MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Great Copenhagen Cock-up (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It seems to me that there is the science on the one hand and the politics on the other. And that at Copenhagen they have both been churned up to form a sort of religious brew that leads all and sundry (politicians, activists, academics, commentators - all) to take up positions and then to behave in an almost mindless manner such that the principle activities are to loudly affirm one's convictions and to even more loudly slag off one's opponents.

The science, as it seems to me, can be boiled down to the following:
1) Global temperatures have been rising steadily for the last 100 years or so until about 1987
2) Since 1987 global temperatures have dropped a bit or, according to some, have stood still.
3) Nobody disputes the above but the "catastrophe affirmers" maintain that '87 to now is just a local downturn in the over-arching temperature rise, while the "catastrophy deniers" take the position that '87 is a real turning point and the last twelve years is the start of a longer term downward trend.


But the politics however has to be based on some form of risk assessment and subsequent risk management. Are we not, therefore, facing the same classic choice as first set out by Spinoza in the context of belief or not in God?

If we are, then the only rational choice must be to join the party of the "catastrophe affirmers" and take action no matter which side of the science argument we support.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
If we are, then the only rational choice must be to join the party of the "catastrophe affirmers" and take action no matter which side of the science argument we support.


Carbon emission reduction is the only action certain to lead to catastrophe.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
the politics however has to be based on some form of risk assessment and subsequent risk management. Are we not, therefore, facing the same classic choice as first set out by Spinoza in the context of belief or not in God?


Politics is about the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria.......it is nothing to do with risk management.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I can remember as a child being worried in the 70s about the threat of the new Ice Age, which, after a few years of falling temperature, many "scientists" were telling us was just round the corner. These are the true facts:
- no-one can retrospectively measure global temperatures over the last thousand years. So many corrections have to be made to the raw data that it's all meaningless
- many people have a strong vested interest in global warming, from politicians who want to increase taxes to scientists looking for funding to crusties who want to turn back industrial progress. It is impossible to have a sensible argument with such people
- it was Pascal's wager, not Spinoza's!
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:

- it was Pascal's wager, not Spinoza's!
Indeed, it was. Apologies for a slip of the memory.
I can grant your other points but I am still left with the dilemma - "What should we do to be saved?"
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
Politics is about the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria.......it is nothing to do with risk management.

Yes and no. Yes it is about the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria, and always has been, viz - Socrates' Trial.

But no, it is NOT "nothing to do with risk management". There is here, I think you will agree, a confusion as between ends and means. One of the most important considerations for a politician (whether in power or merely aspiring to it) is the assessment of the risk(s) attaching to any policy and the management of those risks when deploying those policies or when choosing to oppose them.

The creation and manipulation of mass hysteria is an important and significant tool used in the management of those risks. Consider the case of the so-called GFC. Rudd's government in OZ chose a relatively low-risk strategy and in consequence the level of hysteria here re GFC is also low. Brown chose a high risk strategy and created a much higher level of hysteria to help obfuscate the issues and to "justify" his actions.

Politics is about risk management and the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria is one of the tools used by all politicians.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
Carbon emission reduction is the only action certain to lead to catastrophe.
You have my attention. Speak on. Convince me.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
Ishmael wrote:
Carbon emission reduction is the only action certain to lead to catastrophe.
You have my attention. Speak on. Convince me.


Simple logic matrix.

  • Cutting back on fossil fuel consumption will depress the world economy whether Global Warming is a real problem or not.
  • Global Warming might depress the world economy if it turns out to be real.


Obviously, the only safe bet is to carry on as normal.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
Politics is about risk management and the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria is one of the tools used by all politicians.


I think mass hysteria more often controls politicians.

Fortunately, hysteria is seldom sufficiently massive.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
berniegreen wrote:
Politics is about risk management and the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria is one of the tools used by all politicians.


I think mass hysteria more often controls politicians.

Fortunately, hysteria is seldom sufficiently massive.

If you are arguing that there is a positive feedback loop, I think I would agree with you.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:

  • Cutting back on fossil fuel consumption will depress the world economy whether Global Warming is a real problem or not.
  • Global Warming might depress the world economy if it turns out to be real.


Obviously, the only safe bet is to carry on as normal.

Bad argument I think.
It can equally well be argued that cutting back on fossil fuel consumption will be an enormous boost to the world economy, generating new R&D, new technologies, new industries and new service trades. There will be downturns in some industries of course particularly in petroleum production. But this would have the benefits of reducing the economic and political power of Chavez, of the Arab world and of Iran. If, for example, there were a massive shift to hydrogen cells for motor cars taken up by Exxon, Shell, BP etc there would be little long-term disadvantage for the fuel distribution industry.

I need to think about the economic effects of Global Warming. All the focus so far has been on social effects and I have a feeling that the economic consequences probably would not be any more serious than the GFC. But I am open to argument.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
It can equally well be argued that cutting back on fossil fuel consumption will be an enormous boost to the world economy,


In so far as anything is good for the economy, its participants are already busily engaged in making it so. Starving the system of energy can have no net positive effect: Starvation may force one to eat saw-dust but it won't make the saw-dust of-a-sudden more nourishing.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

"What should we do to be saved?"


Nothing, because so far there is no evidence that we are doomed. As you reminded us, global temperatures are now reducing, although no doubt there is a model to explain that.

If we responded to every pseudo-scientific scare story just in case it was true where would it end? In the 1970s we would have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to stop the forthcoming ice age; in 1999 our society was going to collapse because of Y2K; in Britain this year all public buildings should have been shut in case of Swine Flu. Don't forget that these scares and many more (CJD, Bird Flu, SARS, Killer Bees...) have found scientific support from the most respectable sources.

The common denominator here is money as these scares are nice earners for media, politicians and scientists. If you work for the government what better way to justify your parasitical existence than to come up with a scare story and then save everybody. And it isn't just state workers: the computer industry made billions out of Y2K.

The next time you feel fearful just light up the barbie and raise a glass to global warming.
Send private message
nemesis8


In: byrhfunt
View user's profile
Reply with quote

nemesis8 wrote:
Politics is about the creation and manipulation of mass hysteria.......it is nothing to do with risk management.


OK Bernie.....I said Politics is about..... I think it was you who brought in the politicians later...?

But let us not quibble........

As to your second point, about risk assessment and the GFC... The GFC was in part, created by a form of mass hysteria, the belief that house prices and certain investments would always rise.....

The fact that we have a GFC makes the point for me. (it is the hysteria fueled by the politicians/economists insistence that there would be no "bust" to follow the "boom" that created the problem) The suckers took out their mortgages and loans.....the banks and hedge funds sold them on...governments looked away...that is the way that hysteria works....

We have had mass hysteria, over GFC, swineflu and terrorism, currently it is global warming, your nice Mr Rudd is currently talking this up, for his own ends.......risk management???
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

berniegreen wrote:
It can equally well be argued that cutting back on fossil fuel consumption will be an enormous boost to the world economy...


In much the same way that making bricks without straw improved ancient Egyptian architecture.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group