Food for thought - Climate Change

[Bluemarlin]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Anyhow... enough about myself, but I agree with everything yous said. Being pessimist and conspiracy theorist I am - I would go with the option of "by design".

 

I'm more of an optimist, and think that naivety, lack of foresight, ignorance, incompetence and expendiency are often better explanations than conspiracy.

So I don't think it's always by design, and sometimes unintended consequences. For example, I can see the logic behind thinking that trickle down would work (and was once a believer in it), without anticipating that businesses would simply reinvest money for other reasons than job creation or wage increases.

Sometimes poor decisions are made simply because politicians think it's what people want, and so will win votes. An example of this might be how we wasted natural resources like oil on short term expenditure and popular tax cuts, instead of longer term investment; whereas somewhere like Norway chose a different path, and so their oil investments are estimated to fund their social costs for the next 300 years or so. Easy to see with hindsight though.

We have a political system where governments are at the mercy of an electorate who increasingly demand instant gratification, and so short term bad ideas are always at risk of getting voted in, and long term good ones voted out.

People choose their governments, and so if people don't act as a society, with consideration for others as well as themselves, and are unable to see how that might benefit all, then they won't get a government that can create a society where all might benefit. Instead of having governments that are best for the country as a whole, we've pretty much accepted that each party is only really interested in their own chosen section of society, and so we're just left with picking a team.

[Bluemarlin]

43 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am not intending to change your mind on this, but there are countless examples of where it was neither proportionate nor reasonable... 

It really depends on where you stand on what is causing climate change, or whenever the change is acceptable or not... so if the view is that change is caused by humans and the change we have is not acceptable, then I would even argue that our government (or collectively the world governments) don't do anywhere near enough. Obviously alternative view points are possible - for example that change is not human caused, or that like me - that change that is being caused is simply not a problem. 

That's the crux of it Linas, and we're left with people better qualified than you or I to determine that.

There's enough evidence to show that climate change is having devastating effects across the globe, which we're already paying for and are predicted to worsen, as well evidence that shows that man made emissions cause significant changes to the climate. Now, it's entirely possible that people might wrongly correlate cause and effect but, without a deeper understanding of the science they use to draw their conclusions, which we don't have, then we can neither confirm nor deny that.

As a result, we're left with having to rely on our best experts to draw their conclusions and make their recommendations, and for goverments to decide if and how to act on them.

Whether they're wrong, or whether there's just a global conspiracy to con everyone, is something we won't know with any certainty for many years, or even generations. As such, the way I see it is simply a matter of balancing risks. On the one hand the risk is losing some money if it's a mistake or a con, versus global disasters, and an even higher cost to maintain survival and society if the conclusions are correct.

So, you might be right, you might be wrong, but with the scientific consensus saying the latter, and no way of knowing anything for certain, the logical bet seems to be to go with it. That being the case, rather than fight what seems to be a futile fight, it's probably better to get on board, and either embrace the innovations it will inevitably bring, or better yet adapt in ways to benefit from those changes. My guess is that the smart money is already doing the latter.

[Boomer54]

2 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

One of the very first things I learnt at University - political philosophy (it was a foundation ahead of my political history and theology degree) - was that the oft quoted “…people want and deserve to live in a democracy…” is actually a myth. 

Most people simply want a good standard of living, food, housing and education for their children, exactly as you note. How it is achieved, and by which political system, is pretty much irrelevant. Well, as long as one group isn’t favoured over another.

Ironically the almost perfect system - stick with me here - is a benevolent dictatorship, as long as it delivers for all the people. It does away with costly elections, short-term planning and popularity contests, instability caused by changes in direction etc. Unfortunately it’s almost unachievable, what with power corrupting and preferences shown to the elite (whosoever that may be). Even so, how lovely would it be to live under an altruistic leader who did everything for his or her people without any other motive…and yes, I know I sound like a conflicted hippy.

 "is a benevolent dictatorship"..well I am honoured to be considered, but may I get back to you on the position?

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

Sometimes poor decisions are made simply because politicians think it's what people want, and so will win votes.

whereas somewhere like Norway chose a different path, and so their oil investments are estimated to fund their social costs for the next 300 years or so.

