Is climate change real? [Archive]

spartan

21st July 2008, 23:32

I was speaking with my dad about this and he reckons that this climate change lark is just a way for politicians to get more money out of us with green taxes etc.

Some points he made was how "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" without any sort of explaination for this significant change in terminology.

My dad reckons that as evidence for the warming up of the enviroment was proving to be quite elusive the powers that be were forced to suddenly change tact and call all our weather problems "climate change" as things were getting colder in typically warm seasons instead of getting warmer and warmer and more eratic as they had predicted would happen.

He says that weather wise nothing major has changed for him and said that seasons were rarely ever predictable even in his youth (He is 57).

He also says that climate change is a perfect excuse for politicians to make more money out of us by introducing green taxes especially when it comes to automobiles.

He said that if the powers that be were so concerned about climate change why then dont they stop the selling of cars which are earmarked as one of the major polluters contributing to global climate change?

Failing that why dont they force the carmakers to only build electric powered cars or cars with hybrid motors to cut down on emissions?

Dont get me wrong i still believe that we are harming our enviroment by pumping too much greenhouse gasses into our enviroment which has the result of speeding up the earth's natural warming up cycle that takes place every few centuries, but his observations have raised some doubts in my mind.

One possible explaination for the automobile thingy is that an economic system like Capitalism simply wont allow such a drastic action like stopping the sale of cars to cut down on emissions, though i never raised this with him (Forgot).

Kami

21st July 2008, 23:47

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)
Yes, it is. I apologise, but your dad is simply wrong about not much happening since his youth.
The only question we can really discuss is whether global warming is anthropogenic, that is, whether humans are responsible. The world is getting warmer, but are we the cause?

He said that if the powers that be were so concerned about climate change why then dont they stop the selling of cars which are earmarked as one of the major polluters contributing to global climate change?

Failing that why dont they force the carmakers to only build electric powered cars or cars with hybrid motors to cut down on emissions?
Because these arsehats can't get on the bad side of corporations. Measures are being taken, but the governments simply aren't willing to anger people; after all, they depend on them for much of their own power.

Vanguard1917

22nd July 2008, 01:06

Decolonize The Left

22nd July 2008, 02:04

I was speaking with my dad about this and he reckons that this climate change lark is just a way for politicians to get more money out of us with green taxes etc.

Some points he made was how "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" without any sort of explaination for this significant change in terminology.

The terminology changed because the planet goes through natural warming/cooling cycles. Therefore the phrase "global warming" took a lot of flak from capitalists who didn't want to change their habits, and consumers who didn't want to face the facts. So the phrase "global climate change" was adopted in order to better explain the reality of the situation. An even better phrase is "global climate destabilization."

My dad reckons that as evidence for the warming up of the enviroment was proving to be quite elusive the powers that be were forced to suddenly change tact and call all our weather problems "climate change" as things were getting colder in typically warm seasons instead of getting warmer and warmer and more eratic as they had predicted would happen.

I believe the graph provided by Kami depicts the problem we are facing fairly simply. Furthermore, weather patterns are becoming more erratic, though on a very very slow process. We are noticing more 'extreme' weather across the globe, with the recent hundreds of forest fires in California caused by 'dry lightning.' Read: increased global temperatures making the forests less moist, more susceptible to lightning.

He says that weather wise nothing major has changed for him and said that seasons were rarely ever predictable even in his youth (He is 57).

Global climate destabilization does not occur immediately, but gradually.

He said that if the powers that be were so concerned about climate change why then dont they stop the selling of cars which are earmarked as one of the major polluters contributing to global climate change?

Capitalism?

Failing that why dont they force the carmakers to only build electric powered cars or cars with hybrid motors to cut down on emissions?

Capitalism?

- August

jake williams

22nd July 2008, 03:06

(When I refer to "climate change", many of the things I'm talking about also refer pretty well to similar environmental challenges and catastrophes. Climate change is in a lot of ways just an example.)

