. Me and the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley... so much alike.


Lol.

Yes, the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Who I'm sure has an extensive background in the studies of climatology, geology, oceanography, or any of the many scientific backgrounds that have the large majority of their scholars and scientists backing man made climate change. I'm sure this expert in governmental studies, with no discernable scientific background is speaking on a purely factual basis with no agenda in mind rather than stating an opinion based on arbitrary data cherry picked to support some sort of political agenda.

Yes, that makes the most ****ing sense here.

[RedLeader]

Yes. Me and the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley... so much alike.


Lol.

Yes, the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Who I'm sure has an extensive background in the studies of climatology, geology, oceanography, or any of the many scientific backgrounds that have the large majority of their scholars and scientists backing man made climate change. I'm sure this expert in governmental studies, with no discernable scientific background is speaking on a purely factual basis with no agenda in mind rather than stating an opinion based on arbitrary data cherry picked to support some sort of political agenda.

Yes, that makes the most ****ing sense here.

Settle down, Frances.


Its just another data point to add to the equation. An educated ‘opinion’ by somebody wholly more qualified to have one on the subject than you or I..


Or is this thread only for folks that agree with Outsider?



Edit: Excuse me.. ‘The’ Outsider. Lol.

[The Outsider]

Yes, the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Who I'm sure has an extensive background in the studies of climatology, geology, oceanography, or any of the many scientific backgrounds that have the large majority of their scholars and scientists backing man made climate change. I'm sure this expert in governmental studies, with no discernable scientific background is speaking on a purely factual basis with no agenda in mind rather than stating an opinion based on arbitrary data cherry picked to support some sort of political agenda.

Yes, that makes the most ****ing sense here.

Settle down, Frances.


Its just another data point to add to the equation. An educated ‘opinion’ by somebody wholly more qualified to have one on the subject than you or I..


Or is this thread only for folks that agree with Outsider?



Edit: Excuse me.. ‘The’ Outsider. Lol.

Yes, I sure am pretentious for using a song title as my username.

[RedLeader]

Settle down, Frances.


Its just another data point to add to the equation. An educated ‘opinion’ by somebody wholly more qualified to have one on the subject than you or I..


Or is this thread only for folks that agree with Outsider?



Edit: Excuse me.. ‘The’ Outsider. Lol.

Yes, I sure am pretentious for using a song title as my username.

Who said anything about “pretentious”? Lol.


Go to bed, man.

[The Outsider]

Yes, I sure am pretentious for using a song title as my username.

Who said anything about “pretentious”? Lol.


Go to bed, man.

I'm sorry, were the quotes around "The" in your edit supposed to convey another message?

[MJW]

"...And if you're looking for someone to blame, he suggests, don't look at President Trump, look instead at left-wing activists who've let their social justice and "green utopian vision" sabotage viable solutions."

[mdb1958]

Anybody that thinks money will fix it

[deltbucs]

Yes. Me and the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley... so much alike.


Lol.

Yes, the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Who I'm sure has an extensive background in the studies of climatology, geology, oceanography, or any of the many scientific backgrounds that have the large majority of their scholars and scientists backing man made climate change. I'm sure this expert in governmental studies, with no discernable scientific background is speaking on a purely factual basis with no agenda in mind rather than stating an opinion based on arbitrary data cherry picked to support some sort of political agenda.

Yes, that makes the most ****ing sense here.

And a little googling shows he's long had ties to Koch, Exxon, etc...

[RedLeader]

My guess is you guys haven't actually read the article yet, and are just letting the mention of trump get you all frothed up... but It’s actually quite an interesting read...

Funny enough, the article addresses some of the very identity politics you see playing out here since I posted the headline... lol


I’d link it, but it has a pay-wall, so here it is:

————————————————————

Berkeley Scholar Admits "Climate Change Has Run Its Course"

Authored by Steven Hayward, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal.

—

Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality...

Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.

A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ”

Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.

The descent of climate change into the abyss of social-justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. Climate alarm is like a car alarm - a blaring noise people are tuning out.