We have a political system where governments are at the mercy of an electorate who increasingly demand instant gratification, and so short term bad ideas are always at risk of getting voted in, and long term good ones voted out.

People choose their governments, and so if people don't act as a society, with consideration for others as well as themselves

I would change fist sentence from "sometimes" to "almost always".

Norway is poor example because the amount of oil Norway has compared to it's tiny population means they could live of it, In UK that would have never worked, but I agree that at least Norwegian politicians didn't squander that opportunity, I am sure British politicians would have found the way. 

I would disagree with you here - I think key problem is that politicians are unaccountable, check and balances have failed and they openly lie without consequences. That is what I think is the problem... but broader issue for democracy is that it only works if voters are educated... which is exactly why I am so sensitive to the topic of education and why it is so crucial to prioritise it... and why I think it is by design does not work, because politicians don't want to be voted out by the voters who understand what is going on... 

So how people can act as a society when they are simply uneducated and can't figure out even basics? 

This reminds me of this satire (somebody mentioned benevolent dictator as solution... so here we go, you still don't think it is NOT by design?):

 

[Boomer54]

59 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I would change fist sentence from "sometimes" to "almost always".

Norway is poor example because the amount of oil Norway has compared to it's tiny population means they could live of it, In UK that would have never worked, but I agree that at least Norwegian politicians didn't squander that opportunity, I am sure British politicians would have found the way. 

I would disagree with you here - I think key problem is that politicians are unaccountable, check and balances have failed and they openly lie without consequences. That is what I think is the problem... but broader issue for democracy is that it only works if voters are educated... which is exactly why I am so sensitive to the topic of education and why it is so crucial to prioritise it... and why I think it is by design does not work, because politicians don't want to be voted out by the voters who understand what is going on... 

So how people can act as a society when they are simply uneducated and can't figure out even basics? 

This reminds me of this satire (somebody mentioned benevolent dictator as solution... so here we go, you still don't think it is NOT by design?):

 

First politicians are accountable in the sense they get 'judged' every time they stand for election. The very real problem is that they get elected primarily on what they promise in the here and now. There is an inherent conflict between that and long term goals that may require delayed gratification where same is the optimum policy to pursue. This pretty much hinges upon the concept of something called temporal discounting and I am fairly confident that most political advisors if not their candidates are aware of this concept and advise accordingly.

[Linas.P]

I would rather say - "they would be" account able in normal society... "normal" may mean many things, principal, educated, opiniated etc... but we live in society where very few people really analyse what was promised and what was delivered. On top of that as long as ruling party can offer more than opposition, even if they have failed every single promise, they still get elected... because alternative is worse.

I don't think politicians are accountable in true sense of the word. How many billions get's wasted every year, and how many corruptions scandals we hear every year... and yet nobody goes to jail, nobody returns their millions, nobody get's fined, nobody gets barred from running for office. 

One of many example (and this is just random one, but I can literally name dozens even without searching) - "track and trace" system... £37 billion just basically lost. Shouldn't there be investigation, shouldn't there be exact accounting where and how much money went and for what? I am sure some money was spent to develop an app, but we know that majority was wasted, so where the money went? Where are the checks and balances? Why don't we have people responsible being rounded-up and giving the money back at very least and ideally being sentenced for corruption... One think I know - app does not cost £37 billion to develop, £37 billion is more money than most of the companies I worked are worth and they all had large IT departments with many developers and all were developing sophisticated software, not simple track and trace app. If somebody would say £25 million was spent on WORKING app I would raise and eye brow, because that would be way too expensive for such a simple thing. No they spent £37 billion and nobody is even investigating that. 

In short what I am saying - there should be check and balances, and there should be immediate investigation, not some consequences during next elections... no immediate investigation, arrest and punishment. Voting is all fines and voting on promises has it's own issues, but not only politicians should be accountable for promises made, but as well they should be accountable for all other crap they gat away with. 

In summary - accountability that exists is just grossly inadequate. 

[HighlandJohn]

3 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Trying to drag this back to climate change, even though the last discussions have been entertaining…

Yes, my comment was re the subject changes in the thread, not the various disagreements in the diversions in the original topic.

