Why Our Brains Weren't Made To Deal With Climate Change

[Germinator]

listened to a podcast I found interesting about why it's difficult/impossible for people to deal w/ climate change

Losing Alaska

As floods, wildfires, and heatwaves hit many parts of the world, signs of climate change seem to be all around us. Scientists have been warning us for years ...

podcasts.podinstall.com

bottom line the two takeaway ideas were,...

@15m24s

...You spend some time talking with Daniel Kahneman the famous psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in economics and he actually presented a very pessimistic view that we would actually [NOT] come to terms with the threat of climate change

He said to me that we are as humans, are very poor dealing with issues in the future,... we tend to be very focused on the short term,... we tend to "discount" would be the economic term,... to reduce the value of things happening in the future the further away they are.

He says we are very cost adverse,... that is to say when there are rewards we respond strongly BUT when there's a cost we prefer to push it away,... just as you know when I'm by myself which I leave until the very last minute (like in my tax return, I mean you just don't want to deal with these things).

And he says we're reluctant to deal with uncertainty.

If things are uncertain OR we perceive them to be,... people say well come back and tell me when we're certain.

What he said to me was in his view the climate change is the worst possible combination because it's not only uncertain BUT it's also in the future AND involves costs.

@21m36s

...So George there obviously is one domain in life where you can see people constantly placing the sacred values above their selfish self interest,.... you know I'm thinking here about the many many religions we have in the world that get people to do all kinds of things that an economist would say is not in that rational self interest.

People give up food people give up water people have you know suffer enormous personal privations people sometimes choose chastity for life I mean huge costs that people are willing to bear and they're not doing it because someone says at the end of the year are I'm going to give you an extra 200 bucks in your paycheck or an extra $2000 in your paycheck they're doing it because they believe these are sacred values that are not negotiable.

 

[COTO]

What he said to me was in his view the climate change is the worst possible combination because it's not only uncertain BUT it's also in the future AND involves costs.

Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".

It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake. Is that so unreasonable a request?

 

[Germinator]

Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".

It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake.

sadly what you say is very true,... all too often political leadership are ****en hypocrites who don't follow their own advise to others (i.e. "do as I say,... not as I do")

BUT keep in mind that while left leaning political leadership (and their partisan supporters) are more often than not ****en hypocrites about climate change "advise" one should also keep in mind that right leaning political leadership (and their partisan supporters) are ****en hypocrites about fiscal responsibility and "free markets"

IOW the "costs" mentioned in the podcasts (and in the OP) refer to the idea that some products in the market place such as "fossil fuels" do not reflect the true "environmental damage" costs,...

 

[COTO]

IOW the "costs" mentioned in the podcasts (and in the OP) refer to the idea that some products in the market place such as "fossil fuels" do not reflect the true "environmental damage" costs,...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the one bright spot in the "war on climate change".

Renewable energy technologies are maturing, coming down in cost, improving in reliability, and slowly making their way into homes based purely on market forces. Or so I've read. They seem to be the one area of human activity where "selfish self-interest" is perfectly sufficient to remedy the problem.

 

[reflechissez]

Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".

It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake. Is that so unreasonable a request?

Nah. That won't work for all the reasons that were posted in the OP.

 

[uptower]

Humans have always adapted to change and we will to this one as well.

We just have to pull our frickin' thumbs out and get on with it. The kind of adaptibility it takes is at the top - the decision making levels.

 

[flogger]

Saying that the IPCC's demands for addressing climate change "involves costs" is like saying that swimming across the Pacific "involves water".

It might also help people's minds adapt to climate change to see world leaders and outspoken scientists living austere, climate-friendly lives, absent large homes, vehicles, routine travel, and the hundreds of other luxuries they claim the common man needs to forsake. Is that so unreasonable a request?

This agenda has always been about taxing an indoctrinated fear couched in western politically correct virtue signalling rhetoric.

At last governments have found a way to tax the air we breath ...... and make us feel good about it while doing so !

That golden goose for them is here to stay for a very long time as there is no kind of future climate that could ever exist that would ever prove them wrong ..... ker ching !

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, some of us have brains that disregard tripe.

This image for example is wrong, and unsourced. I'll bet you copied it from a blogger that doesn't really know squat:


It shows the combustion of methane, but speaks of gasoline.

