Jump to content
Rippounet

What should be done... about climate change

Recommended Posts

You'd think the media was doing a decent job at informing people about climate change...
But apparently not.
 

Quote

 

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/media-creates-false-balance-climate-science-study-shows

The American media lends too much weight to people who dismiss climate change, giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned, posing serious danger to efforts aimed at raising public awareness and motivating rapid action, a new study shows.

While it is not uncommon for media outlets to interview climate change scientists and climate change deniers in the same interviews, the effort to offer a 360-degree view is creating a false balance between trained climate scientists and those who lack scientific training, such as politicians.

“It’s not just false balance; the numbers show that the media are ‘balancing’ experts — who represent the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists — with the views of a relative handful of non-experts,” UC Merced professor LeRoy Westerling said. “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.”

 

If anyone wants to read the original study published in Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

He's assuming a lot of mis-identifications...

I think he's mostly pointing out the difference between some scientists' public stance (say, Curry, Pielke) and their research.

Oh, and Denning, who is clearly wrongly placed. But that's more of an innocent error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, and sorry that I didn't think of it earlier, but for those who do not follow the climate debate much online, Andthentheresphysics is an alias for Ken Rice

If anyone wondered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This is the ONLY acceptable way for ANY media to treat ALL climate change deniers! 

Fuck portraying it as a "equal time" debate, to do so is just a ridiculously false narrative.

Edited by DireWolfSpirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short interview here with David Wallace-Wells who's been all over this topic for a while.  

 

 

Quote

 

You’re hopeful that technologies like geoengineering and carbon capture will play a significant role in mitigating temperature rise. Some environmentalists and scientists argue that these unproven methods can’t bail us out, and that they give licence to the fossil fuel industry to carry on polluting… 
I look at the science and say if we’re defining a comfortable world [as] staying below two degrees of warming, I just don’t think that there’s any way we can achieve that without a really quite dramatic amount of negative emissions.

 
But I’m also very mindful that there is a pervasive techno-optimistic view – especially among wealthy Americans – that we can just invent something and it will solve the problem.

The UN says we need to halve global emissions by 2030 to avoid catastrophic warming. We’re really deeply deluded about how quickly new technology can scale and can be deployed. We’re far from having a 747 flying on a zero-carbon fuel.

We can agree to decarbonise – rethink our agriculture, aim for a meatless diet and so on – but we don’t live in a global, centralised command-and-control economy. Every country has its own political interests. How do you make the world take collective action? 
That’s harder than the technological problem. There are many cases of what I think of as climate hypocrisy, for example, Canada declaring a climate emergency and then the very next day approving a new oil pipeline.

Each individual nation could be quite aggressive in their decarbonisation and yet be living through the exact same climate that there would be if they took no action unless the rest of the world followed suit. No major industrial nation is on track to meet its commitments under Paris.

My own hope is that I see almost half of our global emissions being produced by two countries – the US and China. Maybe it’s naive, but I hope a cooperative pact can be reached between the two countries like the nuclear non-proliferation agreements that were made between the US and Russia in the cold war. The two nations remained rivals but were nevertheless jointly committed to protecting the planet from an existential threat.

If the US and China really took aggressive leadership on this issue, the collective action problem would become less important – the world’s most powerful countries have a way of bending the will of the less powerful.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

One child policy for most countries.

Reproductive freedom works both ways. Women have the right to choose to give birth to multiple babies, just as they have the right to choose to have none. You don't get to make that choice for them, any more than Ted Cruz does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumps anti-hurricane strategy:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-floated-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-report/ar-AAGjFxv?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR34j_J8UQhWRJ7rnrkFtp744ix1SBxV8PR4YdheHYzQ1v1yHyi03xneNfo

 

President Trump has floated dropping nuclear bombs into hurricanes to stop them from hitting the United States in meetings with Homeland Security and national security officials, Axios reported Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Because dispersing radioactive material into a storm system that will scatter it over half/your entire country/half the world (I'm sure its somewhere in this range) is an excellent idea. Even if it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

One child policy for most countries.

You realize what that did in China? Killing baby girls, guys kidnapping and force-marrying women from neighboring countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cba googling, but isnt most of the west already at a one child policy in practice? Not counting immigration of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Cba googling, but isnt most of the west already at a one child policy in practice? Not counting immigration of course.

Personal preference isnt the same as a policy/law, so not really no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Personal preference isnt the same as a policy/law, so not really no

I guess i was unclear. Arent we already at about 1 child/couple, so at least in the west, no such law is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mikael said:

I guess i was unclear. Arent we already at about 1 child/couple, so at least in the west, no such law is needed.

Not quite. I think Italy at about 1,2 is lowest, and up to 1,7/1,8 for other Western European countries.

ETA: Wiki says Spain is lowes, at 1,3. No Western European country above 1,8

Edited by Rorshach
Checking is nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The countries that would need a one (or 2-3 instead of 5-7, for starters) child policy won't have one (and not be able to enforce it anyway, many being on the brink of being failed states), and as has been said, most of the West is in practice almost there. This is not going to work and some of the more radical proposals of this kind obviously beg the question what the "saving of the world" should be good for, if not for our children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×