What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

The answer is the US is not leading in this effort. I know you think we have good excuses for not leading (The Paris Accords were a bad deal…) but that does not alter the fact that we are not leading.

We’re not leading? What does this look like? Who is leading? The Germans? Their electric rates are about three times higher than the rest of Europe; is that what you want for us? I thought pulling out of Paris was a bold leadership move; maybe it will encourager les autres.

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/catholic/original/3X/4/3/432c46594be39e42f35b9d7667c57c4c3e1007a7.png

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First of all, a graph showing increases and decreases ignores the starting point for those increases and decreases. And I wish you would link all your graphs to the original source for context. In this case what you posted does not indicate the starting point of the comparison. Was it over a 1-year period? 10 years? 40 years? Who knows? In trying to find the graph myself I ran across this table from the same source as your graph (BP Statistical Review of World Energy). It says that the US had a decrease of 1.5% per annum over the period 2007-2017, covering all of the Obama administration years. So thank you President Obama. But now that President Trump is firmly in control, the emissions in 2018 went back up again by 2.6%. In the meantime, over that same 10-year period, as a percentage of their country’s total we have the following decreases:

• Finland: -3.9%
• Sweden: -2.5%
• Italy: -2.8%
• United Kingdom: -3.4%
• Spain: -2.3%
• U.S. -1.5%

In short, we started out the industrial age at much higher levels than anyone else, and we were leading for a while, but are no longer doing so.

 

[phaster]

Are there any persons who actually changed their viewpoint because if this thread?

sadly because of basic human nature, I doubt presenting fact(s) alone will change beliefs

think of it this way, individuals undertaking risky endeavors such as climbing a sheer rock face in a hostile wilderness, flying a new aircraft design for the first time, managing a startup company, etc., can be classified as either a fool or a wise man depending upon how they approach the matter,… in other words when faced w/ a risky endeavor

a fool (if they survive) might learn from their own mistakes,… the wise man learns from the mistakes of others

given the subject/context of this thread, the lesson I have learned is,… there is never absolute certainty, only various shades of gray (i.e. probability)

to assign hard numbers to this issue let us consider the odds of winning the california lottery (1 in 41,416,353)

So what's the better bet: Powerball, Mega Millions or Super Lotto Plus? We ask the experts - Los Angeles Times

when someone plays the lottery, they have only their money to lose BUT when people deny and/or dismiss the big picture science of climate change (as I have tried to do)

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

FWIW in the OP of this thread I pointed out that there is essentially zero understanding of the mechanisms that cause climate change in the public at large (so over the long discourse I’ve tried my best to outline the key concepts which non-scientists need to understand) basically aside from mentioning Laudato si’ then pointing out stuff cited by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the pope http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/events/2018/climatechange2018.html other long term users…

and actively work against educating/mitigate the deleterious effects of ever increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, they are paying with other peoples lives, at which point it becomes a moral problem, not one of probability

bottom line as I see things,… CC is akin to a lottery game where the odds are stacked against mankind, simply because of basic human nature

 

[Theo520]

You’d think there were people here too young to remember the “controversy” over acid rain

That was legit and there was an easy fix - add scrubbers to your coal generators.

“controversy” over whether the use of DDT was affecting predatory birds

DDT has more in common with climate change, in that the research was grossly misrepresented to push an agenda.

While excellent literature, however, Silent Spring was very poor science. Carson claimed that DDT was threatening many avian species with imminent extinction. Her evidence for this, however, was anecdotal and unfounded. In fact, during the period of widespread DDT use preceding the publication of Silent Spring , bird populations in the United States increased significantly, probably as a result of the pesticide’s suppression of their insect disease vectors and parasites. In her chapter “Elixirs of Death,” Carson wrote that synthetic insecticides can affect the human body in “sinister and often deadly ways,” so that cumulatively, the “threat of chronic poisoning and degenerative changes of the liver and other organs is very real.” In terms of DDT specifically, in her chapter on cancer she reported that one expert “now gives DDT the definite rating of a ‘chemical carcinogen.’”[16] These alarming assertions were false as well.[17]

 

[Theo520]

An interesting visual

All the World’s Coal Power Plants in One Map​

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-worlds-coal-power-plants-in-one-map/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

You’d think there were people here too young to remember the “controversy” over acid rain

That was legit and there was an easy fix - add scrubbers to your coal generators.

Nevertheless, there was a heated controversy and resistance to that “easy fix”. This should give us some perspective on today’s “controversy.”

