Quite so, except that his allusion to a "science and technology group" doesn't square with this being the problem he was thinking about.

Monsanto is a science and technology group.

Ough. Disgusting. What the heck is going on in Florida?

Videos denying climate science approved by Florida as state curriculum
^{— Oliver Milman · The Guardian · Aug 10, 2023}

PragerU...? Haven't watched this particular propaganda of theirs; might just be a waste of time.

Somebody keeps making these kinds of news blurbs about Florida and then they're picked up. I've fallen for it too. In this case, if you look closer, you'll see that the PragerU videos that are allowed for young children are the ones that explain how the US government works. Their stuff does have a conservative bias, but nothing unholy.

The news in this case is that someone was concerned that this opens the door to the use of climate change denial stuff (not climate-denial, there's no such thing. :lol: )

@frank still waiting on an answer here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/829000

Still waiting for you to explain what problems exactly are unsurmountable. What "group" are you exactly a member of? Or are you just making things up in the hopes we take your unidentified problems serious? — Benkei

I haven't argued that climate change can't be addressed. I was simply explaining that this view is common, and that there are discussion groups where the general consensus is that we won't be able to avoid the worse case scenario.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything. You're free to believe what you like as far as I'm concerned. :up:

Their stuff does have a conservative bias, but nothing unholy. — frank

Well, the top paragraph of the Guardian story @jorndoe posted:

Videos that compare climate activists to Nazis, portray solar and wind energy as environmentally ruinous and claim that current global heating is part of natural long-term cycles will be made available to young schoolchildren in Florida, after the state approved their use in its public school curriculum.

Story goes on to note:

Despite its name, Prager is not an academic institution and does not confer degrees. It is a rightwing advocacy group founded in 2009 that produces various materials, including magazines and videos, that have been criticized by experts for inaccurate portrayals of slavery and racism in the US. According to McCarthy, each of the animated PragerU videos costs $25,000 to produce.

The group, which has received substantial funding from Dan and Farris Wilks, two brothers who are petroleum industry businessmen, has also been accused of spreading denial of climate science.

Florida, whose governor Ron DeSantis has called climate change “leftwing stuff”, is the first state to adopt PragerU videos, although in several other states textbooks pushed by the fossil fuel industry have included references that either downplay or deny human-caused global heating.

I don't know if 'unholy' is the right word - maybe it's not strong enough. 'Fallacious right-wing propaganda' might be more suitable.

The Conservative identification of the science of climate change with left-wing politics is extremely unfortunate, as it is, of course, complete bullshit. The most activist early climate-change politician was none other than Margeret Thatcher, who said in a speech to the United Nations in 1989

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones. — Margeret Thatcher

Left-wing stuff, eh? Thatcher was, before entering politics, a scientist, and as a consequence of her advocacy, the UK is ahead of the US on climate issue, as it has more bi-partisan support there (which is not to say that they don't have a very hard road ahead to meet their targets or that the fossil fuel industry does not still have a lot of influence there.)

OK. So you have nothing to add to the discussion, failing once again to be specific. Then just kindly shut the fuck up.

It's happened before as a result of global warming, and the conveyor is slowing as we speak. So yes, it's a distinct possibility. The evidence supports it. — frank

Yes, but if it happens it is global warming causing local cooling. Global warming may also cause more extreme weather; colder minimums and warmer maximums, but overall it is still global warming.

(I haven't read the subsequent thread, so if someone has already pointed this out...take it as emphasis).

If Mikie is right, then you are giving aid and comfort to those who for whatever reason are actively preventing people from reaching a consensus that would allow a collective response to a crisis that will cost many lives. — unenlightened

@Agree to Disagree appears to be invincibly misinformed. There isn't much that can be done for or with the invincibly misinformed, the invincibly ignorant, the invincibly stupid, etc. Every member of TPF, one by one, can beat him or her over the head with the facts, but the invincible are... invincible. So, move on; leave the close-minded sons of bitches alone.

@Agree to Disagree may want to plug up the conduit of consensus. I don't know why. However, some resistance can actually help solidify consensus.

We aren't in a very good position to change the policies of the extensive fossil fuel industry, it's outright owners or stockholders, invested banks, mutual funds, and private equity companies. Were TPF to be a $500B fund with lots of fossil fuel stocks, our consensus might disturb Exxon Mobil.

It isn't that we are completely powerless (and I definitely don't want to discuss how close to powerlessness we might be) so there are some things we can do on a personal level: recycling, eating a vegetarian diet, buying less, traveling less, consuming less--but BEING more. These are all pieces of a civic spiritual discipline.

We can try to influence those around us to take climate change (global heating) seriously. We can agitate, irritate, and aggravate do-nothing officials. We can vote when and if a candidate is available who might make a difference. We can engage in any suitable anti-corporate protest that might be available.

It's at least disgusting when some nattering nabob of negativity very reliably pipes up with "That won't do any good!" "It won't work!" "If one march doesn't lead to victory, why bother?" Etc.