[First_Lexus]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

One of many example (and this is just random one, but I can literally name dozens even without searching) - "track and trace" system... £37 billion just basically lost.

https://fullfact.org/health/NHS-test-and-trace-app-37-billion-instagram/

Yes, it cost a lot…but the £37bn number isn’t accurate, urban myth based on viral (and incorrect) social media posts…

“The actual cost of the app was about £35 million in its first year. That £37 billion figure refers to the budget for the whole test and trace programme in its first two years.

Inaccurate claims about the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic have spread widely on social media, and can damage trust in politics.

The £37 billion figure has been misused frequently on social media, as we’ve written several times previously. A Labour MP also made the claim in November 2022, and corrected himself after being contacted by Full Fact. 

The £37 billion figure refers to the total budget allocated to NHS Test and Trace in its first two years.

A National Audit Office (NAO) interim report in December 2020 said that the Government allocated £22 billion to the test, trace, contain and enable programme in 2020/21, with a further £15 billion for 2021/22.”

[Boomer54]

10 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

https://fullfact.org/health/NHS-test-and-trace-app-37-billion-instagram/

Yes, it cost a lot…but the £37bn number isn’t accurate, urban myth based on viral (and incorrect) social media posts…

“The actual cost of the app was about £35 million in its first year. That £37 billion figure refers to the budget for the whole test and trace programme in its first two years.

Inaccurate claims about the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic have spread widely on social media, and can damage trust in politics.

The £37 billion figure has been misused frequently on social media, as we’ve written several times previously. A Labour MP also made the claim in November 2022, and corrected himself after being contacted by Full Fact. 

The £37 billion figure refers to the total budget allocated to NHS Test and Trace in its first two years.

A National Audit Office (NAO) interim report in December 2020 said that the Government allocated £22 billion to the test, trace, contain and enable programme in 2020/21, with a further £15 billion for 2021/22.”

Damn glad we are not talking serious money. Had me concerned there for a moment.

I know we are never (in my lifetime anyway) going to see a meaningful reverse in the need to fund public issues. However, it would be gratifying as a first step if when any politician, national or local, wanted to introduce a new policy/law/regulation they first had to cost it out and then had to find a policy/law/regulation  that they  could remove/abolish that cost at least as much as the one they wished to introduce. Cost neutral politics ! nah ,never happening.

[Linas.P]

31 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

https://fullfact.org/health/NHS-test-and-trace-app-37-billion-instagram/

Yes, it cost a lot…but the £37bn number isn’t accurate, urban myth based on viral (and incorrect) social media posts…

“The actual cost of the app was about £35 million in its first year. That £37 billion figure refers to the budget for the whole test and trace programme in its first two years.

Inaccurate claims about the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic have spread widely on social media, and can damage trust in politics.

The £37 billion figure has been misused frequently on social media, as we’ve written several times previously. A Labour MP also made the claim in November 2022, and corrected himself after being contacted by Full Fact. 

The £37 billion figure refers to the total budget allocated to NHS Test and Trace in its first two years.

A National Audit Office (NAO) interim report in December 2020 said that the Government allocated £22 billion to the test, trace, contain and enable programme in 2020/21, with a further £15 billion for 2021/22.”

I will check my facts better next time... 

£35 million for the app that doesn't even work is still quite bad. Probably would take me alone an afternoon to develop it... I wish I could get even 1/10th of that cost. But it is obviously better than £37 billion. 

[Malc1]

I like the concept of a " Hung Parliament "  .......  do we get to choose who we can hang ? do we need a vote on it ? Do we need an App for it too ?   .......  I'm sure my IT guys in Delhi could provide such an App for under a £1 mn or 2 !  😇

Not sure much of the above has any relevance to Climate Change other than if we blamed the Govt or an Opposition Party  ( parties again 🤣 )  then we could go straight to the hanging aspect without further ado

Malc

[Boomer54]

6 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

I like the concept of a " Hung Parliament "  .......  do we get to choose who we can hang ? do we need a vote on it ? Do we need an App for it too ?   .......  I'm sure my IT guys in Delhi could provide such an App for under a £1 mn or 2 !  😇

Not sure much of the above has any relevance to Climate Change other than if we blamed the Govt or an Opposition Party  ( parties again 🤣 )  then we could go straight to the hanging aspect without further ado

Malc

Don't think you need a 'hung parliament' these days Malc. The way it appears to work to me is if you wait awhile any and every MP will get 'hung out to dry' by the court of social media. These days it appears just the merest slip of the tongue no matter how innocent is enough to terminate a career. Oh, how lucky we are , no career left, no fear of being cancelled. You can just stick your finger in the air and say suck it 'cos I'm off  for a glass of self medication.