“controversy” over whether the use of DDT was affecting predatory birds

DDT has more in common with climate change, in that the research was grossly misrepresented to push an agenda.

While excellent literature, however, Silent Spring was very poor science. Carson claimed that DDT was threatening many avian species with imminent extinction. Her evidence for this, however, was anecdotal and unfounded. In fact, during the period of widespread DDT use preceding the publication of Silent Spring , bird populations in the United States increased significantly, probably as a result of the pesticide’s suppression of their insect disease vectors and parasites. In her chapter “Elixirs of Death,” Carson wrote that synthetic insecticides can affect the human body in “sinister and often deadly ways,” so that cumulatively, the “threat of chronic poisoning and degenerative changes of the liver and other organs is very real.” In terms of DDT specifically, in her chapter on cancer she reported that one expert “now gives DDT the definite rating of a ‘chemical carcinogen.’”[16] These alarming assertions were false as well.[17]

Did Carson say DDT was threatening the bird population in general, or specific species? With regard to specific species, she certainly was correct.

With regard to DDT being a human carcinogen, it is still classified today as a “probably human carcinogen.” The only reason why we are still uncertain is that humans are not longer being exposed to DDT.

 

[Ender]

Did Carson say DDT was threatening the bird population in general, or specific species? With regard to specific species, she certainly was correct.

Perhaps, but the total elimination of DDT was not the answer.

Ecological studies have demonstrated that bioaccumulated DDT could cause thinning of eggshells and reproductive failure in birds of prey. The fault for this lies in the massive agricultural use of DDT. Dusting a single 100-hectare cotton field, for example, can require more than 1,100 kg of DDT over 4 weeks.

In contrast, DDT spraying for malaria control is less intensive, less frequent and far more contained. The current practice is to spray the interior surfaces only of houses at risk, leaving a residue of DDT at a concentration of 2 g/m 2 on the walls, ceiling and eaves, once or twice a year.

With regard to DDT being a human carcinogen, it is still classified today as a “probably human carcinogen.” The only reason why we are still uncertain is that humans are not longer being exposed to DDT.

How exciting. And what about the down side of eliminating it?

However, DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit malaria, a plague that sickens at least 300 million and kills over one million, mainly children, in economically underdeveloped areas of the tropics each year. Such a toll is scarcely comprehensible. To visualize it, imagine filling seven Boeing 747s with children, and then crashing them, every day.
(Nature Medicine - July 2000 - Volume 6 Number 7 - pp 729 - 731)

 

[Theo520]

Nevertheless, there was a heated controversy and resistance to that “easy fix”. This should give us some perspective on today’s “controversy.”

No you mischaracterize the events. Actual science was used and an effective response made within 15 yrs of it reaching public awareness.

• 1970 Clean Air Act starts to control coal plant pollution and increases use of lower sulfur coal, and increased research
• 1972 Hubbard Brook Valley is researched by scientists (earliest US report),
• Public awareness increases
• 1977 new Clean Air Act mandated scrubbers on new coal plants with some retrofitting
• 1980 US Congress passed Acid Deposition Act to scientifically look at the acid rain issue
• 1982 Reagan sees the impact and is adding support
• 1990 Clean Air Act increases control on sulfur emissions

So2 emissions have dropped 40% and acid rain levels had dropped 65% since 1976

Carson’s book repeatedly lied/misrepresented the science, stop defending her shoddy work.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Nevertheless, there was a heated controversy and resistance to that “easy fix”. This should give us some perspective on today’s “controversy.”

No you mischaracterize the events. Actual science was used and an effective response made within 15 yrs of it reaching public awareness.

Ha! Within the past year I have seen postings on CAF claiming acid rain was a hoax too. Here is a 2014 opinion article in Forbes still claiming that danger from acid rain was always a hoax. So it is no mischaracterization of events to say that that acid raid danger were and are still controversial, just like global warming.

Carson’s book repeatedly lied/misrepresented the science, stop defending her shoddy work.

Stop attacking her groundbreaking work that led the way to the environmental awareness.

 

[Theo520]

Ha! Within the past year I have seen postings on CAF claiming acid rain was a hoax too. Here is a 2014 opinion article in Forbes still claiming that danger from acid rain was always a hoax. So it is no mischaracterization of events to say that that acid raid danger were and are still controversial, just like global warming.

You are deflecting again, pulling a single anecdote to claim victory. Of course there is never 100% agreement and candidly there were probably alarmist projections as part of the acid rain controversy that were BS.

