Climate Strike September 20

[bcm119]

I think it helps to acknowledge that there is rampant sensationalism in much of the media coverage of climate change. I’m not a climate scientist, but have enough education and knowledge of the topic to see fairly blatant factual exaggerations and alarmist headlines from most media outlets.

I’ve met a lot of folks who subscribe to the theory that we cannot over emphasize the threat of climate change in our effort to raise awareness, and therefore sensational journalism is justified. But the side effect of this type of journalism is that it fosters distrust of the actual science, like we’re seeing from Daltex here. I think sensational journalism is insulting to the intelligence of its readers, and journalists should attempt to stick to the facts and not get greedy in their efforts to generate clicks.

The tone of a lot of the click-bait climate change journalism is what’s driving a lot of the skepticism. A better approach is to admit science may not always be correct, but responding to science with appropriate policy changes is always correct, since it’s the best information we have. Aligning policy with well-established science is objectively the correct thing to do whether the science turns out to be correct or not. When science and policy begin to diverge because of politics, we are going backwards.

[Blue Jays]

"...More ad hominum arguments, just targeted at scientists instead of a teenager..."

Disagreeing with someone like a published scientist, President Trump, Greta Thunberg, and/or others who have willfully entered the public fray about controversial topics is not really an ad hominem argument in the classic sense of the word. Those people will naturally have supporters, detractors, and a variety of people somewhat in the middle.

[Matthew Strongin]

I think between that and maybe using army base lands in Nevada you could probably get pretty close. And then make up the difference using the land easement adjacent the border wall and everybody wins!

We could also put windmills on the greens of every hole of golf in the country. Like a giant mini-golf course, but one that generates power for the surrounding neighborhoods. And since Trump loves golf and loves making money at his golf resorts, he might even be on board.

[htwoopup]

I have spent 30 years fishing far offshore. All one has to do is look at my logs of water temperatures, marine life seen/ caught/ released, notes on garbage etc to see convincing evidence that we have totally fouled our food chain by shitting in it/ on it.

I stopped doing the fishing thing when I started thinking about the carbon footprint of the boat and my culpability in being part of the problem.

As some of this conversation has been about the young lady instead of the actual subject of the climate crisis...I will just leave this here....

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering for certain men?

[caleb]

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering for certain men?

When adult men, especially white men, speak with authority, it's expertise or experience.

When women and girls do exactly the same thing, it's arrogance.

[ides1056]

And when men call women arrogant it's misogyny. When they call girls arrogant, it's misogyny and then some.

Down Girl by Kate Manne review – #MeToo and the logic of misogyny | Books | The Guardian

[monadnocky]

When adult men, especially white men, speak with authority, it's expertise or experience.

When women and girls do exactly the same thing, it's arrogance.

Yes.
I love succinct, precise language.

[Corso]

And when men call women arrogant it's misogyny. When they call girls arrogant, it's misogyny and then some.

Down Girl by Kate Manne review – #MeToo and the logic of misogyny | Books | The Guardian

"Hillary Clinton was its incarnation – and suffered its most public betrayal. She worked harder than anyone, had more experience than anyone, put up with every humiliation, won over the bankers and generals, and was still denied “her turn”."

All I can say is...


...Benghazi!!!


Bur seriously, "her turn"??? That's exactly the attitude that lost her the election.

I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree that whenever a woman loses, it's a result of "misogyny". And I don't believe any time a "white" person criticizes a person of color, it's "racism". Or if a person doesn't agree with "scientific fact"--which in some cases is theory--a "denier".

Just as "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", sometimes a person is just deserving of the critique.

[Blue Jays]

We should get a friendly little bet going here. It will be a hoot to revisit this thread a decade from now.
If our society is still around in 2029 we can meet. Those who were earlier concerned about the existential crisis can buy us all dinner, a few good bottles, and we can toast our shared good fortune. Should the polar caps melt, all the oceans evaporate, and we are tragically incinerated by the sun...y'all get to brag in heaven!

[BBB]

Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, but a bunch of middle aged men (or old man in Trump's case) getting cranky over the stance and remarks of a 16 year old speaks volumes.

[Corso]

An interesting take:

How Greta Thunberg'''s rise could backfire on environmentalists

[mjbabcock]

We should get a friendly little bet going here. It will be a hoot to revisit this thread a decade from now.
If our society is still around in 2029 we can meet.

I’m pretty sure the timeframe for the largest shifts are on the 50-100 year timeframe. It’s our kids and grandchildren who are going to be dealing with global migrations that make Syria and Central America look minor.

On a separate note, it is interesting to watch folks shift epistemologies, from social constructivist to logical empiricist, depending on the argument they are pushing. The jumping around is odd, and reflects a failure on the part of science educators to prepare the next generation of citizens. There is no discussion of explanatory models, and the evolution of theoretical frameworks that encompass oxygen fractionation in ice cores, dendrology, pollen in sediment beds, fossil records, geological records on the sea floor, fundamental physics and thermodynamics, historical observations of CO2 in Hawaii, calculations of emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution,...and a shit ton of other bodies of research that substantiate global warming. It’s convenient for folks to drop social constructivist ideas about how global warming is just a concoction that will be replaced by another competing theory in a decade or two...but evidence is pretty comprehensive. This isn’t a matter of whether or not it will happen, but how bad it will be. The study on the oceans that came out today is pretty discouraging.