This outcome was predictable. Political scientist Anthony Downs described the downward trajectory of many political movements in an article for the Public Interest, “Up and Down With Ecology: The ‘Issue-Attention Cycle,’ ” published in 1972, long before the climate-change campaign began. Observing the movements that had arisen to address issues like crime, poverty and even the U.S.-Soviet space race, Mr. Downs discerned a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.

The first stage involves groups of experts and activists calling attention to a public problem, which leads quickly to the second stage, wherein the alarmed media and political class discover the issue.

The second stage typically includes a large amount of euphoric enthusiasm - you might call it the “dopamine” stage—as activists conceive the issue in terms of global peril and salvation. This tendency explains the fanaticism with which divinity-school dropouts Al Gore and Jerry Brown have warned of climate change.

Then comes the third stage: the hinge. As Mr. Downs explains, there soon comes “a gradually spreading realization that the cost of ‘solving’ the problem is very high indeed.” That’s where we’ve been since the United Nations’ traveling climate circus committed itself to the fanatical mission of massive near-term reductions in fossil fuel consumption, codified in unrealistic proposals like the Kyoto Protocol.

This third stage, Mr. Downs continues, “becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem.”

While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard climate change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high salience among the public, despite the drumbeat of alarm from the climate campaign.

Americans have consistently ranked climate change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks climate change far behind air and water pollution.

“In the final stage,” Mr. Downs concludes, “an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest.” Mr. Downs predicted correctly that environmental issues would suffer this decline, because solving such issues involves painful trade-offs that committed climate activists would rather not make.

A case in point is climate campaigners’ push for clean energy, whereas they write off nuclear power because it doesn’t fit their green utopian vision. A new study of climate-related philanthropy by Matthew Nisbet found that of the $556.7 million green-leaning foundations spent from 2011-15, “not a single grant supported work on promoting or reducing the cost of nuclear energy.” The major emphasis of green giving was “devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry.”

Scientists who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be the most outraged at how the left politicized the issue and how the international policy community narrowed the range of acceptable responses.

Treating climate change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.

* * *

Mr. Hayward is a senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

[RedLeader]

Yes, the senior resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Who I'm sure has an extensive background in the studies of climatology, geology, oceanography, or any of the many scientific backgrounds that have the large majority of their scholars and scientists backing man made climate change. I'm sure this expert in governmental studies, with no discernable scientific background is speaking on a purely factual basis with no agenda in mind rather than stating an opinion based on arbitrary data cherry picked to support some sort of political agenda.

Yes, that makes the most ****ing sense here.

And a little googling shows he's long had ties to Koch, Exxon, etc...

Oh, well, then it HAS to be wrong! Lol.



By all means, dont let me disrupt your confirmation bias...






You may reinsert head in sand now.

[Buc2]

Thanks for posting the article in its entirety, RL. Good read. The author isn't saying climate change isn't happening or isn't an issue (which is where I think Outsider & Delt immediately went). The gist was that it was made into a political issue and, thus, doomed to fail. Which, it appears, it has.

[beardmcdoug]

thanks for posting, RL, I'll comment in a little when I get some time

[deltbucs]

And a little googling shows he's long had ties to Koch, Exxon, etc...

Oh, well, then it HAS to be wrong! Lol.



By all means, dont let me disrupt your confirmation bias...






You may reinsert head in sand now.

This guy

[Rocker]

The conservative water-cooler approach to global warming is ****ing maddening.

Maddening, I say!

[The Outsider]

Thanks for posting the article in its entirety, RL. Good read. The author isn't saying climate change isn't happening or isn't an issue (which is where I think Outsider & Delt immediately went). The gist was that it was made into a political issue and, thus, doomed to fail. Which, it appears, it has.

My whole ****ing issue with the article is that looking at things like climate change through a political lens is stupid. I don't give a flying **** if the left politicized it or not. It's a pretty black and white situation. We're at the very least exacerbating climate change, this is no longer really debatable from a scientific angle. We're doing this without having any solid idea of how it's going to impact our species viability as a dominant force on the planet along with having no real idea of how we can stop it once it hits the tipping point or how long things will be fucked up once it hits that point.