Climate change is an extremely complex science that generally entails results involving a high degree of uncertainty. Given this, the unanimity among reliable experts (ie. people who actually understand the science, and those who aren't whores) is extremely surprising, but I think lends a lot of credibility to the notions that the climate in general is becoming both warmer and more erratic, and that humans are at least partly responsible for this.

While this is not Absolute Truth, it is our best guess, period, and it is this best guess upon which we must act. Suppose you've got a very high intake of a particular substance, and while biochemistry is a very complex science, virtually all experts think it is highly toxic. Even if this substance is very important in your life, acting on the best information you have, you stop using it, unless you think continued use is worth the price. And continuing the behaviour we think is causing climate change is not worth the price.

I think that in general climate change - both the truth and its perception - are very, very bad for capitalism, as an ideology and as a practice. You see strains of "ecocapitalism" and "right environmentalism", based on three sorts of factors. First, trying to subvert the environmentalist movement away from revolutionary goals, as it can often radicalize, and towards goals more accepting of capitalism. Second, a lot of capitalists are recognizing the extreme danger of current practices and are advocating environmentalism sincerely, in the interests of saving the world for global capitalism. Third, a lot are very small minded and are simply thinking of making a buck in newly emerging industries like solar energy. But as I said though, I think in general this is bad for capitalism. It causes, for people who think, a very sharp questioning about the realities of our capitalist world and its effects. It can have strong radicalizing effects.

The fact that fighting climate change will harm at least some aspects of the lives of at least the wealthy countries' working class is an ugly fact we have to confront. One will see working class resistance, I'd guess, to heavy measures such as banning private motor transport, or even light measures like a carbon tax. These policies should be carried out anyway, insofar as they're necessary for the prevention of mass destruction and death, which I think they are. This isn't fun for leftists to deal with, but it's what we're facing. It doesn't mean that climate change is somehow a fraud set up to attack workers, it isn't at all, and it's one of those dangerous but somewhat understandable myths oppressed communities can concoct.

spartan

22nd July 2008, 03:14

jake williams

22nd July 2008, 03:52

I forgot to add that my dad also believes that the effects of co2 emissions on our atmosphere is being deliberately overblown to create mass hysteria and that our atmosphere can more than deal with it.
Does he have his doctorate in climate science? Has he at least gone through the process of trying to and decided that climate scientists are engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to devalue their own field in order to attempt at, very riskily, some narrow political goals?

spartan

22nd July 2008, 04:09

Does he have his doctorate in climate science? Has he at least gone through the process of trying to and decided that climate scientists are engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to devalue their own field in order to attempt at, very riskily, some narrow political goals?

No he hasn't done anything connected with climate science as far as i am aware though i dont think that's important.

Climate change has become a stick to beat anyone who disagrees with it. For instance Channel 4 (A UK TV network) has been attacked by a TV standards group because of it's airing of a program which suggested that man made climate change wasn't man made at all and that recent climate changes didn't prove anything except that the earth was going through a natural warming cycle like it has done at various times throughout history.

Now i believe that the earth is warming up because of the actions of man but i aint going to start deliberately marginalising people who dont believe this and who have very real concerns about how the political and corporate elite have suddenly hijacked enviromentalism for whatever reasons they have.

Do you not find it suspcious that all the mainstream politicians, corporate people and scientists have all ganged up together on this single issue? I seem to remember something similar happening with the Y2K thing at the turn of the millenium (Remember that? Seems to be conveniantly forgotten) where all technology would stop working or something stupid.

I think that it would be silly of us not to discount the theory that climate change might be something deliberately taken out of context (Earth going through a natural warming cycle) by the powers that be to create mass hysteria, allow more repressive laws to be passed and to make more money through green taxes etc.

Kami

22nd July 2008, 04:49

Do you not find it suspcious that all the mainstream politicians, corporate people and scientists have all ganged up together on this single issue? I seem to remember something similar happening with the Y2K thing at the turn of the millenium (Remember that? Seems to be conveniantly forgotten) where all technology would stop working or something stupid.

