Is climate change to blame?
California fires: what is happening and is climate change to blame? - (Nov.12)
NOTE: I am introducing the subject of the consequences of climate change. Until lately, skeptics blocked any considerations that global warming was 'causing' hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, etc. This was based on, if not full denial, then on strict, fundamentalist, reductionist ideas of cause and effect. In psychology, regarding TV violence; or in politics, regarding cigarettes and cancer, etc., we know that causation can be a very complex thing, easilly mistaken for correlation, coincidence, or superstitious things even more distant in reality.
Such mistakes are common to climate deniers, who are invested in at least one of three things: stupidity or arrogance; money from fossil fuels, or a religious belief that God shall continue to provide for man, the appointed steward of all creation - the latter being something of an irony.
Only in recent years Exxon stopped lying about its awareness of global warming. President Trump has reluctantly admitted that climate change is real, (and appears to me to have been of this opinion years before his presidency), but he continues to wave strong red flags which look like climate denial, in order to hold on to big oil and big coal and supporters in associated states. My guess is that he would make progress on climate change accords following a 2020 election win.
Meanwhile, climate denial continues to be a major hobby, obsession or occupation of too many. One complaint of deniers is that a carbon tax system is actually a devious move to CONTROL the masses, and would favour status quo elites, and liberal politicians, like Al Gore. The reality of life is that any attempt to deal with climate change will inherently involve benefits to some elites and politicians, and will inherently require some controls on citizens, which will contradict their own day-to-day, status quo, business as usual. So, deniers should be understood to have a natural grievance at heart: The rich should not be allowed to alter the lives of the poor or middle classes, especially when climate change is seen as some distant, abstract concept - a rationalisation for political power. Never mind that such deniers who oppose such possibilities of injustice may be greatly persuaded by the big oil, big coal, big religion, etc., powers that be. It's a big conundrum.
I wanted to get to this one point I was thinking about today: Even now, deniers are all-too-eager to latch on to announcements in the news that the study and proof of climate change, its causes and its consequences, have been, "bad science." In the scientific and pragmatist communities, it is appropriate to question and re-question and test and retest results and methods. On the other hand, it can be just as irresponsible to latch on to claims of bad science as it may be to latch on to bad science itself - or even onto science without doubt. In other words, these deniers may be committing the very crime they project upon the evil scientists. Just to shout, "bad science," is not science, is not proof, and is not an answer. And focusing on one or two errors in ongoing science, such as errors in warming speed, etc., and then to generalise those into saying that all climate science is bad, is, I think, and affront to thought itself - again, usually bought and paid for by dinosaur corporations.
Well, hopefully, I will be able to do a few posts on whether or not global warming is leading to hurricanes, etc. Any of you is certainly invited to post anything relevant to this, as well. Indeed these areas of research are interesting and exciting in their own right, whether or not they are connected to mass extinction and all that. The whole study of causality, correlation, chaos, etc., is all very wonderful.
At some point, we must declare causation, after this hurricane here, and that cyclone there, and this drought here, and that melt there, and these wildfires, and those bleachings, etc., etc., etc., etc., are each, "made more intense by climate change." Dudes. That means that ALL of this is CAUSED by global warming.
If a drop of rain falls from the sky and hits you on the head, then that is weather. And whene it rains for 40 days and forty nights, yes, that may be an extension of weather, but something ABNORMAL NOW IS CAUSING THAT EXTENSION. Am I wrong?!
NOTE: I am introducing the subject of the consequences of climate change. Until lately, skeptics blocked any considerations that global warming was 'causing' hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, etc. This was based on, if not full denial, then on strict, fundamentalist, reductionist ideas of cause and effect. In psychology, regarding TV violence; or in politics, regarding cigarettes and cancer, etc., we know that causation can be a very complex thing, easilly mistaken for correlation, coincidence, or superstitious things even more distant in reality.
Such mistakes are common to climate deniers, who are invested in at least one of three things: stupidity or arrogance; money from fossil fuels, or a religious belief that God shall continue to provide for man, the appointed steward of all creation - the latter being something of an irony.
Only in recent years Exxon stopped lying about its awareness of global warming. President Trump has reluctantly admitted that climate change is real, (and appears to me to have been of this opinion years before his presidency), but he continues to wave strong red flags which look like climate denial, in order to hold on to big oil and big coal and supporters in associated states. My guess is that he would make progress on climate change accords following a 2020 election win.
Meanwhile, climate denial continues to be a major hobby, obsession or occupation of too many. One complaint of deniers is that a carbon tax system is actually a devious move to CONTROL the masses, and would favour status quo elites, and liberal politicians, like Al Gore. The reality of life is that any attempt to deal with climate change will inherently involve benefits to some elites and politicians, and will inherently require some controls on citizens, which will contradict their own day-to-day, status quo, business as usual. So, deniers should be understood to have a natural grievance at heart: The rich should not be allowed to alter the lives of the poor or middle classes, especially when climate change is seen as some distant, abstract concept - a rationalisation for political power. Never mind that such deniers who oppose such possibilities of injustice may be greatly persuaded by the big oil, big coal, big religion, etc., powers that be. It's a big conundrum.
I wanted to get to this one point I was thinking about today: Even now, deniers are all-too-eager to latch on to announcements in the news that the study and proof of climate change, its causes and its consequences, have been, "bad science." In the scientific and pragmatist communities, it is appropriate to question and re-question and test and retest results and methods. On the other hand, it can be just as irresponsible to latch on to claims of bad science as it may be to latch on to bad science itself - or even onto science without doubt. In other words, these deniers may be committing the very crime they project upon the evil scientists. Just to shout, "bad science," is not science, is not proof, and is not an answer. And focusing on one or two errors in ongoing science, such as errors in warming speed, etc., and then to generalise those into saying that all climate science is bad, is, I think, and affront to thought itself - again, usually bought and paid for by dinosaur corporations.
Well, hopefully, I will be able to do a few posts on whether or not global warming is leading to hurricanes, etc. Any of you is certainly invited to post anything relevant to this, as well. Indeed these areas of research are interesting and exciting in their own right, whether or not they are connected to mass extinction and all that. The whole study of causality, correlation, chaos, etc., is all very wonderful.
At some point, we must declare causation, after this hurricane here, and that cyclone there, and this drought here, and that melt there, and these wildfires, and those bleachings, etc., etc., etc., etc., are each, "made more intense by climate change." Dudes. That means that ALL of this is CAUSED by global warming.
If a drop of rain falls from the sky and hits you on the head, then that is weather. And whene it rains for 40 days and forty nights, yes, that may be an extension of weather, but something ABNORMAL NOW IS CAUSING THAT EXTENSION. Am I wrong?!