Who cares if they gays and women want to use it to push their equality agenda? The problem still exists and has the potential, in the worst case scenario, to be the single most catastrophic environmental change that humanity has ever experienced.

The fact that this guy isn't wrong about the politicization of climate change isn't what bothers me. Although, the author is part of the problem and his article serves no purpose other than to further delegitimize the whole movement and concept, which is pretty stupid and irresponsible from someone whose credentials seem to imply more than a basic level in intelligence. What does bother me is that a large portion of Americans are too short sighted to realize that if we continue to ignore the problem my generation's grandchildren may not have much left to look forward to.

[Buc2]

Thanks for posting the article in its entirety, RL. Good read. The author isn't saying climate change isn't happening or isn't an issue (which is where I think Outsider & Delt immediately went). The gist was that it was made into a political issue and, thus, doomed to fail. Which, it appears, it has.

My whole ****ing issue with the article is that looking at things like climate change through a political lens is stupid. I don't give a flying **** if the left politicized it or not. It's a pretty black and white situation. We're at the very least exacerbating climate change, this is no longer really debatable from a scientific angle. We're doing this without having any solid idea of how it's going to impact our species viability as a dominant force on the planet along with having no real idea of how we can stop it once it hits the tipping point or how long things will be fucked up once it hits that point.

Who cares if they gays and women want to use it to push their equality agenda? The problem still exists and has the potential, in the worst case scenario, to be the single most catastrophic environmental change that humanity has ever experienced.

The fact that this guy isn't wrong about the politicization of climate change isn't what bothers me. Although, the author is part of the problem and his article serves no purpose other than to further delegitimize the whole movement and concept, which is pretty stupid and irresponsible from someone whose credentials seem to imply more than a basic level in intelligence. What does bother me is that a large portion of Americans are too short sighted to realize that if we continue to ignore the problem my generation's grandchildren may not have much left to look forward to.

I think you should write the guy and say exactly what you said above.

[RedLeader]

Thanks for posting the article in its entirety, RL. Good read. The author isn't saying climate change isn't happening or isn't an issue (which is where I think Outsider & Delt immediately went). The gist was that it was made into a political issue and, thus, doomed to fail. Which, it appears, it has.

My whole ****ing issue with the article is that looking at things like climate change through a political lens is stupid.

Ehhhh. That's the whole point of the article, numbnuts.

I don't give a flying **** if the left politicized it or not.

You just said that looking at it through a political lens was your whole ****ing issue... but okay.

It's a pretty black and white situation. We're at the very least exacerbating climate change, this is no longer really debatable from a scientific angle. We're doing this without having any solid idea of how it's going to impact our species viability as a dominant force on the planet along with having no real idea of how we can stop it once it hits the tipping point or how long things will be fucked up once it hits that point.

Nobody is arguing this...

Who cares if they gays and women want to use it to push their equality agenda?

I do. You should too.

The problem still exists and has the potential, in the worst case scenario, to be the single most catastrophic environmental change that humanity has ever experienced.

Again, nobody is debating this.

The fact that this guy isn't wrong about the politicization of climate change isn't what bothers me. Although, the author is part of the problem and his article serves no purpose other than to further delegitimize the whole movement and concept, which is pretty stupid and irresponsible from someone whose credentials seem to imply more than a basic level in intelligence. What does bother me is that a large portion of Americans are too short sighted to realize that if we continue to ignore the problem my generation's grandchildren may not have much left to look forward to.

Exactly why you should care about the politicization of climate change... the whole point of the article... which you still choose to ignore while ignorantly banging your fist on the table arguing with yourself.. lol.

[RedLeader]

The conservative water-cooler approach to global warming is ****ing maddening.

Maddening, I say!

Way to politicize the issue... lol.


Maddening indeed.

[Rocker]

The conservative water-cooler approach to global warming is ****ing maddening.

Maddening, I say!

Way to politicize the issue... lol.


Maddening indeed.