No, I don't find it suspicious. Having a habitable planet is within their interests as well as ours. In fact, the variety you've stated there (particuarly scientists) lends credibility rather than detracts. The thing is, if global warming is anthropogenic (as is almost certain), then mass suport is going to be needed to combat it. I might not agree with supressing people's views in this situation, but I can see the logic behind doing it.
As for the Y2K bug, that's just what is was - a bug. It had the potential to cause masive disruptions in a lot of fields, but because the importance was emphasised, everything was patched up and it came to nothing, a few isolated incidents aside.

Zurdito

22nd July 2008, 06:55

I read about that documentary, atually what he got in toruble for was inventing statistics which turned out to be lies, and re-editing interviews to make people look like they said the opposite of what they really said.

Sendo

23rd July 2008, 17:42

Well, as Kami's graph shows, there has been a rise in temperatures in the last 120 years or so - by around 0.5-0.8 degree celsius. This is empirical fact. I think the important thing for us is what kinds of political outcomes we draw from this.

I think there are essentially two main possible outcomes.

i) We call for industrial development to be slowed down and for human progress to be restrained. This is, of course, the mainstream position, the position of environmentalism, the current ideology of the ruling class, especially in the West. It is a deeply conservative position, and it conveniently excuses capitalism not being able to bring about the kind of economic development that the world requires. Unfortunately, the bulk of the Western left currently tail-ends this capitalist position.

(ii) The second option is to take a radical and progressive position: to point out that, contrary to what the environmentalists say, it is precisely the more developed a society is (economically, technologically and socially), that the better equipped it is to deal with natural threats, including changes in climate. We explain that capitalism stands in the way of the development of our productive and creative capabilites, which undermines our mastery of our natural surroundings, and thus makes us vulnerable to nature's caprice. This is the revolutionary position because it exposes capitalism's inherent shortcomings, unlike the previous position, which actively serves to excuse them.

Capitalism is simply physically unsustainable. It depends on exponential growth in a finite world. But this does not mean that we have to slow down development. There are inherent improvements in the socialist model: Public transit and decreased waste being the most obvious. You'd have cooperation instead of competition. And no more 50-minute commutes to work.

Agriculturally we could practice localized organic farming which would improve the quality of life for everyone. I suggest looking into what permaculture is. Try to imagine on a basic level, using rooftop gardens to grow veggies. Some of this happens even within capitalist countries.

You would also see the explosion of green technology. Right now, commodified, centrally-controlled, free for speculation fuels like coal and petroleum are king. Capitalism has a vested interest in keeping us driving our own personal SUVs for as long as possible. And now using corn ethanol to fuel them. Corn ethanol is extremely inefficient to make and very draining on soil in the monoculture farms of the Midwest.

Decolonize The Left

23rd July 2008, 20:13

No he hasn't done anything connected with climate science as far as i am aware though i dont think that's important.

Climate change has become a stick to beat anyone who disagrees with it. For instance Channel 4 (A UK TV network) has been attacked by a TV standards group because of it's airing of a program which suggested that man made climate change wasn't man made at all and that recent climate changes didn't prove anything except that the earth was going through a natural warming cycle like it has done at various times throughout history.

But these people who argue that this is merely a 'warming cycle' are wrong...

Now i believe that the earth is warming up because of the actions of man but i aint going to start deliberately marginalising people who dont believe this and who have very real concerns about how the political and corporate elite have suddenly hijacked enviromentalism for whatever reasons they have.

I respect your skepticism, and I agree with your suspicions. One should always question the motives of authority figures and those with lots of economic and political power. But, on the other hand, this can't be debated any longer. If we don't have ice caps in 30 years, we're screwed. I'll go into detail as to why we screwed later if you wish.

Do you not find it suspcious that all the mainstream politicians, corporate people and scientists have all ganged up together on this single issue? I seem to remember something similar happening with the Y2K thing at the turn of the millenium (Remember that? Seems to be conveniantly forgotten) where all technology would stop working or something stupid.