[Bluemarlin]

18 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I would disagree with you here - I think key problem is that politicians are unaccountable, check and balances have failed and they openly lie without consequences. That is what I think is the problem... but broader issue for democracy is that it only works if voters are educated... which is exactly why I am so sensitive to the topic of education and why it is so crucial to prioritise it... and why I think it is by design does not work, because politicians don't want to be voted out by the voters who understand what is going on... 

So how people can act as a society when they are simply uneducated and can't figure out even basics?

I hear what you're saying Linas but, whilst it's an issue, I don't think that the primary problem is education, and more that for some reason we've created a society where people don't care, especially about others, and politicians fail to address that.

Let's use education as an example. Money isn't the issue, as I went to a private school (thanks to not very well off parents, who were willing to make huge sacrifices), where the local authority would provide grants for qualifying kids. At that time, the amount it cost them to pay the grant was less then it cost to send the same kid to a state school. Now sure, there might be some inefficiencies in the state system, but that could be fixed if people simply cared enough to do so.

This is true of virtually any issue. We have a society made up of some people who care, some who are indifferent, and others who care about nothing but themselves. That's probably true of any society, and so it's the role of politicians to recognise this, and pitch their policies accordingly. Doesn't mean they need to change them, just to recognise that they don't need to appeal to those who already care, but to those who are indifferent or don't care. In other words, a sad face "think of the children" message might appeal to their core supporters, but won't work on anyone else. Instead it needs to show how those policies, which aren't directly aimed at the indifferent or uncaring, will ultimately benefit them.

I have a bit of sales background, and was taught that you list the features, and sell the benefits. So, listing the features of education reform, like more teachers, newer school buildings, better educated chidren, or even better prospects for the poor, has no meaning for those it doesn't immediately affect, or who don't care. However, clearly showing that it will reduce unemployment costs, juvenile delinquency, burglary, car crime, and ultimately produce a better, safer society, is something everyone can get on board with. It's funny, there are those who don't care about the poor, and have no interest in investing in education, but would be happy, whatever the cost, to send the youth of the nation into national service, purely because it's presented in terms of improving the things they do care about.

Not picking on you, but I could use you as another example. Regarding climate change, your main argument is that scientists and governments might be wrong, and that man made emissions have no meaningful effect. This is just a belief though, and one which goes against the political, scientific, and even industrial consensus, which says the opposite. Your core issue though, is that following that consensus means it will cost you in terms of lifestyle. As a consequence, you're swayed by a weaker evidential case, simply to support the things you care about. That's not about lack of education on your part, but a failure of politicians, who focus their message on saving polar bears, far off indigenous tribes, and that it's an unfortunate responsibilty to bear some cost for this; instead of highlighting how you might benefit, either in terms of innovation, more efficient energy provision, better health from cleaner air, as well as protection from the future cost of dealing with an even worse mess.

So, if there's any education issue, it's with our politicians, who are too busy playing to their own crowd than trying to win over some of the opposition. Trump was a great example of this. He won the presidency by a tiny margin, with a lot of good fortune. Had he spent a tenth of his time in office trying to win over people who didn't vote for him, instead of pandering to those who would vote for him no matter what, he'd have probably won a second term. This is probably in part due to the rise of ego driven, populist politicians, who think they're celebrities, and an electorate who seem increasingly drawn to style over substance; and so I long for the days of the boring but educated politician, who had some integrity and conviction, even if I didn't agree with their political stance. Give me a guy I can trust over one I agree with, any day.

Education is hugely important, but more important than academic education is an education in social responsibility, and the ability to see the big picture, by being taught that what might sometimes appear to be a sacrifice, to help others, has a broader purpose, that ultimately helps you too.