A gallon of gasoline only weighs 6.1 pounds, but it does produce about 20 pounds of CO2.

I see stuff like that, and automatically know that the person who posted it due to thge number of errors, doesn't know what they speak of, and believes what ever the blogger of some other activist told them.

My brain is not wired to accept BS, like so many other do.

Why would I waste time looking at hours of material you say is good, when this image says all I need to know about the material you think is good?

 

[COTO]

This agenda has always been about taxing an indoctrinated fear couched in western politically correct virtue signalling rhetoric.

At last governments have found a way to tax the air we breath ...... and make us feel good about it while doing so !

That golden goose for them is here to stay for a very long time as there is no kind of future climate that could ever exist that would ever prove them wrong ..... ker ching !

I admit one of the deepest roots of my AGW skepticism is the consistency and ferocity with which the IPCC et al. attack any solution that doesn't involve a radical, global centralization of economic and regulatory power.

I'd liken it to watching those old "Mentos" commercials where problems ranging from a double-parked car to a dog on the loose crop up. It doesn't matter what an effective solution would be in real life, the solution in commercial land is always to chew on a Mentos. Everyone who's watched one or two commercials in the series knows that the next ten commercials are also going to end with Mentos saving the day.

This is the same stink coming from popular media coverage of AGW 90% of the time, only TPTB invest far more effort in destroying any product that isn't Mentos than they do promoting Mentos. They know full well that Mentos (a.k.a. the climate policies they're trying to shove down the public craw) are about as appetizing as a rat carcass soaked in cyanide, and as potentially dangerous to swallow.

Their singularity of purpose makes it nigh impossible to believe they're genuinely acting in humanity's best interest. The fact that they're also flaming hypocrites, near-universally unwilling to lead by example, is the icing on the cake.

Hence does it surprise me that the public is unwilling to deal with climate change on these terms? Not in the least. Skepticism is frankly the more rational response, although I also don't fault people who trust that the science isn't being twisted to nefarious ends.

 

[flogger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the public transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is the one bright spot in the "war on climate change".

Renewable energy technologies are maturing, coming down in cost, improving in reliability, and slowly making their way into homes based purely on market forces. Or so I've read. They seem to be the one area of human activity where "selfish self-interest" is perfectly sufficient to remedy the problem.

Without massive taxpayer subsidy these renewable industries would simply cease to exist in the free market.

They are an economic cul de sac due the inherent weather variability issues that will always dog them however efficient they get, especially in temperate Northern climates

Gas fracking is a far cleaner and cheaper alternative to current fossil fuels being used . It also does not require the expensive tearing up and replacing of existing power generating infrastructure to realise its potential

Plus there is potentially more than a centurys worth right beneath our feet . Whats not to like here ?

 

[Hafnium1979]

Without massive taxpayer subsidy these renewable industries would simply cease to exist in the free market.

The fossil fuel industry is and has been subsidized for most of the last several decades. So there's no "free market".

They are an economic cul de sac due the inherent weather variability issues that will always dog them however efficient they get, especially in temperate Northern climates

That's what ENERGY STORAGE is all about. "Batteries". Google them some time. If you actually knew any science you'd know that there's a lot of work ongoing in the field of battery and energy storage technologies.

Gas fracking is a far cleaner and cheaper alternative to current fossil fuels being used .

Fracking can be and often is damaging to groundwater. And forgive me for having to teach a PhD "mining geologist" such as yourself but groundwater is far more important to people than natural gas.

Plus there is potentially more than a centurys worth right beneath our feet . Whats not to like here ?

It is sad that the non-geologist has to, once again, teach the PhD "mining geologist" about fossil fuels. Fossil fuels like coal are exceptionally dirty...if you had ever seen a piece of coal in your entire existence as a "scientist" you'd know that (I'd love to know what you know about coal, because I bet that would be hilarious!) Petroleum extraction is also quite environmentally problematic (as you probably don't know) and since most natural gas comes from petroleum extraction or fracking the environmental impact is quite negative as well.

But given your "advanced degree" in mining I'm sure you also know about non-traditional petroleum sources which are also being exploited these days. Things like the Alberta Tar Sands are among the most horrific sources of petroleum we can imagine and (at least in America) we are currently fighting to have a giant pipeline run across our country to ship that sh** from Canada the Gulf Coast to be exported and sold to the world.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I admit one of the deepest roots of my AGW skepticism is the consistency and ferocity with which the IPCC et al. attack any solution that doesn't involve a radical, global centralization of economic and regulatory power.