Y2K pales in comparison to global climate destabilization. Y2K was a worry over computers, global climate destabilization is about have a habitable planet.

I think that it would be silly of us not to discount the theory that climate change might be something deliberately taken out of context (Earth going through a natural warming cycle) by the powers that be to create mass hysteria, allow more repressive laws to be passed and to make more money through green taxes etc.

If it were only politicians who were talking about it, you would have a point. But these are scientists... I'll take their word because, well you know, they spend their lives studying this sort of thing and engage in peer review, etc...

- August

jake williams

23rd July 2008, 20:34

I respect your skepticism, and I agree with your suspicions. One should always question the motives of authority figures and those with lots of economic and political power. But, on the other hand, this can't be debated any longer. If we don't have ice caps in 30 years, we're screwed.
I agree but it's difficult (leave alone it sounds kind of patronizing). I do not like being in the position of attacking dissenters or skeptics, I cannot understate that. Intellectual freedom, curiosity, and criticism are maybe the most important values a society can have, and you can't just make a show of it when it suits you, it has to be genuine.

But for one, the skepticism is consciously constructed through very widespread and effective propaganda that is very difficult to fight against, and this is done by very malicious people. Second, there's the pragmatic point - we all have to understand, and very quickly, what the picture is, that we've got to do something about it, and then how.

Decolonize The Left

23rd July 2008, 20:42

I agree but it's difficult (leave alone it sounds kind of patronizing). I do not like being in the position of attacking dissenters or skeptics, I cannot understate that. Intellectual freedom, curiosity, and criticism are maybe the most important values a society can have, and you can't just make a show of it when it suits you, it has to be genuine.

I am not attacking you or anyone for their skepticism. I have already agreed that it is valuable. What I am addressing is those who do not focus on the science involved, and instead devote more attention to the rhetoric being thrown about by various individuals. That is all.

- August

MarxSchmarx

23rd July 2008, 20:43

Hey speaking of graphs, how do you all like this graph?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/FSM_Pirates.png

In all seriousness, though,

i) We call for industrial development to be slowed down and for human progress to be restrained. This is, of course, the mainstream position, the position of environmentalism, the current ideology of the ruling class, especially in the West. It is a deeply conservative position, and it conveniently excuses capitalism not being able to bring about the kind of economic development that the world requires. Unfortunately, the bulk of the Western left currently tail-ends this capitalist position.

(ii) The second option is to take a radical and progressive position: to point out that, contrary to what the environmentalists say, it is precisely the more developed a society is (economically, technologically and socially), that the better equipped it is to deal with natural threats, including changes in climate. We explain that capitalism stands in the way of the development of our productive and creative capabilites, which undermines our mastery of our natural surroundings, and thus makes us vulnerable to nature's caprice. This is the revolutionary position because it exposes capitalism's inherent shortcomings, unlike the previous position, which actively serves to excuse them.

You're right, it's a tricky problem indeed. Many leftists acknowledge there is a market incentive for "green technologies", and are torn on whether the market could develop, say, massive wind-mills in the middle of the northern Atlantic. I think prospects like these have forced too many leftists to prefer the "green-washing" and bad-mouth those that question whether we really need all this energy production, a lot of which is wasted under capitalism. I guess it was ever thus, since the time we celebrated capitalist led automation for liberating us from the drudgery of employment, only to see capitalists build non-automated factories when cheaper labor became available.

I think that it would be silly of us not to discount the theory that climate change might be something deliberately taken out of context (Earth going through a natural warming cycle) by the powers that be to create mass hysteria, allow more repressive laws to be passed and to make more money through green taxes etc.

Spartan, I think your misgivings will go away if you consider not the cost of action, but the cost of inaction. If the skeptics are wrong, we are really, really screwed. Unfortunately, the alternative right now to taking social action is to let the polluters and capitalists run the show. Prudence dictates we tell the polluters and the industrialists to shove their free market flak up their ass and make a long-needed conversion to environmentally sound technologies.

