Perversions of open-minded thinking on climate change

[Ka-El]

i have posted several links from nasa and noaa over the years and they clearly show the consensus among serious climate scientists is the evidence shows through greenhouse gas emissions since humans have started increasing these gases that we have indeed speeded up what happens naturally. what folks like you fail to understand is no matter how much money you have it wont protect you . you can have your opinion but please do not try and present it as fact because your wrong .

I already acknowledged man might have had an impact on speeding up climate change. The ability to think critically requires you to become less defensive and more carefully read what others are saying (not being stoned all day can help as well). It is also helpful if you can learn how to openly consider ideas that contradict your own. It is obvious you never read this link:

https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/01/perv ... te-change/

[maryjane48]

[the short form answer according to Kahan seems to come down to that when they know more science, they are better at applying the necessary confirmation bias to allow them to remain skeptical despite “overwhelming evidence”.]

well actually i did and this why i responded they way i did. as you can clearly see , the reason the right leaners with a better understanding of science and math disregard the idea of humans causing climate change is because according to the testers was they were better able to apply their bias even against overwhelming evidence that does show humans must be through our activities , actually are having a affect on our climate.


and yes i acknowledge you haven't called it a hoax , which is appreciated , but i disagree that go oh well is the right course of action . the transition off of carbon is going to be painful if we start now or 500 years from now . that is never going to change . when we switched from whale oil to petro oils , the whale oil merchants didn't exactly have a grand time either , but the reality was it had to be done because the whales were finite . oil is finite , it will come to a end , that's not debatable as synthetic oil is to costly to make on a grand scale . add to that the environmental costs , it seems like no brainer . better get done before we all go ohoh.


unfortunately there is no way to make the transition without people losing jobs , thats a given , but it will be same or worse when we are forced to , which will happen . what i would like to see is temporary govt programs to help the potential workers affected make the transition , even if it means bumping up a wage for set number of years , what ever it takes for rig worker or pipefitter to say hey , i can work with this so yes lets get off the oil , and programs of that nature . im for that to go hand in hand with getting off carbon because i think its right thing to do

[Ka-El]

the transition off of carbon is going to be painful if we start now or 500 years from now . that is never going to change .

Oh good grief!!! No one is saying the transition off carbon should start 500 years from now. You are so much more concerned with convincing people of your rigid and limited point that you are completely incapable of understanding what others are posting. It has become abundantly clear to me that you are locked into one perspective, one train of thought (and on more than just this issue) and unable to carefully and objectively consider ideas that don’t perfectly match your own preconceived notions. In my view (which I’m sure is shared by others here), this destroys the credibility of your opinion. Better things to do.

Ciao.

[maryjane48]

says the person unable to come up with facts . yes i admit im rigid on this because your grandkids future depends on it , there is no room to be flexible accept where the people working in oil now are concerned , our govt should help convince these workers with real money to help them make transition .


your for the 2 pipeline expansions , bigdeal , i dnt care , but my point is thus , whens the right time? what has to happen before you say ok im out oil has to go? i say now because its not worth it to take a chance with real evidence backing it up.

[Merry]

I read the Judith Curry article, and this particular phrase jumped out at me:

if everyone was more open-minded, they would see each other’s viewpoints and agree more.

I think that comment applies to much more than just the climate change argument, and would be a good philosophy to live by.

It seems to be that over the past 30 years or so, we have all become far less "open minded" than we used to be. And it shows in everything we do. Hence the rise in instances of terrorism, or the inability of the American Government to function as it should, and the list goes on. Maybe, instead of continuing to fight over our respective entrenched positions, we all need to figure out a way to become more "open minded" and the rest will take care of itself.

[maryjane48]

so whats your viewpoint? that jobs trump environment? i accept that's a strong argument to make but i have also put forward a solution through govt programs to assist the potential displaced workers find or create for them good paying jobs because i feel they deserve that level of help . for me it isnt screw the jobs , it is lets transfer them jobs to another sector which really should be the renewable energy sector as is happening in united states as we speak .


we know tourism creates more jobs and money than our oil and gas sector ever will so i dont understand how canada will some how lose by not exporting carbon dilbit .

When GDP figures for British Columbia are broken
down by industry, financial and real estate services make
the largest contribution to provincial wealth - more than
23% of GDP. Retail and wholesale trade make up 10% of
our GDP, construction makes up 8% and manufacturing
contributes a further 7%.
By contrast, oil, gas and support services make up just
3% of BC’s GDP. When secondary energy services,
including renewables, are added into the equation, the
total contribution to provincial GDP only rises to 11%.2


Across Canada, the numbers are similar. The oil
sands make up just 2% of Canada’s GDP and when
conventional oil & gas extraction is added in, the total
rises to only 6% of our wealth, a proportion that has
actually fallen in recent years.3
While these numbers are still significant, they make it
clear that the oil and gas sector is certainly not one of
the biggest sectors in BC or even in Canada.