It's at least disgusting when some nattering nabob of negativity very reliably pipes up with "That won't do any good!" "It won't work!" "If one march doesn't lead to victory, why bother?" Etc. — BC

I think it's important to point out things that won't work because resources, time and political capital is limited. If we bet on and invest in things that won't work, that means there is less for things that do work.

To give an example. Germany invested a lot in renewables, more than most other countries, decommissioned its nuclear plants, and counted on natural gas power plants as a back up for unavoidable down periods that are the consequence of relying on renewables. Then when natural gas prices spiked just before Putin invaded Ukraine (which was probably the reason Putin thought it a good idea to invade at the time) Germany found itself in a lot of trouble... and actually had to revert back to coal power plants, which are many times worse than other fossil fuels for climate change.

A lot of ideas are just bad ideas. Most ideas are in fact bad, because the world is a complex place, and ideas are easy to come by. The whole green energy transition as conceived is a bad idea, because of it's reliance on renewables prodominately. I don't want to defend Agree to disagree, his arguments are just poor and he seems to be disingenious, but I think there's also a real danger of being pressured into going along with proposed solutions that will not work, just because you are thereby percieved to be opposing the ones that want to solve the climate crisis, i.e. "the good guys".

When it comes to massive efforts, what we're really good at is war. Society is reorganized top to bottom to find the way to survive. The population gives over easily to dictatorship, almost instinctively. Now it doesn't matter if people poo poo the effort. We've become a giant, intelligent, highly aggressive organism willing to sacrifice to achieve goals.

I think it would be in conditions like that that we would reorganize ourselves with a different energy source.

At this point there is a disconnect between what would be needed to solve climate change and the ecological crisis more generally, and societal goals. Societal goals aren't actually aligned to solving these problems, but more aligned to economic growth, increase in GDP, or something along those lines... It's more like two ships passing in the night at this moment.

What could change it, is some type of crisis, like we saw at the start of WOII, when the US mobilised in a very short time. That's why I think it's very difficult to see a clear path to a solution at this particular moment.... but you know, things can change quickly.

That's why I think it's very difficult to see a clear path to a solution at this particular moment.... but you know, things can change quickly. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. Also, philosophically speaking it's a case of Kierkegaard's sickness until death, which is that we can't carry certain aspects of who we are into this new world we imagine. We have to die to change, and it's hard to let go. A crisis would take that part of it out of the equation.

Yes, but if it happens it is global warming causing local cooling. Global warming may also cause more extreme weather; colder minimums and warmer maximums, but overall it is still global warming. — Janus

Yes. It would warm back up when it's over. It would be a local extinction level event for Europe.

Let that stand as emphasis. :lol:

At the time, 2011, it seemed like a big mistake to shut down Germany's nuclear generators. Granted, Fukushima was a major disaster, but Germany doesn't seem prone to severe earthquakes and tsunamis. Solar and wind w/o a reliable third generating source (and not coal/gas) are insufficient.

A lot of ideas are just bad ideas. — ChatteringMonkey

I have been a steaming kettle of bad ideas which seemed like good ideas.

At this point there is a disconnect between what would be needed to solve climate change and the ecological crisis more generally, and societal goals. — ChatteringMonkey

You hit the nail on its head. Full employment, continual GDP growth, new production, and all that are the national policy--the environment be damned. Unfortunately, a radical response to the ecological and economic crisis of global warming could bring about an economic disaster on its own. Carbon neutrality by 2035, '45, '55, '65--pick a date--would require so wrenching a change in society--one so severe that the outcome would be unacceptable. Fossil fuels are so central to the economy, and the build out of low carbon systems are so complex and time consuming -- and that is the case IF we had actually started the build out.

philosophically speaking it's a case of Kierkegaard's sickness until death, which is that we can't carry certain aspects of who we are into this new world we imagine. We have to die to change, and it's hard to let go. A crisis would take that part of it out of the equation. — frank

"Never let a good crisis go to waste", but if global heating isn't a sufficient crisis what did you have in mind? Something spectacularly bad but which we still survive...

Indeed, it is hard to let go of "this world" and die into a different one. I haven't become a vegetarian yet, which is NOT the toughest thing in the world to do.

I have been a steaming kettle of bad ideas which seemed like good ideas. — BC

I want this on my tombstone.

Never let a good crisis go to waste", but if global heating isn't a sufficient crisis what did you have in mind? Something spectacularly bad but which we still survive... — BC

I'm drawing a blank on what kind of crisis would do it.

Fossil fuels are so central to the economy, and the build out of low carbon systems are so complex and time consuming -- and that is the case IF we had actually started the build out. — BC

I totally agree with this statement.

Agree to Disagree appears to be invincibly misinformed. — BC

Do you mean that I don't believe the same as you?

Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence?

One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying.

I always try to listen to both sides and think about what everybody says.

One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying. — Agree to Disagree

Factual matters (like gravity) don't have two sides. A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other". Some pairs of political ideas are mutually exclusive -- like dictatorship and democracy.

