I can't wait to read some of the comments that'll pop up on this discussion board! There'll be the big word folks who want to sound smart, the rude folks calling others "retarded", the conspiracy folks who think science is a scam....maybe none of us are as smart as we think we are!
shareI'm personally waiting for the usual Subject headers like:
More Liberal Lies
Yet Another Paranoid Liberal With Too Much Time On Their Hands
Liberal Propaganda
Why Can't Liberals Wake Up?
And of course, what would any climate debate be without the always popular:
If you don't want a world with oil then stop driving your cars to the theatre to see this movie.
Oh the sheer brilliance on its way!!
There was no global warming January 1997 to August 2015 according to analysis of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) findings by famous climate-change denier Christopher Monckton. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/
If so then one explanation would be that measures to contain climate change by reducing humanity's greenhouse gas emissions initiated soon after the big 1992 UN summit on climate change seemed to have paid off. Let's keep up the good work, everyone.
The problem with Klein's thesis is she walks right into the trap of the climate deniers by resting the entire necessity for change on the climate crisis when in fact we need to change regardless of climate change. The alternative is straight up better than the status quo. She is also poor on understanding the science of the solutions.
shareHi there, that's an excellent reply thanks.... Could you expand on that a bit for me? I'm in agreement with you, but I'd like to know what else you thought of the documentary.
Cheers!
... "by resting the entire necessity for change on the climate crisis when in fact we need to change regardless of climate change."
I think you did miss her point then. I think for her climate change is just another crisis caused by capitalism, and that we have every reason to use this crisis to build a better world. (we have no choice to change in fact, but it is better to use the crisis to get rid of the inequalities)
Her arguments are not that much scientific because she accuse the wasting nature of capitalism as the reason why climate change is happening. The trap is actually to fall into the science charabia, when in fact an economic system with unlimited growth will always catch up to all the emission reduction we manage to do. She praises China and the people who are fighting the ones who want to expend our production more and more, while explaining the simple flaws of our system.
On the contrary, I think we got lost way to much into the science of everything about solutions to climate change. Our solution research never included a serious questioning of our way of life and economic system. I think on that matter Klein is ahead of everyone and does give examples of people fighting back and understanding the dynamics of things.
Sustainable development is not useful if we continue to waste resources just to make an economic system survive.
π± <don't forget them, lol
π¬π§πΊπΈ
For those who've seen it, does Klein . . . .
(a) mention that we're overdue for the next ice age (they run in regular cycles), and that maybe GW (whether man-made or not) could be a good thing (when compared to the alternative)?
(b) mention that science funding used to be ~25% done by government/~75% from private sources, but that after WWII (due to the spectacular success of the Manhattan project) those ratios got swapped? I mention this because contemporary privately-/industry-sponsored science is routinely smeared due to the potential for bias that can come from financing by economically-vested interests (in petro proliferation) . . . . but nobody mentions that government-sponsored science has similar biases (AGW-alarmism gives government license to grab more power over people and their economy; thus, scientists who don't ring the fire bell over AGW get their funding denied).
(c) talk about how the climate science models are good at modeling one out of three methods heat moves from one place to another, but not the other 2 methods? Nor do they model the net carbon transfer between the atmosphere and different kinds of biomass (= the second largest carbon reservoir on Earth), something scientists are only now trying to measure (as a function plant type and root-to-shoot ratio). This opens up whole new ways of handling the AGW problem, but those ways don't involve carbon taxes or rationing or any of the other standard solutions that give government more invasive powers over the population.
Just askin'.
She doesn't mention any of that... nope!
1 - The fact that we are "due" for an Ice Age doesn't change anything, since waiting for it to happen to conter-balance climate change is like playing at russian roulette. We can't be sure it will be there in the next decade, or the next millenium. Waiting my cause our undoing.
2 - Private sector scientific funding mostly fund product research. It isn't 75% research on climate change at all... It is funny to see how much of it was done by oil company to keep the statu-quo by denying it, not to really see the effect of GW, which we can't deny exist.
3 - The thing is... GW isn't just about where the carbon dioxide comes from. Klein is looking at things in a much different and simpler way. Our ever growing cunsumption will always catch up in the long term to any solution we can find to reduce the emission. It is simple math. Non-stop growth will always lead to too-much groth. That's it. Capitalism will detroy us one day. It can be in 10 years, or in 1000 years. It doesn't matter if the plants emits more of that or that...
Government-sponsored science could of course be biased, but I don't know why you're assuming that the government would be on the side of GW "alarmism". We're fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, with Republicans currently having the upper hand in Congress. Why would this state of affairs favor GW alarmism?
It's also naive to think that Democrats want to "grab more power over people and their economy" while Republicans don't. Both sides want control, but they want to control different things. Democrats, at least the good ones, want to control corporations in order to protect the people, while Repubs want to protect corporations, calling this freedom while at the same time trying to restrict the rights of women, gays, unions, etc.