Across the province, the mining, oil and gas sector
combined employs just 1% of the workforce, or
approximately 25,000 people.


In comparison, the province’s biggest employers are:
• Construction – 205,000 jobs
• Manufacturing – 164,000 jobs
• Tourism – 127,000 jobs
• Real estate & property development – 121,000 jobs

In total, the oil and gas sector, that is oil sands plus
conventional oil and gas, contributed 4.2% of all
corporate taxes in 2011. Compared to financial services
(25%) and manufacturing (13%) this number is relatively
low. 10 It is also significantly smaller than the proportion
of federal corporate taxes paid by the oil & gas sector in
2006 of 9.4%. 11

As BC’s economy experiences rapid growth in service and knowledge-based sectors, businesses that specialize in
everything from whale watching to mobile app development are fast gaining importance. Although primary resource
industries have historically been a core part of the provincial economy, the sector as a whole is no longer the main
source of wealth for British Columbians. Within this, extractive industries - oil, mining and gas - play an even smaller
role in contributing to jobs, tax revenues or GDP, both in southern BC and in northern communities. Instead, the
province’s main economic drivers are now based around innovation, creativity and the knowledge economy.
As a result, any decisions about extractive industry development must consider the full economic impacts - both costs
and benefits - with particular consideration to emerging and rapidly growing industries that generate good, lasting
jobs for British Columbians and contribute meaningfully to our province’s wealth.

http://credbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/201 ... my-WEB.pdf


so like i said , the transition must go hand in hand with programs for the displaced workers and the reality is the ones that will be losing out the most is the foreign multinational petroleum companies , which we shouldnt have to much sympathy for should we?

Based in Houston, KMP began with a few assets,

http://www.kindermorgan.com/about_us/kmi_history.aspx sounds like texas to me


Enbridge invested in the SunBridge wind power project in Saskatchewan in 2002, beginning its portfolio in renewable energy investment that now tops $3-billion, includes 12 wind farms, four solar energy operations, and a geothermal project, and represents more than 1,800 MW of green power capacity.

looks to me like enbridge knows the future , but if they can milk the oil and gas why not as long as we let them .

Enbridge remains a company that looks beyond the horizon to chart a course for success. Through our investment in renewable energy technologies, such as wind farms, solar operations, a geothermal project, and waste heat recapture technology, and our Neutral Footprint initiative, which stabilizes our environmental footprint at January 2009 levels, we are committed to safely, reliably, and sustainably delivering the energy North America counts on to power our society and the economy.

they are ready for the change, they just need they incentive to do it

[Ka-El]

says the person unable to come up with facts

Sigh. Says the poster who is unwilling to follow any links or read anything anyone else has posted.

so whats your viewpoint?

I have already acknowledged that I personally believe our climate is changing. I have also acknowledged that I believe humans have contributed to accelerating that change. However, the crux of the issue is that our climate is changing anyway due to other factors beyond our control; and due to acceleration of change at the beginning and ending of cycles that change would also be accelerating anyway. Furthermore – and this is really important – any effort by humankind to stop or even slow this process will be futile.

Now here’s another point I have already made multiple times. Just because I believe the idea humans could stop or slow climate change is beyond arrogance, I still believe we should be making every effort to wean ourselves of oil reliance for the sake of both our air and water quality. Rather than waiting 500 years, we have already started to do that and we will continue to do that. It is, however, going to take a very long time. Fortunately, there are things we are doing, and things we could be doing that would make a significant impact and I have already suggested a few in previous posts you’ve responded to without bothering to read.

We could significantly reduce carbon emissions by significantly reducing the motive for people to drive in the cities creating traffic congestion (the biggest offender in the carbon emission game). As already stated this will require a massive investment in public transport and infrastructure development, and the use of heavy machinery operating on fossil fuel (no, we don’t yet have electric earth movers). With the political will we could prohibit cars from even driving into the cities, only allowing electric taxis beyond certain boundaries, but this would not be accepted without a public transport system that was more dependable and convenient to use than cars. We already have the ability to do this. We simply need to create the collective will.