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

I hear what you're saying Linas but, whilst it's an issue, I don't think that the primary problem is education, and more that for some reason we've created a society where people don't care, especially about others, and politicians fail to address that.

Let's use education as an example. Money isn't the issue, as I went to a private school (thanks to not very well off parents, who were willing to make huge sacrifices), where the local authority would provide grants for qualifying kids. At that time, the amount it cost them to pay the grant was less then it cost to send the same kid to a state school. Now sure, there might be some inefficiencies in the state system, but that could be fixed if people simply cared enough to do so.

This is true of virtually any issue. We have a society made up of some people who care, some who are indifferent, and others who care about nothing but themselves. That's probably true of any society, and so it's the role of politicians to recognise this, and pitch their policies accordingly. Doesn't mean they need to change them, just to recognise that they don't need to appeal to those who already care, but to those who are indifferent or don't care. In other words, a sad face "think of the children" message might appeal to their core supporters, but won't work on anyone else. Instead it needs to show how those policies, which aren't directly aimed at the indifferent or uncaring, will ultimately benefit them.

I have a bit of sales background, and was taught that you list the features, and sell the benefits. So, listing the features of education reform, like more teachers, newer school buildings, better educated chidren, or even better prospects for the poor, has no meaning for those it doesn't immediately affect, or who don't care. However, clearly showing that it will reduce unemployment costs, juvenile delinquency, burglary, car crime, and ultimately produce a better, safer society, is something everyone can get on board with. It's funny, there are those who don't care about the poor, and have no interest in investing in education, but would be happy, whatever the cost, to send the youth of the nation into national service, purely because it's presented in terms of improving the things they do care about.

Not picking on you, but I could use you as another example. Regarding climate change, your main argument is that scientists and governments might be wrong, and that man made emissions have no meaningful effect. This is just a belief though, and one which goes against the political, scientific, and even industrial consensus, which says the opposite. Your core issue though, is that following that consensus means it will cost you in terms of lifestyle. As a consequence, you're swayed by a weaker evidential case, simply to support the things you care about. That's not about lack of education on your part, but a failure of politicians, who focus their message on saving polar bears, far off indigenous tribes, and that it's an unfortunate responsibilty to bear some cost for this; instead of highlighting how you might benefit, either in terms of innovation, more efficient energy provision, better health from cleaner air, as well as protection from the future cost of dealing with an even worse mess.

So, if there's any education issue, it's with our politicians, who are too busy playing to their own crowd than trying to win over some of the opposition. Trump was a great example of this. He won the presidency by a tiny margin, with a lot of good fortune. Had he spent a tenth of his time in office trying to win over people who didn't vote for him, instead of pandering to those who would vote for him no matter what, he'd have probably won a second term. This is probably in part due to the rise of ego driven, populist politicians, who think they're celebrities, and an electorate who seem increasingly drawn to style over substance; and so I long for the days of the boring but educated politician, who had some integrity and conviction, even if I didn't agree with their political stance. Give me a guy I can trust over one I agree with, any day.

Education is hugely important, but more important than academic education is an education in social responsibility, and the ability to see the big picture, by being taught that what might sometimes appear to be a sacrifice, to help others, has a broader purpose, that ultimately helps you too.

"instead of highlighting how you might benefit, either in terms of innovation, more efficient energy provision, better health from cleaner air, as well as protection from the future cost of dealing with an even worse mess."

Oh if only you could have found room for a free monthly subscription to a case of Carmenere I would have been 'where do I sign up'. So would Malc, but in his case he would have still had to buy in for the other 3 weeks of the month.

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Bluemarlin said:

Not picking on you, but I could use you as another example. Regarding climate change, your main argument is that scientists and governments might be wrong, and that man made emissions have no meaningful effect. This is just a belief though, and one which goes against the political, scientific, and even industrial consensus, which says the opposite. Your core issue though, is that following that consensus means it will cost you in terms of lifestyle. As a consequence, you're swayed by a weaker evidential case, simply to support the things you care about. That's not about lack of education on your part, but a failure of politicians, who focus their message on saving polar bears, far off indigenous tribes, and that it's an unfortunate responsibilty to bear some cost for this; instead of highlighting how you might benefit, either in terms of innovation, more efficient energy provision, better health from cleaner air, as well as protection from the future cost of dealing with an even worse mess.

