Post by Wayne Hall on Sept 21, 2017 5:06:52 GMT -5
Dialogue on Climate Change and Climate Modification at DiEM25’s informal and not centrally controlled facebook group
www.facebook.com/groups/diem25/permalink/1721933524779842/
WH: People who argue that climate change is caused partially or wholly by deliberate climate manipulation and not simply by a increase in carbon dioxide emissions as a by-product of industrial development are categorized, by the media, by the other side of the mainstream climate debate and often by themselves as well, as "climate deniers". They would reject being called "idiots". Is this an issue that requires clarification?
WMD: No, they are not climate deniers if they say it is partially. Geo-engineering is an open intention, you hear about it a little less right now but I'm sure they are pressing ahead all the time, having found public exposure didn't favour it. Probably the first main aim will be to maintain (or enhance) viable conditions for industrial farming in the US. But if wholly then yes they might as well be deniers since it requires the same refusal to apply Occam's Razor.
WH: The attempts to legitimate geoengineering including "solar radiation management" have not stopped. They are on full speed ahead in universities, research institutes and even in the media. One aim of the geoenginering discourse is most certainly to provide a cover for military, or "miliitary" applications of climate manipulation. Can you explain how Occam's Razor applies to the case of the activists who claim to know that climate change is ENTIRELY a result of climate manipulation?
WMD: Because the reasons to believe in anthropogenic climate change (other than deliberate) are very simple. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas; easy yes. Is there more CO2 due to human activity; easy yes. One could add that water vapour is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and so ought to provide a positive feedback to any warming/cooling driven by CO2 quantity changing. But basically the logic of it is simple enough that a layman can understand; avoiding the obvious conclusions, or quantifying, is what requires expertise.
It's similar with denying evolution: deniers nearly always want to look deeply at the fossil record hoping for "there is a missing link" in the same way that climate deniers want to focus on data and come up with a contrarian interpretation. But the theory of evolution does not depend on finding a complete fossil record, it follows from the now plain observations that under sexual reproduction DNA is combined in certain ways, that mutations happen, that natural selection happens; -- Occam's Razor says Darwinian evolution is the result; it is only challenging that conclusion that requires digging for more and more evidence.
WH: It is an interesting thought that expertise is more needed if one seeks to distort reality than if one seeks to explore reality.
WH: This more nuanced stance should become DiEM25 official policy, and not the stance of blindly siding with one of the two sides of the mainstream climate debate disinformation, as has occurred in past fights over this issue in DiEM25.
WMD: I don't think accepting the IPCC reports on climate change in any way prevents someone from believing that geo-engineering may be taking place.
WH: Believing that geoengineering is taking place means dismissing as misinformed or liars the many IPCC and geoengineering spokespersons, even the purportedly radical ETC group, who claim the opposite.
WH: You are a person with scientific credentials, better placed than I am, both from a qualifications viewpoint and an age viewpoint, to lead the campaign for the right policies on these subjects in DiEM25
www.facebook.com/groups/diem25/permalink/1721933524779842/
WH: People who argue that climate change is caused partially or wholly by deliberate climate manipulation and not simply by a increase in carbon dioxide emissions as a by-product of industrial development are categorized, by the media, by the other side of the mainstream climate debate and often by themselves as well, as "climate deniers". They would reject being called "idiots". Is this an issue that requires clarification?
WMD: No, they are not climate deniers if they say it is partially. Geo-engineering is an open intention, you hear about it a little less right now but I'm sure they are pressing ahead all the time, having found public exposure didn't favour it. Probably the first main aim will be to maintain (or enhance) viable conditions for industrial farming in the US. But if wholly then yes they might as well be deniers since it requires the same refusal to apply Occam's Razor.
WH: The attempts to legitimate geoengineering including "solar radiation management" have not stopped. They are on full speed ahead in universities, research institutes and even in the media. One aim of the geoenginering discourse is most certainly to provide a cover for military, or "miliitary" applications of climate manipulation. Can you explain how Occam's Razor applies to the case of the activists who claim to know that climate change is ENTIRELY a result of climate manipulation?
WMD: Because the reasons to believe in anthropogenic climate change (other than deliberate) are very simple. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas; easy yes. Is there more CO2 due to human activity; easy yes. One could add that water vapour is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2 and so ought to provide a positive feedback to any warming/cooling driven by CO2 quantity changing. But basically the logic of it is simple enough that a layman can understand; avoiding the obvious conclusions, or quantifying, is what requires expertise.
It's similar with denying evolution: deniers nearly always want to look deeply at the fossil record hoping for "there is a missing link" in the same way that climate deniers want to focus on data and come up with a contrarian interpretation. But the theory of evolution does not depend on finding a complete fossil record, it follows from the now plain observations that under sexual reproduction DNA is combined in certain ways, that mutations happen, that natural selection happens; -- Occam's Razor says Darwinian evolution is the result; it is only challenging that conclusion that requires digging for more and more evidence.
WH: It is an interesting thought that expertise is more needed if one seeks to distort reality than if one seeks to explore reality.
WH: This more nuanced stance should become DiEM25 official policy, and not the stance of blindly siding with one of the two sides of the mainstream climate debate disinformation, as has occurred in past fights over this issue in DiEM25.
WMD: I don't think accepting the IPCC reports on climate change in any way prevents someone from believing that geo-engineering may be taking place.
WH: Believing that geoengineering is taking place means dismissing as misinformed or liars the many IPCC and geoengineering spokespersons, even the purportedly radical ETC group, who claim the opposite.
WH: You are a person with scientific credentials, better placed than I am, both from a qualifications viewpoint and an age viewpoint, to lead the campaign for the right policies on these subjects in DiEM25