Vanguard1917

23rd July 2008, 22:46

Agriculturally we could practice localized organic farming which would improve the quality of life for everyone. I suggest looking into what permaculture is. Try to imagine on a basic level, using rooftop gardens to grow veggies. Some of this happens even within capitalist countries.

You see, this is exactly what a socialist economy will not be doing, i.e. going back to a kind of backward and inefficient pre-capitalist system of individual self-sufficiency where each individual and locality was responsible for producing its own means of subsistence. Capitalism thankfully got rid of such feudal arrangements. Instead of retreating back to the parochialism characteristic of serfdom, with socialism we will see for the first time a truly flourishing globalised system of production, which employs the most advanced methods and techniques available to produce goods as efficiently and abundantly as possible for an ever growing world population.

You would also see the explosion of green technology.

A socialist world economy - i.e. an economy which far surpasses capitalism in terms of industrial growth and output - will, i imagine, see an 'explosion' of the kinds of technology which can actually produce enough energy to power a socialist world economy.

Wind turbines and solar panels definitely cannot power a socialist world economy, at least not in their current stage of development. At best, they will supplement the main sources of energy supply, which, from today's point of view, will be dominated by nuclear power.

Sendo

24th July 2008, 01:58

You see, this is exactly what a socialist economy will not be doing, i.e. going back to a kind of backward and inefficient pre-capitalist system of individual self-sufficiency where each individual and locality was responsible for producing its own means of subsistence. Capitalism thankfully got rid of such feudal arrangements. Instead of retreating back to the parochialism characteristic of serfdom, with socialism we will see for the first time a truly flourishing globalised system of production, which employs the most advanced methods and techniques available to produce goods as efficiently and abundantly as possible for an ever growing world population.

A socialist world economy - i.e. an economy which far surpasses capitalism in terms of industrial growth and output - will, i imagine, see an 'explosion' of the kinds of technology which can actually produce enough energy to power a socialist world economy.

Wind turbines and solar panels definitely cannot power a socialist world economy, at least not in their current stage of development. At best, they will supplement the main sources of energy supply, which, from today's point of view, will be dominated by nuclear power.

I'm not sure why you think growing food locally and eating better is somehow primitivist. I didn't suggest that everyone be forced tog row his or her own food, but rather communities becme more self-sufficient. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should have all of our food come shipped from factory farms off far away while we all live in one large metropolis.

I don't think you know squat about the environmental crises that modern agriculture is creating. Have you heard of the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, creating by chemical runoff into the Mississippi? That affects the availability of food like fish. I have a friend who's working through one of the few good US governmental agencies on helping impoverished Amerindian communities in and around Montana. Sadly, the same people who practiced sustainable living for centuries have been broken as a people and driven onto crappy reservation land. He told me that the communities have an overwhelming majority are unemployed and that the people must drive one hour to get to a supermarket to get food. The obvious conclusion we both drew is that it would be a good idea to investigate in permaculture and see if the communities become more self-sufficient, or even specialize in growing unique things that they could sell and bring some prosperity to the people.

You seem to think that "technology conquers all" and that socialism should only be about increasing the already disastrous capitalist style* of production. I'm sorry but science has never delivered on "miracle technologies" and never will. If we continue or current course we will cause the deaths of many islanders, the poor of coastal communities, the deaths of people in arid regions, the deaths of more people in Haiti and Africa and wherever else. Our farming is completely dependent on a fuel source that is throwing our climate out of whack, melting the ice caps, and destroying the permafrost upon which many Inuit in Alaska and Canada live.

Vanguard1917

24th July 2008, 02:29

I'm not sure why you think growing food locally and eating better is somehow primitivist. I didn't suggest that everyone be forced tog row his or her own food, but rather communities becme more self-sufficient. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should have all of our food come shipped from factory farms off far away while we all live in one large metropolis.