I agree with what you said and I know you not picking on me, but just in case there is any doubt... that is not what I said, or at least not what I meant.

My main argument is that government not "might be wrong", they are definitely wrong, what they want to do objectively does not address the issue regardless what people choose to believe.

As for scienience I didn't say "they might be wrong" either - I said two things - 1) scienience that we have is inconclusive 2) science we have suggests that key climate outcomes (like melting of glaciers and temperature rise) are natural and will happen without human contribution.

Finally, I said man made emissions are currently about 2% of total, but 90% of excess... So I never said they have no meaningful effect. Whenever I care about effects, or whenever I think they are bad, that is different question.

That said - regarding education I agree, it is not necessarily question of money, I just generally find two tier system benefiting some and burying others unacceptable, especially in education. As well I find mere existence of Private education as proof of Public education failure. 

[Boomer54]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I agree with what you said and I know you not picking on me, but just in case there is any doubt... that is not what I said, or at least not what I meant.

My main argument is that government not "might be wrong", they are definitely wrong, what they want to do objectively does not address the issue regardless what people choose to believe.

As for scienience I didn't say "they might be wrong" either - I said two things - 1) scienience that we have is inconclusive 2) science we have suggests that key climate outcomes (like melting of glaciers and temperature rise) are natural and will happen without human contribution.

Finally, I said man made emissions are currently about 2% of total, but 90% of excess... So I never said they have no meaningful effect. Whenever I care about effects, or whenever I think they are bad, that is different question.

That said - regarding education I agree, it is not necessarily question of money, I just generally find two tier system benefiting some and burying others unacceptable, especially in education. As well I find mere existence of Private education as proof of Public education failure. 

Or Private education fails better than state education?

Or private education succeeds better than state education?

Or there is little difference between the two EXCEPT I think you will the difference that does exist explained more by parental support outside of school than by what happens inside the schools.

Personally, I think my kids would have excelled academically whichever school I put them in, because they had unlimited access/support outside school, but their social experience was without a doubt what I wanted when I plumped for private over state.

 

[Linas.P]

I agree with statement that functional family support determines more than what happens in school,

But that does not address the problem for kids who do not live in functional family and really on school as their last resort...

Nor it explains why public school failure should be acceptable, or why two tier system which clearly benefits those who pay is allowed. 

So what you have stated is most likely correct, but it is not full explanation... 

[DavidCM]

On 10/10/2023 at 4:24 PM, DavidCM said:

Could it be this person...?

And here she is again...

[Malc1]

On education ……. as a Primary School Governor many years back I was fascinated that so many kids were bankrupt of ability following on from their parents own crap societal awareness ( in my opinion ) which dramatically followed on directly from their own parents crass societal degradation ……. Goddam awful education themselves …… the State system I’m afraid in all cases

My comparison of my own State education reflected …… my State grammar education was from a school with some 400 years Foundation ( in common S’arf London )  …… and that had some crap kids with parents with societal issues too …….. 

Education education education ….. whatever the system, State or Private,  produces some kids with crap outcomes and some with brilliant outcomes …… methinks it’s parents that have greatly influenced the outcomes ……. oh, and believe it or not, the quality of the teachers ! 

Nowt 2do with Climate Change tho’ 

More Merlot please waiter 👌 

Malc 

[Boomer54]

8 hours ago, Malc1 said:

On education ……. as a Primary School Governor many years back I was fascinated that so many kids were bankrupt of ability following on from their parents own crap societal awareness ( in my opinion ) which dramatically followed on directly from their own parents crass societal degradation ……. Goddam awful education themselves …… the State system I’m afraid in all cases

My comparison of my own State education reflected …… my State grammar education was from a school with some 400 years Foundation ( in common S’arf London )  …… and that had some crap kids with parents with societal issues too …….. 

Education education education ….. whatever the system, State or Private,  produces some kids with crap outcomes and some with brilliant outcomes …… methinks it’s parents that have greatly influenced the outcomes ……. oh, and believe it or not, the quality of the teachers ! 