The issue was politicized about twenty years ago, champ. And that fact has nothing to do with the merit of my post.

lol.

[Buc2]

Way to politicize the issue... lol.


Maddening indeed.

The issue was politicized about twenty years ago, champ. And that fact has nothing to do with the merit of my post.

lol.

I took RL's comment as sarcastic humor. But maybe I was wrong.

[DreadNaught]

I know we have alot of JRE listeners here, and if you're not than wtf are you doing with your life?

There was a recent episode with Adam Frank that was a great listen. I agree with alot of his perspective and disagreed with some. But he has a great 10,000ft view of climate change and what we as a species should do.

I'm paraphrasing, but his general take was climate change is going to happen b/c humans consume the energy on the planet and don't live in a homeostasis with the earth. He says there needs to be a technological breakthrough to transform our energy infrastructure b/c you'll never convince the countries that are sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars of fossil fuels to just leave it there in the ground. I think most people agree with that premise.

I enjoyed the listen.

[beardmcdoug]

I know we have alot of JRE listeners here, and if you're not than wtf are you doing with your life?

There was a recent episode with Adam Frank that was a great listen. I agree with alot of his perspective and disagreed with some. But he has a great 10,000ft view of climate change and what we as a species should do.

I'm paraphrasing, but his general take was climate change is going to happen b/c humans consume the energy on the planet and don't live in a homeostasis with the earth. He says there needs to be a technological breakthrough to transform our energy infrastructure b/c you'll never convince the countries that are sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars of fossil fuels to just leave it there in the ground. I think most people agree with that premise.

I enjoyed the listen.

cool. I'll check it out if I get time. That's where I'm at with the whole thing.

[bucfanclw]

I know we have alot of JRE listeners here, and if you're not than wtf are you doing with your life?

There was a recent episode with Adam Frank that was a great listen. I agree with alot of his perspective and disagreed with some. But he has a great 10,000ft view of climate change and what we as a species should do.

I'm paraphrasing, but his general take was climate change is going to happen b/c humans consume the energy on the planet and don't live in a homeostasis with the earth. He says there needs to be a technological breakthrough to transform our energy infrastructure b/c you'll never convince the countries that are sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars of fossil fuels to just leave it there in the ground. I think most people agree with that premise.

I enjoyed the listen.

This sounds like reasoning to invest in the development of alternative energies.

[beardmcdoug]

I know we have alot of JRE listeners here, and if you're not than wtf are you doing with your life?

There was a recent episode with Adam Frank that was a great listen. I agree with alot of his perspective and disagreed with some. But he has a great 10,000ft view of climate change and what we as a species should do.

I'm paraphrasing, but his general take was climate change is going to happen b/c humans consume the energy on the planet and don't live in a homeostasis with the earth. He says there needs to be a technological breakthrough to transform our energy infrastructure b/c you'll never convince the countries that are sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars of fossil fuels to just leave it there in the ground. I think most people agree with that premise.

I enjoyed the listen.

This sounds like reasoning to invest in the development of alternative energies.

sure. and those that can, are.

you want more investment?

That comes from two places:

a) policy incentives
- What's preventing more policy incentives?
- Money/lobbyists, driven by: human nature; self-interest in survival, using the capitalist paradigm available
- Lack of voter support, driven by: human nature; lack of interest in buying into collective action problem that they have little faith other humans will show same commitment to issue

b) companies deciding to invest by themselves
- What's preventing them from doing so?
- Not lucrative enough, status-quo still offers most profit, they have investors to answer to, who are beholden to: human nature; self-interest in survival, using the capitalist paradigm available
- In fact, the entire purpose is to maintain control over the status quo and to slow progress, to keep consumers in more "desperate", "needy" position. It keeps power in their hands.


