Originally Posted by James50

I have found in my life that that kind of moral certainty is destructive of people and relationships. I don't recommend it as a life strategy.

There's a difference between moral certainty and factual certainty. When, for example, someone asserts creationism over evolution as an explanation for the origin of man, I am not making a moral claim -- not accusing the person of doing anything evil -- when I say that he or she is simply flat-out wrong. That's a matter of demonstrable fact.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Well nothing is going to happen at flank speed. Twenty years from now the energy mix will not be too different from what it is now. Same thing will be the case in 40 years if the world continues to function as it has. So what you fear is going to happen. What exactly do you fear?

I fear the India effect. India knows what it needs to do to be the next China, but culturally, it can't manage to make it happen. We have the same problem, what Churchill meant when he said Americans get it right after trying everything else first. I'm not sure that we can wait for that process this time.

So what happens in 30 or 40 years if climate change accelerates, and the impacts move from the theoretical future to the very real present? How, for example, would we deal with a new Dust Bowl while we already have a depleting energy situation that calls for "using all the coal supply we can tap!" The two are obviously incompatible, but we'll chose one option or the other.

If it happens then, it'll be in a 2T. I'm not sure how that would play. If forced, I'll bet on denial and coal, though I'm not likley to see it personally.

Originally Posted by James50

I have found in my life that that kind of moral certainty is destructive of people and relationships. I don't recommend it as a life strategy.

James50

True, but neither can one effectively live in a world without principle or some sense of moral certainty. Moral relativism can be dangerous as well. At some point, a person needs to draw lines to function, and a society needs to do the same.

In fact, some pretty persuasively trace many of our current predicaments to the lack of any principles save returning value to shareholders.

Originally Posted by James50

Forever is a long time. I know you mean well, but I really hope you will use your head as well as your heart. If life on earth is threatened in the way you say (and I don't think it is), we are doomed already. Nothing is going to change that fast. Just to take utilities as one example, they have to make plans out 50 years. Siting new plants of any kind can take decades. The folks I know tasked with this responsibility just laugh when anyone talks about major changes to the grid system in anything less than 20 years.

James50

It seems you are arguing for all due haste in more concrete terms than Eric. Let's agree that some of the delay is NIMBYism, but a lot is just necessary planning and execution time. Saying it's hard and will take a long time makes it more not less important to start now.

But where is the will? The Tea Party thinks we can go back to 1965, and all will be well. We may even try it. If so, then the urgency will rise until it becomes obvious that doing nothing is the worst choice. Then, it really could be too late.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... Twenty years from now the energy mix will not be too different from what it is now...

Let me address this separately. In 20 years, things can change. There are options out there that have been ignored as too expesive or impractical for political reasons, but could be brought on line quickly if the will is there. Here's an example that's local to me. The design group is located less than a half mile from my office.

These reactors are intended to be factory built and delivered by rail.

Originally Posted by MillieJim

True, but neither can one effectively live in a world without principle or some sense of moral certainty. Moral relativism can be dangerous as well. At some point, a person needs to draw lines to function, and a society needs to do the same.

In fact, some pretty persuasively trace many of our current predicaments to the lack of any principles save returning value to shareholders.

I am not a post-modernist in that I believe there is an objective truth. But even if you believe that you can have difficulty with both discernment and persuasion. While there is truth, you should never assume you can know it entirely. Also, you may be unable to persuade others of the truth you can discern. So hold on to what truth you have, but do it compassionately and humbly. Never forget that everyone you meet is engaged in a terrible battle.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The gratuitous put downs do get tiresome. There is big world outside California, and it is not populated by drooling sub-humans, but rather your fellow countrymen.

James50

It is not my best tactic, I am sure. (although I said, you don't get the right info; I didn't say "you are fools"). I wonder, however, if they will be my fellow countrymen after the 2020s; you guys are so stuck in outdated ideas, from the point of view of some of us blues. But I am optimistic we CAN come together. Naturally, I think you guys need to get more up to date for that to happen.

Why do you folks in the red states seem to be routinely so in favor of blocking the change that we in the blue states think we need? Why do you guys elect such fools to public office?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Let's agree that some of the delay is NIMBYism, but a lot is just necessary planning and execution time. Saying it's hard and will take a long time makes it more not less important to start now.