Nowt 2do with Climate Change tho’ 

More Merlot please waiter 👌 

Malc 

I think what you are getting at is the effect of role modelling. Child imitates parent. Parent poorly educated can and oft does lead to the same outcome for a child. Not always, but probably too often the undesired outcome. I once mused that a cap, or ceiling on how this affected wider society once existed, because when countries went to war this part of society usually littered the battlefields of the world. A culliing process if you will along Darwinian lines for the good of society. Now unfortunately they are in the local car park ripping off a new Lexus ('cancel it', it's a joke ,(but is it? ). God, the brackets ,this is like grammatical algebra !

[Bluemarlin]

7 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

I think what you are getting at is the effect of role modelling. Child imitates parent. Parent poorly educated can and oft does lead to the same outcome for a child. Not always, but probably too often the undesired outcome. I once mused that a cap, or ceiling on how this affected wider society once existed, because when countries went to war this part of society usually littered the battlefields of the world. A culliing process if you will along Darwinian lines for the good of society. Now unfortunately they are in the local car park ripping off a new Lexus ('cancel it', it's a joke ,(but is it? ). God, the brackets ,this is like grammatical algebra !

I have similarly mused, Stephen. Not just about the Darwinian effect of sending the masses to war, but also the social effect. There's nothing like a war to aid in social cohesion and a sense of community.

[Boomer54]

10 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I have similarly mused, Stephen. Not just about the Darwinian effect of sending the masses to war, but also the social effect. There's nothing like a war to aid in social cohesion and a sense of community.

Indeed, that is why so many struggling leaders like to start a war, or at least identify a 'common' enemy. It distract people from other issues that the leader actually cannot resolve. Call me a cynic, but i am pretty sure I have seen this a number of times over the years. The N Korean guy and his family have basically brainwashed a country this way for going on half a century

[Bluemarlin]

44 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Indeed, that is why so many struggling leaders like to start a war, or at least identify a 'common' enemy. It distract people from other issues that the leader actually cannot resolve. Call me a cynic, but i am pretty sure I have seen this a number of times over the years. The N Korean guy and his family have basically brainwashed a country this way for going on half a century

Indeed, who cared about 15% mortgage rates when we had Prince Andrew taking on the Argentinians single handedly 🙂

[Bluemarlin]

22 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I agree with what you said and I know you not picking on me, but just in case there is any doubt... that is not what I said, or at least not what I meant.

My main argument is that government not "might be wrong", they are definitely wrong, what they want to do objectively does not address the issue regardless what people choose to believe.

As for scienience I didn't say "they might be wrong" either - I said two things - 1) scienience that we have is inconclusive 2) science we have suggests that key climate outcomes (like melting of glaciers and temperature rise) are natural and will happen without human contribution.

Finally, I said man made emissions are currently about 2% of total, but 90% of excess... So I never said they have no meaningful effect. Whenever I care about effects, or whenever I think they are bad, that is different question.

Isn't it though? You did start by saying how such things affected your lifestyle, but maybe I'm reading between the lines too much.

That said, if the solution to climate change resulted in nothing more than removing the power the oil companies have held for so long, and replacing it with a cheaper alternative, that lowered your costs, and improved your lifestyle at best, or left you at break even at worst, would you be nitpicking the science so much?

As for your points, if you want to be picky, a lot of science is inconclusive if you want a degree of 100% certainty, and so we have always had to act on the best available evidence. Gravity is only a theory, which we don't fully understand, and so base our actions on the visible effects. You wouldn't jump off a building just because the theoery is inconclusive.

Also, whilst science suggests that heating and cooling happen naturally, without human intervention, that's not the point. What matters is whether human intervention accelerates that process to a damaging degree, and science claims that it does. Using the former as an excuse to do nothing is akin to saying that science has proven that we will die, no matter what we do, and so there's no point not smoking, wearing seatbelts or even making murder a crime.

 

[Boomer54]

1 minute ago, Bluemarlin said:

Indeed, who cared about 15% mortgage rates when we had Prince Andrew taking on the Argentinians single handedly 🙂

I think you meant "taking on the Argentinian women single handedly" with the occasional time out for a good Malbec.