Don't forget that someone always cries wolf when there is any weather event tahat hasn't been been for a few years or decades, then the wolf is no where to be found.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The fossil fuel industry is and has been subsidized for most of the last several decades. So there's no "free market".

But when you look at the different type of subsidy and the value per unit of energy... Clean energy subsidies are way too costly.

That's what ENERGY STORAGE is all about. "Batteries". Google them some time. If you actually knew any science you'd know that there's a lot of work ongoing in the field of battery and energy storage technologies.

Look at how much more that makes the cost of green energy per unit.

Fracking can be and often is damaging to groundwater. And forgive me for having to teach a PhD "mining geologist" such as yourself but groundwater is far more important to people than natural gas.

I imagine some people doing it have done it improperly. But seriously, as deep as they go, I have a hard time believing that. I suspect the chemical traces of found in ground water were either accidental spills on the ground that seeped in from incompetence, or intentional dumping by those who didn't care.

 

[flogger]

The fossil fuel industry is and has been subsidized for most of the last several decades. So there's no "free market".

Any subsidization of fossil fuels is miniscule in terms of value per KwH generated.

That coupled with the cost of essential maintenance of duplicated back up of fossil fuel supply for when the elements don't play ball make current renewables the economics of the madhouse

Battery technology is currently nowhere near fulfilling requirements either, Gas fracking as currently utilised in the US makes the cost per KwH currently a third of that in Germany whose wasteful commitment to renewables has cost hundreds of billions to date plunging large sectors of their society into energy poverty

wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/13/pove-o13.html

 

[Hafnium1979]

Any subsidization of fossil fuels is miniscule in terms of value per KwH generated.

Really? Riddle me this: why would the primary source of all energy in the modern developed world require any subsidies?

And in your esteemed opinion: how much subsidization is allowed before you stop calling it a "free market"?

 

[Hafnium1979]

I imagine some people doing it have done it improperly. But seriously, as deep as they go, I have a hard time believing that. I suspect the chemical traces of found in ground water were either accidental spills on the ground that seeped in from incompetence, or intentional dumping by those who didn't care.

Interesting that there's yet another thing indicting fossil fuels that you disagree with the experts over.

Hmmmmm.

 

[flogger]

Really? Riddle me this: why would the primary source of all energy in the modern developed world require any subsidies?

And in your esteemed opinion: how much subsidization is allowed before you stop calling it a "free market"?

Well in my 'esteemed' ( ?) view subsidization that does not equate to the value of most (or in some cases all) the energy actually being generated by these sources.

If countries like Germany are financially struggling with their over commitment to renewables then what chance does the third world have when the west demands that they adopt them.

This is just further impoverishing people whose primary concern is survival and maintaining a basic quality of life. That requires access to affordable cheap fossil fuels in order to allow that very modest and understandable aspiration to be achieved .

Renewables as they currently stand can never be that for them

 

[Hafnium1979]

Well in my 'esteemed' ( ?) view subsidization that does not equate to the value of most (or in some cases all) the energy actually being generated by these sources.

Not an answer but definitely a bunch of words.

This is just further impoverishing people whose primary concern is survival and maintaining a basic quality of life.

...and, again, like I said, when I see this I see what we in America call "Crocodile tears". So many (not necessarily you, per se) invoke the poors of the world only when it is in service to some benefit to themselves. In other words I honestly don't think most climate change skeptics and denialists give a flying f*** about the poor of the world. I honestly don't. What I see when I see this sort of trash is someone who desperately wants to score points against the LIBRUL who is honor bound to constantly care about the poor no matter what.

And, as noted before, unless we who are the leaders in use of fossil fuels lead the way it will all be much, much, much worse on the poor.

So if you can please dispense with what appears to be these "crocodile tears" it would be more of a reasonable discussion.

That requires access to affordable cheap fossil fuels in order to allow that very modest and understandable aspiration to be achieved .