Nothing New, I stated this a month ago. Planning is a necessity for the execution of Green Economic technology.

Originally Posted by James50

I think you make my point. What you call "reactionary" is just your interpretation of what the engineers say can be done. CA still imports a lot of coal power from outside the state, depends on natural gas to stabilize the grid, and has some of the highest power rates in the country so don't get too high on your horse.


James50

No, PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) is reactionary because they routinely do things like sponsor initiatives against public power (the current prop.16, for example). They take the money they charge us in their bills, and use it to sponsor intiatives with huge ad campaigns that merely guarantee their own monopoly. Thus our high rates. That's what I call reactionary, and they do it frequently. They have been slow to change too, of course, but they ARE changing their sources of power. Even so, my utility bills are reasonable because I conserve and get discounts for doing it.

PG&E has switched a lot to natural gas, which emits half the greenhouse of coal, but renewables are growing too. PG&E is northern CA; SoCal Edison is slower to switch, and I don't have figures for them (I get PG&E's figures in the mail); but PG&E only gets 1% of its energy from coal. If one half of the state's private power monopoly can switch, so can the other half's-- except that the people in SoCal are more Republican. But what PG&E did is a good start and a good switch. The fact that one company that works in a more liberal area is switching, while the one that works in a more conservative one is not, speaks volumes. It is not primarily an engineering issue. We have the tech; let's get moving. We don't have the right to kill other species by stalling with free-market shibboleths.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why do you guys elect such fools to public office?

This is a joke right? Somebody from California complaining about fools in public office? The state with the lowest bond rating in the country, the most dysfunctional political apparatus in the country, one of the largest public deficits, the most nanny state rules, the most unrealistic pension system, and a former actor for governor?

We may elect people who do not believe in evolution, but at least we have majority rule and can balance our checkbook.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

This is a joke right? Somebody from California complaining about fools in public office? The state with the lowest bond rating in the country, the most dysfunctional political apparatus in the country, one of the largest public deficits, the most nanny state rules, the most unrealistic pension system, and a former actor for governor?

We may elect people who do not believe in evolution, but at least we have majority rule and can balance our checkbook.

James50

Well, touche. I'm thinking of folks on the national scene like Bush, Gingrich or Sarah Palin, etc. All the uniformly reactionary Republicans that you guys send to Congress. The people you vote for for president.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Naturally, I think you guys need to get more up to date for that to happen.

We all need to be willing to change.

James50

No-analog bird communities in California

More on No Analog communities

climate change and agriculture

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There's a difference between moral certainty and factual certainty. When, for example, someone asserts creationism over evolution as an explanation for the origin of man, I am not making a moral claim -- not accusing the person of doing anything evil -- when I say that he or she is simply flat-out wrong. That's a matter of demonstrable fact.

Exactly. I don't know where James got the moral part, from. In fact Morality is something that has come to bother me a lot lately, because it is becoming clear to me based on what I have read about the psychology of ethical decisions and my own personal experience with the behavior of others that it seems that all moral arguments are inherently rationalizations of non-rational feelings and sentiments. I believe that is what ethicists call Emotivism.

Originally Posted by Odin

Exactly. I don't know where James got the moral part, from.

Just because they are fellow citizens, doesn't mean they aren't dead wrong!

Maybe I should ignore the emotivism or maybe I am just used to judgmental boomer-speak, but this sounded like more than a factual disagreement.

Even with facts, particularly complicated facts like global warming, I think we should be a little humble. We think we know it is going to be bad, but the people doing the models admit the complexity of the undertaking. Perhaps you feel absolute certainty about every aspect of what the future holds for earth's climate. I don't and will want continual reassurance from the data that we are on the right path.

my own personal experience with the behavior of others that it seems that all moral arguments are inherently rationalizations of non-rational feelings and sentiments

Hey - welcome to the human race! Surely you are not saying your own decision making is emotionless. If you do think you are emotionless, I suggest you read back over your own posting history. I have. You do not hesitate to inform your facts with emotion. Like I said, you sound more like a boomer than a millie.

James50

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It is not my best tactic, I am sure. (although I said, you don't get the right info; I didn't say "you are fools"). I wonder, however, if they will be my fellow countrymen after the 2020s; you guys are so stuck in outdated ideas, from the point of view of some of us blues. But I am optimistic we CAN come together. Naturally, I think you guys need to get more up to date for that to happen.