What you have issue with is human nature, and the fact that this is the greatest collective action problem to ever grace this planet. Unless some benevolent leader comes along and commandeers the Exxon's / GE's (never going to happen), and absolutely forces their hand, there is not going to be any sort of benevolent uptick of investment in those technologies, until it is absolutely dictated to them by the market. And the energy sector is the largest, most powerful industry in the world - what makes you think they want to shake things up for the benefit of mankind? We're CONSUMERS. JUST. Consumers. They are the providers. It's a good dynamic right now. Why would they want that power balance to shift at all? This isn't just a trivial question - this whole premise defines every aspect of our lives. It's not just going to be shaken up by some ambitious politician. It's the most protected thing in the entire existence of mankind.

Saudi Arabia is just now beginning to diversify it's wealth (80% of its kingdom's richest come from oil), and that's ONLY because there is a vacuum in other industries that they are capable of filling (because its the relatively undeveloped middle east). It's not because they're making some benevolent move for the benefit of mankind. They're just trying to figure out how they can flip that oil money into selling more, different types of **** to consumers.

The change to better energy sources is going to be, by definition, a slow and painful process for the rest of us. It's the entire point.

[deltbucs]

Yeah...So pretty much we need fossil fuel companies to stop running Washington and many other countries across the world.

[Buc2]

Right. Wait for that to happen.

[DreadNaught]

Yeah...So pretty much we need fossil fuel companies to stop running Washington and many other countries across the world.

Here, China, and India would set the precedence as we are easily the 3 worst offenders.

Easier said than done my friend. From an idealist perspective it's an easy thing to say. Before we can justify cutting away from fossil fuels there needs to be a technology infrastructure to seamlessly move towards. We don't have the technology nor the infrastructure at this point. But progress is being made and we've done alot is just the past 20 years, so who knows what the next 20-30 years will have in store.

Plus you're telling regimes like Iran to not use the trillion dollars of oil they are sitting on.

The problem is population and our species being reliant on energy (which currently comes via fossil fuels). We cant prevent climate change, we can only effect the rate. So whether it's 1000 years from now or a million, a dramatic climate shift will occur just as they've occurred throughout the history of the planet. It will be a matter of surviving and preserving as much as we can as a species.

As for the here and now for relative split second we are on this earth I think the best we can do is innovate a new technology when it comes to energy and/or better harness solar. It's not in our nature as humans to live on less so using less energy isn't a viable solution imo.

[Mountaineer Buc]

Yeah...So pretty much we need fossil fuel companies to stop running Washington and many other countries across the world.

Here, China, and India would set the precedence as we are easily the 3 worst offenders.

Easier said than done my friend. From an idealist perspective it's an easy thing to say. Before we can justify cutting away from fossil fuels there needs to be a technology infrastructure to seamlessly move towards. We don't have the technology nor the infrastructure at this point. But progress is being made and we've done alot is just the past 20 years, so who knows what the next 20-30 years will have in store.

Plus you're telling regimes like Iran to not use the trillion dollars of oil they are sitting on.

The problem is population and our species being reliant on energy (which currently comes via fossil fuels). We cant prevent climate change, we can only effect the rate. So whether it's 1000 years from now or a million, a dramatic climate shift will occur just as they've occurred throughout the history of the planet. It will be a matter of surviving and preserving as much as we can as a species.

As for the here and now for relative split second we are on this earth I think the best we can do is innovate a new technology when it comes to energy and/or better harness solar. It's not in our nature as humans to live on less so using less energy isn't a viable solution imo.

It's worse than that.

The planet does not have the energy capacity from fossil fuels to meet the consumption requirements if the global population had first world consumption rates. Not enough oil to keep everyone on the planet in gasoline, coal, and natural gas. Projections vary as to how long we have and I won't speculate.

Solar gets cheaper every year, and it's going to have to as the emerging world is going to demand energy on an ever growing scale.

[Buc2]

Global warming may have to take a back seat to another mini-ice age in the very near future. The sun appears to be headed towards a cycle of very little to almost zero sunspot activity. The last time this happened, many scientists believe it had a big effect on earth's climate, resulting in a mini ice age that ran from about 1300 to 1870. I got that from an episode of the series, Space's Deepest Secrets that I watched a couple of nights ago. The episode was called The Sun's Greatest Mysteries. It originally aired last September. Of course, there's a bunch of stories out there saying this isn't true. So take from it what you would.