In my opinion it is almost impossible to stop global warming. The best that we can do is adapt. — Agree to Disagree

I'm not at all sure we WILL stop global warming, but given that it is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuel) it CAN be stopped--provided we get on with the task in a very forthright manner.

If global warming were something caused by a natural solar cycle of some kind, for instance, we would not be able to do anything about it. But that isn't the case.

Factual matters (like gravity) don't have two sides. — BC

Newtonian mechanics was undisputed (only had one side) for a long time. And then this denier called Einstein came along.

A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other". — BC

If a creationist and a scientist can manage to talk to each other in a respectful way then it is possible that progress can be made.

Some pairs of political ideas are mutually exclusive -- like dictatorship and democracy. — BC

Yes. But there are probably some countries where dictatorship works better, and other countries where democracy works better.

Have you taken the time to think carefully about what I have said? I try to provide evidence to back up what I say. Have you looked at the evidence? — Agree to Disagree

Your “evidence” like “all these countries have many cows, so good luck with that’s methane problem” (your first example).

Don’t try to blame everyone else for your climate denial, ignorant stamens and weak “evidence” — which was refuted systematically by those who actually know something about the topic.

As in most cases where those with nothing left to say and no knowledge — or real wisdom — to impart, the latest climate denier has been reduced to platitudes about “both sides listening to each other” and other such sanctimonious vapidity. How pathetic.

One of the big problems with the issue of climate-change/global-warming is that you have two sides screaming at each other and not listening to what the other side is saying. — Agree to Disagree

No, the main problem is that unequivocal evidence is being obfuscated by those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. They spread a lot of misinformation through social and other media which is then repeated by others for their own reasons.

There are many topics for debate and discussion around climate change - political, technological and social implications and solutions for example - but the basic facts of the phenomena are not up for debate.

A creationist and a scientist will not benefit by "listening to each other".
— BC

If a creationist and a scientist can manage to talk to each other in a respectful way then it is possible that progress can be made. — Agree to Disagree

Again there are not ‘two sides to the story’. The only progress in that scenario would be the abandonment of creationism, any other outcome would be regressive.

Later on I’ll find some of the current stories about efforts to mitigate climate change, of which there are many. For example https://wapo.st/3qj9DAh

There are many topics for debate and discussion around climate change - political, technological and social implications and solutions for example - but the basic facts of the phenomena are not up for debate. — Quixodian

I don't dispute that climate change is happening. I am interested in looking at the possible solutions and working out which ones are likely to be effective and which ones are likely to be ineffective.

Based on this earlier post, your interest in the subject seems more than casual:

I have been seriously interested in climate change for at least 10 years. As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. I have collected actual temperature data for over 36,000 locations on the earth.

After quality control I ended up with data for just over 24,000 locations on the earth. For each location the data includes:
- yearly and monthly average temperatures
- yearly and monthly average high temperatures
- yearly and monthly average low temperatures

I have grouped this data into 216 countries so that I know the average temperature, the average low temperature of the coldest month, and the average high temperature of the hottest month, for each country.

I have also combined the temperature data with population data for each country. — Agree to Disagree

Has any of this data been peer-reviewed or published? How are we to judge the truth or falsity of this analysis, which seems at odds with the mainstream consensus?

Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you? — Agree to Disagree

No. You sound like a very well-informed climate change denier. However I have so far no reason to accept these claims as factual, beyond your assurances.

Well a good chunk of Florida is gonna be underwater at this rate so there's that.

That being said, the fact that climate change is now a part of the culture war is even more depressing development than when it was just a political issue. You can't even make energy efficient appliances without being called "woke", which is a term which is increasingly becoming a synonym for "socialism" on the right.

Soil is a natural carbon sink, but it doesn't capture and hold carbon just by existing, Plants put the carbon into the soil. Regenerative (rather than extractive) land management can increase the amount of carbon sequestered.

With regenerative agriculture the percentage can increase to between 5 and 8% over 10 to 20 years, by which time the soil will become carbon replete. According to them, each percentage increase represents 8.5 tons of carbon sequestered per acre: so between 25 and 60 tons per acre over 10 -20 years. — BMJ - UK

John Deere Co. recently retired one of its oldest plow models--the kind that turns the soil over. A lot of crop farmers have switched to minimum tillage agriculture, and rather than plows, chisels are used to create a narrow furrow, without disturbing the soil on either side. Planters are designed to create a little hole in the furrow into which the seed is inserted. Again, less disturbance of the soil.

Regenerative farming is far less capital intensive than trying to extract carbon mechanically or chemically from the atmosphere and then storing it deep underground in old oil wells.

Building with wood rather than concrete is another way to sequester carbon. By using cultivated forest products made into engineered wooden beams and plywood, the structure can store carbon.

Here is a 25 story wood-frame bldg. in Milwaukee. WI. Posts, beams, and other structural parts are made with many cross-laminated layers of wood which are very strong. They are also fire resistant.



Fast growing trees are another carbon sequester. Poplars and Cottonwoods grow quite fast and can be used in various wood products.