SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When it comes to purging fossil fuels from the global economy by mid-century—our only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change—it turns out that you can't get there from here without a good map.
That's the thinking behind detailed, long-term plans for switching from dirty to clean energy unveiled this week by the United States, Canada, Mexico and Germany at UN climate talks in Marrakesh.
Overcoming sharp internal debate, the German government led the way with sector-by-sector scenarios that would remove up to 95 percent of its CO2 emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.
Green groups said there were too many sops to big business, but it was a world-first.
The "three amigos" of North America jointly-released their blueprints on Wednesday, with the 100-page US "mid-century strategy" for the globe's largest economy taking centre stage.
If the US, Canada, and Mexico are the "three amigos," which one is Martin Short?
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:53PM
Okay, understatement: I don't want to see that either.
I think this is a very good analogy. A puff of smoke in the basement is 100% for sure the potential seed of a "very bad thing" leading to loss of life+house.
I guess my question is, where to find "evidence" (not passionate arguments) that this represents causation, and not just correlation?
Many of the global-warming-deniers seem to be nutjobs that have no (or little) interest in science, and while they present evidence frequently, it's selected for or influenced by their preconceived notions.
And... Many of the global-warming-alarmists seem to be nutjobs that have no (or little) interest in science except to the extent that it supports their position. They also present evidence in accordance with their preconceived notions.
(Feel free to substitute the words "climate change" for the word "warming" in the above, if you like.)
Neither camp is above outright lying to try to advance their "cause." I read here and there in the news about scientists being strongly encouraged by those above them to nudge their data/conclusions towards particular positions. The clearest thing I do see is the 100% failure so far of the dire, well-publicized predictions of the alarmist camp despite global average temperatures rising some.
In science articles/papers that I read that don't seem to read like nutjob denier/anxious alarmist propaganda, the conclusions frequently seem enigmatic or opaque; I don't know how much weight to give each bit of data or observation. The nutjobs on both sides of the "debate" are fervently working to screw it up for everyone else.
Bottom line question, where to look for good evidence not (very) influenced by the above? Does this evidence really justify throwing not just money, but entire economies full of money, at things that may or may not be the problem?
(Score: 3, Informative) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @03:45PM
Bottom line question, where to look for good evidence not (very) influenced by the above?
Agreed! Far too many political discussions are not about using valid evidence to solidify their premises, but are about "destroying" their opponent. Your "bottom line question" nicely framed our discussion.
I read here and there in the news about scientists being strongly encouraged by those above them to nudge their data/conclusions towards particular positions.
Rather than reading here and there, go to reputable sources. The Internet is rife with false news stories. The references at the bottom of this Wikipedia article might be a good starting place, Surveys of scientists' views on climate change [wikipedia.org].
Another nice source is NASA: Climate change: How do we know? [nasa.gov]
And even this (should be "especially" this): Global Climate Change Indicators [noaa.gov]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:09PM
Thanks.
I still contend that saying flat-out "purging fossil fuels from the global economy by mid-century [is] our only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change" falls under "alarmist nutjob nonsense".
(Score: 2) by dlb on Sunday November 20 2016, @08:51PM
flat-out "purging fossil fuels from the global economy by mid-century [is] our only hope of staving off catastrophic climate change" falls under "alarmist nutjob nonsense"
Could well be. I'll grant you that. The nutjobs out there are sure adding a lot of noise to those trying to have an honest exchange of views about climate change. (Speaking of which, thank you for sharing your well-thought-out view points. It added to my morning's enjoyment!)