Why do you folks in the red states seem to be routinely so in favor of blocking the change that we in the blue states think we need? Why do you guys elect such fools to public office?

No offense, Eric, but you're living in probably the most broken state in the nation. You have a totally dysfunctional state constitution that allows anyone with money to get initiatives placed on the ballot that, when passed, make 2/3 the new majority for everything.

You guys need an initiative to eliminate the initiative process and to repeal all those previously passed. You've lost control of your government, and you need to get it back ... soon.

No one can run California anymore.

Originally Posted by James50

Even with facts, particularly complicated facts like global warming, I think we should be a little humble. We think we know it is going to be bad, but the people doing the models admit the complexity of the undertaking. Perhaps you feel absolute certainty about every aspect of what the future holds for earth's climate. I don't and will want continual reassurance from the data that we are on the right path.

Well this Australian article fits very well what I think.

Climate debate 'almost infantile'

A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as ''almost infantile'', equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science - that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions - should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

''It's a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals - and they have been disproved,'' Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection's Future Summit.

''Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether 'is it real or isn't it real?', it's like saying, 'Is the Earth round or is it flat?' [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.'' He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise.

Professor Steffen, the executive director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute, was appointed a science adviser by the Howard government in 2004. He has advised Labor's Penny Wong and the Coalition's Ian Campbell and Malcolm Turnbull.

Asked about the scepticism of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, he said scientists respected leaders from both sides of politics who showed respect for scientific expertise.

''You can have a very partisan approach to the policy and how you deal with it - that's fair game - but I think a wise society would respect the judgment of its experts, bearing in mind that that judgment is continually debated within [the scientific community],'' he said.

The belief in the experts continues to decline. This is the danger of a message that is too alarmist. You can rail against ignorance, the oil companies, or any other convenient target, but climate change is losing the PR battle.
--
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

more here:http://bit.ly/dgUU1n

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Even with facts, particularly complicated facts like global warming, I think we should be a little humble. We think we know it is going to be bad, but the people doing the models admit the complexity of the undertaking. Perhaps you feel absolute certainty about every aspect of what the future holds for earth's climate.

That's irrelevant to the controversy, which is over the big picture non-questions of whether the earth is warming, whether it's due to what we are doing, and whether the results will be bad. It is, it is, and they will. Those are the factual answers, and anyone suggesting to the contrary is plain flat-out wrong, just as a creationist is.

Or lying. The original sources of the continued controversy are lying, but I think a lot of those who pass on the message are simply wrong.

Sure, climate is a complex system and when you get down to specific predictions of how much warming and what exactly will happen where as a result, there's a lot of uncertainty. But the debate isn't about those small-scale specifics. It's about the big picture, and it's between those who know and those who are ignorant. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by James50

The belief in the experts continues to decline. This is the danger of a message that is too alarmist. You can rail against ignorance, the oil companies, or any other convenient target, but climate change is losing the PR battle.
--
A survey in February by the BBC found that only 26 percent of Britons believed that “climate change is happening and is now established as largely manmade,” down from 41 percent in November 2009. A poll conducted for the German magazine Der Spiegel found that 42 percent of Germans feared global warming, down from 62 percent four years earlier.

more here:http://bit.ly/dgUU1n

James50

If climate scientists are predicting doom, yet we fail to listen, where is the fault? After all, Cassandra was right about the Trojan Horse.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's irrelevant to the controversy, which is over the big picture non-questions of whether the earth is warming, whether it's due to what we are doing, and whether the results will be bad. It is, it is, and they will. Those are the factual answers, and anyone suggesting to the contrary is plain flat-out wrong, just as a creationist is.

Or lying. The original sources of the continued controversy are lying, but I think a lot of those who pass on the message are simply wrong.

Sure, climate is a complex system and when you get down to specific predictions of how much warming and what exactly will happen where as a result, there's a lot of uncertainty. But the debate isn't about those small-scale specifics. It's about the big picture, and it's between those who know and those who are ignorant. Simple as that.

Much of the debate is in fact focusing on various details in order to attack the big picture. Indeed I think it is a death by a thousand cuts. The basic argument of the experts is one of authority. "We have studied it. You should believe us." This appeal to authority is what made the CRU emails so devastating. The folks at CRU were portrayed to be petty little people who could not be trusted. If you are going to appeal to authority, you better be sure the authorities are believable.