I wish kids could start voting at age 5, and adults over the age of 40 couldn’t. I bet we would live in a much better world.

[BBB]

Flanagan always writes well. As he should seeing he is a very accomplished novelist.

Greta Thunberg's 495-word UN speech points us to a future of hope – or despair | Richard Flanagan | Environment | The Guardian

[guido]

Kathryn Murdoch Steps Out of the Family Shadow to Fight Climate Change - The New York Times

[zachateseverything]

I believe that the globe is getting warmer. Improving the air, water, oceans are great goals.

I haven't driven to the grocery store in years, I walk. I can't remember the last time i used a disposable plastic grocery bag. I often can go for a week or more without starting my car. I use vinegar to clean nearly everything instead of harsh chemicals. I'm lucky to live in a place where weather makes a bike the best choice for many short trips. I've got bike-friendly light rail 5 minutes from my home making mid distance trips easy. I haven't driven a car or taken an uber to the airport in a long time. blah blah blah.

Having the audacity to question and challenge the orthodoxy should be welcomed not discouraged, especially by many folks that have to drive a car down the driveway just to pick of their mail. No amount of 'likes' on facebook offset a lifestyle that requires a car to do everything from a remote, exclusive, exclusionary town. That's a general statement, definitely not directed you.

Point being, don't think that someone that challenges some accepted orthodoxy is against the goal of making the world a better place.

and science largely welcomes questioning the orthodoxy. except they want to actually see data supporting those criticisms. I don't see how you can justify getting mad that people are dismissing your unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy level thinking out of hand when not provided with any compelling reason to do otherwise.

[zachateseverything]

Well, reality disagrees with you. Below are just three examples of the scientific community warning us about global cooling in the 1970s.

-The National Science Board's 1972 report Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science.

-The National Science Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead.

-National Academy of Sciences report 1975.

But, I doubt many posters on this thread review scientific reports on the current ‘climate change’. I’d bet the vast majority are getting their information from the media....... just like we did in the 1970s when the Boston Globe and Time magazine and many of the respected media outlets warned us of the coming ice age.

I’ve lived through Global Cooling, Global Warming. And now Climate Change.

Forgive me if I don’t participate in the latest end-of-word apocalyptic doomsday scenario.

Humans have predicted the end of the world thousands of times since the beginning of recorded history. And the one thing they all have in common is they’ve all been wrong.

Did you read ANY of the links provided to you on this topic? No one is disputing that some scientists made reports that the earth was cooling and the media ran with them. But then climate scientists did additional studies and discovered:

"no, the earth is not cooling off"

"the earth is actually getting a lot warmer"

and

"the warming earth is shifting wind and ocean currents which is going to change local weather patterns. it's also going to make certain areas more susceptible to extreme weather events"

[davids]

Disagreeing with someone like a published scientist, President Trump, Greta Thunberg, and/or others who have willfully entered the public fray about controversial topics is not really an ad hominem argument in the classic sense of the word. Those people will naturally have supporters, detractors, and a variety of people somewhat in the middle.

Salonistas were not disagreeing with the scientific community's conclusions about global warming. They were attacking science as corrupt and unreliable.
Salonistas were not disagreeing with Greta Thunberg's ideas. They were attacking her as a person.

That is, in fact, the definition of an ad hominum attack.

Attachment 113282

[randonneur]

I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree that whenever a woman loses, it's a result of "misogyny". And I don't believe any time a "white" person criticizes a person of color, it's "racism". Or if a person doesn't agree with "scientific fact"--which in some cases is theory--a "denier".

(emphasis is mine)

Oh, please. No one is saying that in this thread. Your argument is the equivalent of saying "not all men" in response to the #metoo movement. Of course it isn't true in 100% of the cases. It doesn't have to be. What we are looking at is trends and overall data, and if someone refuses to see the direction in which the data point in an abundantly clear fashion -- whether on the subject of systemic patriarchy and racism or global warming -- then they're just being willfully blind.

As to your 'theory' quip - another common misdirection from climate change (and evolution) deniers. I'll just quote Scientific American here:

"Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing."

[Blue Jays]

"...I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree that whenever a woman loses, it's a result of 'misogyny'. And I don't believe any time a 'white' person criticizes a person of color, it's 'racism'. Or if a person doesn't agree with 'scientific fact' -- which in some cases is theory -- a 'denier'..."

The apparent new strategy to jam Existential Threat Climate Crisis down our throats, is to use young people as their spokespersons. When one disagrees or criticizes this tactic, those adherents exclaim "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK A CHILD!"

Interesting that private teenager Nick Sandmann (who was simply awaiting a schoolbus and not seeking publicity) was not afforded the identical status. A quiet kid unwillingly tossed into a situation and subsequently attacked by the media.

[davids]

The apparent new strategy to jam Existential Threat Climate Crisis down our throats, is to use young people as their spokespersons. When one disagrees or criticizes this tactic, those adherents exclaim "HOW DARE YOU ATTACK A CHILD!"

Interesting that private teenager Nick Sandmann (who was simply awaiting a schoolbus and not seeking publicity) was not afforded the identical status. A quiet kid unwillingly tossed into a situation and subsequently attacked by the media.

Another ad hominum attack.

Followed with an attack on ad hominum attacks. Which is really another ad hominum attack, only this time on "the media".