You seem to understand economics as well as you do geology (which is to say almost not at all). When we in the West, with our huge economic advantage spearhead much needed research and development on sustainable energy we create jobs and we create income streams and we, most importantly, create technology which is scalable and with scale comes cost savings and ultimately ease of propagation out to those less developed.

But since your only goal is to "score a point on the librul" you can't think that far ahead.

Renewables as they currently stand can never be that for them

Thus sayeth the Lord. Of course, given your abysmal track record on knowing much if anything about ANY technical topic so far introduced I'd say the "lord" is a wee bit out of their depth.

(Go ahead, post a few more emojis...since I assume your "dissertation" is 3/4 emojis)

 

[flogger]

Not an answer but definitely a bunch of words.



...and, again, like I said, when I see this I see what we in America call "Crocodile tears". So many (not necessarily you, per se) invoke the poors of the world only when it is in service to some benefit to themselves. In other words I honestly don't think most climate change skeptics and denialists give a flying f*** about the poor of the world. I honestly don't. What I see when I see this sort of trash is someone who desperately wants to score points against the LIBRUL who is honor bound to constantly care about the poor no matter what.

And, as noted before, unless we who are the leaders in use of fossil fuels lead the way it will all be much, much, much worse on the poor.

So if you can please dispense with what appears to be these "crocodile tears" it would be more of a reasonable discussion.




You seem to understand economics as well as you do geology (which is to say almost not at all). When we in the West, with our huge economic advantage spearhead much needed research and development on sustainable energy we create jobs and we create income streams and we, most importantly, create technology which is scalable and with scale comes cost savings and ultimately ease of propagation out to those less developed.

But since your only goal is to "score a point on the librul" you can't think that far ahead.



Thus sayeth the Lord. Of course, given your abysmal track record on knowing much if anything about ANY technical topic so far introduced I'd say the "lord" is a wee bit out of their depth.

(Go ahead, post a few more emojis...since I assume your "dissertation" is 3/4 emojis)

Right . Cutting through that usual blizzard of sarcastic demeaning BS in response to every post I make . What is your solution to this 'problem' and what proof do you have it would work ?

What is your target and why would it be better than what we already have ? You are the guys with the 'sky is going to fall you don't do what we say ' agenda after all so you are the guys with the very big questions to answer ?

PS I like emojis

 

[Hafnium1979]

Right . Cutting through that usual blizzard of sarcastic demeaning BS in response to every post I make . What is your solution to this 'problem' and what proof do you have it would work ?

Sorry, but you are such an easy target given that you have yet to post anything that looks like technical knowledge about anything.

What is your target and why would it be better than what we already have ?

It's gonna hurt. I promise you that. You know why? Because we've wasted decades trying to teach folks like you who don't know science how science works and in debating every single point while the clock ticks away. The "fix" gets much harder.

If I tell you what I think should be done it would start with something you can't even stand or envisage: I think we need to take this problem seriously and believe the world's experts.

And at that point you have a fit and blubber and bluster. There's no point in outlining anything beyond that because you can't even get past the important bit.

You are the guys with the 'sky is going to fall you don't do what we say ' agenda after all so you are the guys with the very big questions to answer ?

PS I like emojis

Yes I know. Often the simple like emojis. It's a good way to get pictures into writing so there's less reading and more fun pretty colors to look at and no one has to guess what the emotional state of the author was because there's a fun picture showing you how to feel!

The English language sadly (and ironically) seems wasted on you.

 

[flogger]

Sorry, but you are such an easy target given that you have yet to post anything that looks like technical knowledge about anything.



It's gonna hurt. I promise you that. You know why? Because we've wasted decades trying to teach folks like you who don't know science how science works and in debating every single point while the clock ticks away. The "fix" gets much harder.

If I tell you what I think should be done it would start with something you can't even stand or envisage: I think we need to take this problem seriously and believe the world's experts.

And at that point you have a fit and blubber and bluster. There's no point in outlining anything beyond that because you can't even get past the important bit.



Yes I know. Often the simple like emojis. It's a good way to get pictures into writing so there's less reading and more fun pretty colors to look at and no one has to guess what the emotional state of the author was because there's a fun picture showing you how to feel!

The English language sadly (and ironically) seems wasted on you.

So as ever no answers to my very pertinent questions then ? I'm happy to let others draw their own conclusions from that ?