The debate is about small scale specifics and if you want to defeat the skeptics you had better be able to argue with them. Another example of how badly things are going is the recent Oxford debate which was won by the skeptics. http://bit.ly/aLo8gy

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Much of the debate is in fact focusing on various details in order to attack the big picture. Indeed I think it is a death by a thousand cuts.

It's fundamentally dishonest, though. There is simply no reasonable doubt about the basic questions involved, and none of the small stuff, no matter how it's interpreted, can possibly change that.

The basic argument of the experts is one of authority. "We have studied it. You should believe us." This appeal to authority is what made the CRU emails so devastating.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Look, the argument goes like this.

1) We know the earth is warming because the measurements of global temperature and observations of secondary phenomena (melting glaciers, migration of habitat, severity of tropical storms, etc.) confirm it.

2) We know that increasing the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will warm the planet because that's basic physics.

3) We know that we have been increasing the partial pressure of greenhouse gasis in the atmosphere because that's basic history and common knowledge.

4) It is therefore a reasonable conclusion that we are warming the planet.

5) Models of warming show that there is a very high likelihood that human activity is responsible for the warming that we see. Predictions based on natural forcing fail to conform to measurement, while predictions based on a combination of natural forcing and human forcing come very close.

None of this rests on "appeal to authority." None of it. The only people who must resort to such appeals are those ignorant of the science involved even on a well-educated lay-person's level, which is what I have.

As far as public perception is concerned, of course, you may be right. But if so, that only reaffirms yet again that people are stupid. Those who feel or think that way are wrong. End of story.

The debate is about small scale specifics and if you want to defeat the skeptics you had better be able to argue with them.

The debate is NOT about small-scale specifics except when the skeptics manage to turn the discussion into an arena where they can sow confusion because some uncertainty exists. If we allow it to become about small-scale specifics we have already lost.

So I repeat: about the big picture questions, which are the only ones that matter for public-policy purposes, there is no uncertainty, and the skeptics (the honest ones anyway, which are usually ignorant people) are demonstrably and completely wrong.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's fundamentally dishonest, though. There is simply no reasonable doubt about the basic questions involved, and none of the small stuff, no matter how it's interpreted, can possibly change that.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Look, the argument goes like this.

1) We know the earth is warming because the measurements of global temperature and observations of secondary phenomena (melting glaciers, migration of habitat, severity of tropical storms, etc.) confirm it.

2) We know that increasing the partial pressure of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will warm the planet because that's basic physics.

3) We know that we have been increasing the partial pressure of greenhouse gasis in the atmosphere because that's basic history and common knowledge.

4) It is therefore a reasonable conclusion that we are warming the planet.

5) Models of warming show that there is a very high likelihood that human activity is responsible for the warming that we see. Predictions based on natural forcing fail to conform to measurement, while predictions based on a combination of natural forcing and human forcing come very close.

None of this rests on "appeal to authority." None of it. The only people who must resort to such appeals are those ignorant of the science involved even on a well-educated lay-person's level, which is what I have.

As far as public perception is concerned, of course, you may be right. But if so, that only reaffirms yet again that people are stupid. Those who feel or think that way are wrong. End of story.



The debate is NOT about small-scale specifics except when the skeptics manage to turn the discussion into an arena where they can sow confusion because some uncertainty exists. If we allow it to become about small-scale specifics we have already lost.

So I repeat: about the big picture questions, which are the only ones that matter for public-policy purposes, there is no uncertainty, and the skeptics (the honest ones anyway, which are usually ignorant people) are demonstrably and completely wrong.

I was not talking about what was fact only what was perception. I don't think I am unfamiliar with the facts. You can denounce whomever you want, but the experts are losing the PR battle.

You have not talked about what I feel I must take on authority which is the climate record. It is important to know not only that it is warming, but also that there is something historically significant about the warming. This is been the most damaging public relations issue.

James50

I have to admit - you are the most fun to joust with of anyone on the forum. I don't think I have ever run across anyone not a religious fundamentalist so sure of nearly everything. Your favorite pronouncement is the word "wrong". Sorta of a uber-Boomer. I am in awe.