I’ve also made the suggestion that we could, and really should be building stronger levies and storm breaks to protect coastal areas from extreme storms. This will also require a massive investment in infrastructure development, and the use of heavy machinery operating on fossil fuel. However, the money spent will be a fraction of the cost in damages if we don’t. We also need to take steps to better prepare for and deal with forest fires, and encourage the development of GMOs. We need to quit being distracted about ideas of slowing or stopping climate change, and start better preparing ourselves.

Humans still need to use fossil fuel to advance these projects and that could be what saves us. Canada needs to export our oil because our economy depends on that. We will gradually transition away from this but it will take many years and in the meantime oil and its by-products remain vital. I can understand protesting certain pipeline routes, but just protesting pipelines is a dangerous distraction because it dissuades us away from pressuring government to take the more courageous steps and investing on projects that will really make a difference.

I know. This post was long. You probably won’t read it either.

[Ka-El]

we know tourism creates more jobs and money than our oil and gas sector ever will so i dont understand how canada will some how lose by not exporting carbon dilbit .

Some people want to earn more than minimum wage.

[maryjane48]

i did read it and it says what i say . i agree and i acknowledged your belief the climate is changing and appreciated it . no debate needed there . but one i dont see how condition on first nations being in majority can be met when now the count is less than 40 out of over a 100 , and how the plan for cleaning dilbit from ocean floor is going to work .


now the first nations will end up being bribed and lets not kid ourselves because that's exactly what will happen for them to agree , so i don't see that being impossible , but the clean up on the ocean i do , and that's really the condition that worries me .


and as i have stated i wouldn't support a transition without real help for the workers in some form because i think canada can afford to do that .

[MAPearce]

Face it ... Climate change is a hoax...

Volcanoes are worse ..

[lesliepaul]

ka-el..........just face it..........maryjane48 is a climate change zealot. They are all the same, they state they are reasonable and listen.........but ONLY if 100% of their views are accepted by ALL!

MAPearce........I am on your side.

YES, mankind has contributed to climate change...........A VERY SMALL FRACTION. The earth has looked after itself for billions of years and when it wants us gone.........there is nothing mankind can do other than try to drain everyone's bank account before it happens.

[Jlabute]

We are always transitioning to better energy sources without being told to do so. 1000 years ago it used to be hay and wood, then coal, then gas/oil, hydro/nuclear etc. Don't need climate legislation to enforce what is always happening. We all naturally want better power sources... and they are coming.

Governments always want to drain your bank account just like in Greece. You just have to allow them a reason to do it.

http://debatepost.com/2016/08/23/warnin ... omy-fails/

[The Green Barbarian]

[


and yes i acknowledge you haven't called it a hoax , which is appreciated ,

I have called man-made climate change a hoax, because it is.

[spooker]

We are always transitioning to better energy sources without being told to do so. 1000 years ago it used to be hay and wood, then coal, then gas/oil, hydro/nuclear etc. Don't need climate legislation to enforce what is always happening. We all naturally want better power sources... and they are coming.

"Better" is a great word but too subjective ... the progression has been for efficiency, not "better" ... each of the stages you describe move from one type of stored energy to the next based on the amount of energy that can be recovered with the least amount of input energy and releasing the most usable energy ...

I would call solar a better energy source but since it's not as efficient yet versus other sources it a) isn't cost effective, and b) isn't pushed in the business/government world ..

I don't feel that reducing our impact on climate change is futile ... we're smart monkeys, we just need more time to find ways to save ourselves and the way to do that right now is to reduce the output in any small way that we can ...

Yesterday someone asked me why there are still ODs occurring when everyone knows about fentanyl ... it's the same reason that you'll see smokers huddled in the corner of the office parking lot when it's -15 and they need a nicotine fix ... and it's the same reason that people continue to drive whenever they want even if they're just going to the store to grab something that will fit in their pocket while their bicycle hangs in the garage ... we want to do what we want to do and will rationalize things to the point that they can do it ... we don't want to give up our conveniences ...

I'm open-minded and scientifically literate ... I believe that humans have had an impact on climate change and that we're not as scared as we should be ... but the wonderful thing about the human mind is that I can think that while at the same time continuing to use products derived from petroleum ...

We should listen to each other ... and talk without judging ... but we should also be willing to agree that doing nothing is the worst choice and each one of us can take a small part in the responsibility ...

This argument always reminds me of the same discussion between atheists and faithful ... who wins if there isn't a god and who guarantees they lose if there is? (Pascal's Wager)

[w84u2]

and it's the same reason that people continue to drive whenever they want even if they're just going to the store to grab something that will fit in their pocket while their bicycle hangs in the garage

I don't understand how anyone could connect the correlation between your analogy and a physical addiction to a drug, but please carry on.