I didn't say it was 'primitivist'; i said that localised production is characteristic of feaudalism and serfdom.

It is also inefficient and largely impossible in terms of providing the goods to all. Do you seriously think that we could feed 6.5 billion people with everyone growing food on their roofs and in their gardens, as you suggest that they do?

Sadly, the same people who practiced sustainable living for centuries

It's one thing to oppose the actions of governments in relation to indigenous peoples. It's something altogether different to celebrate backwardness - which you're doing by praising a way of life which is 'centuries' old. Do you think that these people don't deserve development and prosperity - i.e. the best that modern society has to offer - instead of continual back-breaking labour in order to merely survive?

You seem to think that "technology conquers all" and that socialism should only be about increasing the already disastrous capitalist style* of production. I'm sorry but science has never delivered on "miracle technologies" and never will. If we continue or current course we will cause the deaths of many islanders, the poor of coastal communities, the deaths of people in arid regions, the deaths of more people in Haiti and Africa and wherever else. Our farming is completely dependent on a fuel source that is throwing our climate out of whack, melting the ice caps, and destroying the permafrost upon which many Inuit in Alaska and Canada live.

You're ignoring the collosal improvements to human life that modern agricultural methods have brought. As a result of technological advances like factory farming and biotechnology, we are today able to produce more food than ever before, and less and less people are suffering from hunger partly as a result of this.

You moan about current production methods, but you offer no alternative. And, no, growing food on roofs, in backyards and allotments certainly ain't what i call a viable alternative to anything.

Sendo

24th July 2008, 04:18

I don't recall saying we should limit people's diets to rooftop gardens. I'm only saying you might as well do it. Have you ever grown potatoes? It's nearly zero work. Why expend resources and labor on growing food in far off places?

Permaculture isn't just gardens, it's about spreading out farms instead of concentrating in one place and causing natural disasters like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s (?).

And as for someone's comments that a liveable world is favroable to capitalists, that isn't necessarily true. They don't care about future generation or human prosperity. It's about power and RELATIVE wealth. Plus, there are huge profits to be made in the face of disasters, and increasingly, natural disasters. I'd suggest a read of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. She's a great journalist. Her only downside is that she advocates social democracy-style reforms, which is odd given her praise of very radical movements in other works. I suppose that if she made a Marxist call-to-arms she wouldn't have gotten such a wide release for The Shock Doctrine.

Sentinel

24th July 2008, 09:35

Well one thing is sure: decentralised local crop farming under capitalism is definitely out of question. I don't have the time, energy, or wish to start growing my own food. When not at work I need to devote myself to rest and leisure unless I want a fucking burnout. Food has to be available at any time in this time of stress.

In socialism it might be possible to resort to this kind of methods as emergency solutions, but we certainly should strive to keep our food production on as efficient levels as possible from a sustainability pov at all times. After all, humanity will always prefer to spend their time on interesting things and crop farming isn't very exciting..

On the original topic: yes, climate change is very real and we should naturally strive to minimise unnecessary and unplanned impact of human industry on it. I do not, however, belong to the doomsday prophets who envision an apolocalypse resulting in human extincition due to climate change.

There will be some serious inconveniences due to it, but it cannot be fully avoided unless living standards are to be considerably lowered -- which cannot be tolerated. I'm certain humanity will overcome them completely eventually, though -- mainly thanks to technological development.

Environmental unsustainability is a child disease of technological progress.

ships-cat

24th July 2008, 12:13

I don't think the idea of 'local production' is a retrograde step. There are SOME area's in which it could yield benefits. A case in point might be electricity. Apparantly, we lose almost 50% of our generated power within the National Grid itself. E.g. in the act of "transporting" the electricity from the power stations to our homes. That's a HUGE amount of sheer waste.

I believe there are some trials going on of 'local' micro-power stations (using a mixture of standard gas, biomass, and solar water heating) to produce hot water and electricity for their immidiate neighbourhood. I'll try and dig the article up....

Meow Purr. :)