Sad indeed that you do not have the knowledge nor indeed the basic intellectual acumen to address those fundamental questions ..... what a surprise

 

[Hafnium1979]

So as ever no answers to my very pertinent questions then ?

You do realize I already posted an answer. Not a complete answer, but as I suspected you'd blow past it so you could make your usual claim that people don't answer your questions.

Sad indeed that you do not have the knowledge nor indeed the basic intellectual acumen to address those fundamental questions ..... what a surprise

Why would I waste effort on you? I'm serious. You blew your wad when you claimed to have a PhD in "mining geology" but then showed that you didn't have a clue about the topic.

That was all I needed to know!

You are not worth anyone's actual time unless you show your willingness to honestly discuss. But we all know where that will go, don't we?

Face it, you had a shot and you didn't make it pay.

The fact that a rando who isn't a geologist knew more about geology in your supposed area than you did was pretty much where I checked out on you.

LOL.

 

[flogger]

You do realize I already posted an answer. Not a complete answer, but as I suspected you'd blow past it so you could make your usual claim that people don't answer your questions.




Why would I waste effort on you? I'm serious. You blew your wad when you claimed to have a PhD in "mining geology" but then showed that you didn't have a clue about the topic.

That was all I needed to know!

You are not worth anyone's actual time unless you show your willingness to honestly discuss. But we all know where that will go, don't we?

Face it, you had a shot and you didn't make it pay.

The fact that a rando who isn't a geologist knew more about geology in your supposed area than you did was pretty much where I checked out on you.

LOL.

So .... still no answers. I'll happily let others draw their own conclusions from that response

Have a nice day

 

[Lord of Planar]

Interesting that there's yet another thing indicting fossil fuels that you disagree with the experts over.

Hmmmmm.

I haven't seen evidence of them disagreeing with me, but my reading on the topic is limited. Would you agree or disagree that at fracking sites, accidental spills of the chemicals or intentional dumping may occur, to reduce waste disposal costs?

I don't disagree with harmful levels of chemicals found in the ground water. I just haven't seen any proof it is the actual fracking process that does it. Do you know of any reputable writings saying this as actually the known cause?

 

[Germinator]

Yes, some of us have brains that disregard tripe.

This image for example is wrong, and unsourced. I'll bet you copied it from a blogger that doesn't really know squat:

View attachment 67346582
It shows the combustion of methane, but speaks of gasoline.

A gallon of gasoline only weighs 6.1 pounds, but it does produce about 20 pounds of CO2.

I see stuff like that, and automatically know that the person who posted it due to thge number of errors, doesn't know what they speak of, and believes what ever the blogger of some other activist told them.

My brain is not wired to accept BS, like so many other do.

Why would I waste time looking at hours of material you say is good, when this image says all I need to know about the material you think is good?

as I explained (in a prior thread),... given the space constraints (for an illustration) selected CH4 (i.e. "methane") as the hydrocarbon fuel used in combustion reaction example because when I looked for "benzine" which a longer chain of carbon molecules (that is another example of fossil fuel),... couldn't find one as spiffy looking (that appealed to my eye)

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/july-4th-tribal-politics-and-climate-change.453594/

FYI the 20 lbs figure of CO2 created per gal of gas is from NASA (actually the 20 lbs figure is rounded up)

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html

AND the 98 tons of prehistoric plant material per gal of gas was something I read about long ago in physics news,... the university of Utah press release link is,...https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/654287

since I answered your questions,... what about sharing the genius insight/reasoning/research-papers you have to support your statements about way elevated CO2 levels about being nothing but good???

Lord of Planar said:
CO2 is good for plants. I would like to see it rise and stabilize to about 600 ppm.

Lord of Planar said:
I only see good, in creating more farmland and being a critical molecule for photosynthesis.

given science indicates in the PETM when CO2 concentrations were higher,... plants grew lazy,... IOW w/ elevated CO2 levels plants needed fewer stomata (when this happens there isn't as much photosynthesis)

Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are associated with reductions in protein and multiple key nutrients in rice, according to a new field study by an international team of scientists.

https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/increasing-co2-levels-reduce-rices-nutritional-value

also should mention the one should consider given elevated CO2 levels the boundary condition "math" (i.e. the finite amount of various soil nutrients)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2390258

just saying this "tripe" about knock on effects of elevated CO2 levels should be accounted for