The facts are that a potential problem was identified, researched, and resolved within the space of two decades.

Stop attacking her groundbreaking work that led the way to the environmental awareness.

There is no justification for her groundbreaking “lies” about the science. Millions have died because of her lies.

How Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives

 

[Convert3]

With regard to DDT being a human carcinogen, it is still classified today as a “probably human carcinogen.” The only reason why we are still uncertain is that humans are not longer being exposed to DDT.

Yet millions more are subject to malaria, West Nile virus and many other diseases that kill.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Ha! Within the past year I have seen postings on CAF claiming acid rain was a hoax too. Here is a 2014 opinion article in Forbes still claiming that danger from acid rain was always a hoax. So it is no mischaracterization of events to say that that acid raid danger were and are still controversial, just like global warming.

You are deflecting again, pulling a single anecdote to claim victory.

Do you want more? Read about the Fred Singer, given a platform by the Reagan Administration, who tried unsuccessfully to derail action on acid rain.

And of course there is Rush Limbaugh who denies acid rain was a problem even to this day.

And here is one by CFACT.org that, incidentally, also denies global warming is a problem.

How many do you need before you are convinced that denial of acid rain as a problem was and is a real thing?

Stop attacking her groundbreaking work that led the way to the environmental awareness.

There is no justification for her groundbreaking “lies” about the science. Millions have died because of her lies.
How Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives

So says the daily beast. The fact is we cannot know how many died and how many lives were saved by environmental awareness. And you cannot lay the entire blame for a complete ban of DDT at the feet of Rachel Carson. See pointed out dangers of DDT that were real, and people reacted.

I suspect that the reason the ban on DDT is total has more to do with the logistical problems of making it available only in some limited applications. It is much easier to control DDT at the source than at the point of use. In any case, Carson did not ban DDT.

 

[Theo520]

Do you want more? Read about the Fred Singer, given a platform by the Reagan Administration, who tried unsuccessfully to derail action on acid rain.

And of course there is Rush Limbaugh who denies acid rain was a problem even to this day.

And here is one by CFACT.org that, incidentally, also denies global warming is a problem.

How many do you need before you are convinced that denial of acid rain as a problem was and is a real thing?

You still don’t ‘get it’. Of course there was disagreement on the threat of ‘acid rain’, but real science was done and action was taken. Stop pretending that I indicated unanimous support.

What is it that you disagree with in the CFACT article, where have they misquoted the actual science?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So says the daily beast. The fact is we cannot know how many died and how many lives were saved by environmental awareness. And you cannot lay the entire blame for a complete ban of DDT at the feet of Rachel Carson. See pointed out dangers of DDT that were real, and people reacted.

We do know DDT was essential in eradicating Malaria in many countries where it was used, very easy to project the lives that could have been saved in countries where it was not used to eradicate this disease.

She did real harm by lying about the actual supporting science behind her claims.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Do you want more? Read about the Fred Singer, given a platform by the Reagan Administration, who tried unsuccessfully to derail action on acid rain.

And of course there is Rush Limbaugh who denies acid rain was a problem even to this day.

And here is one by CFACT.org that, incidentally, also denies global warming is a problem.

How many do you need before you are convinced that denial of acid rain as a problem was and is a real thing?

You still don’t ‘get it’. Of course there was disagreement on the threat of ‘acid rain’, but real science was done and action was taken. Stop pretending that I indicated unanimous support.

Similarly, when we look back on the days of global warming denial from a few decades hence we will (hopefully) be able to say real science was done and action was taken. Some action has already been taken, and a lot of real science has been done.

What is it that you disagree with in the CFACT article, where have they misquoted the actual science?

I don’t want to get into re-litigating acid rain right now. Isn’t it enough to establish that they are downplaying the danger the acid rain ever posed?

So says the daily beast. The fact is we cannot know how many died and how many lives were saved by environmental awareness. And you cannot lay the entire blame for a complete ban of DDT at the feet of Rachel Carson. See pointed out dangers of DDT that were real, and people reacted.

We do know DDT was essential in eradicating Malaria in many countries where it was used, very easy to project the lives that could have been saved in countries where it was not used to eradicate this disease.

It is a little harder, but nevertheless reasonable, to project a large number of people who were not killed because of environmental awareness in general (not just DDT). Rachel Carson lit a spark that spread way beyond her immediate concerns. Who knows when widespread concern for the environment would have awakened if not for her book? I would guess it was inevitable, but without her, it might have been delayed another 20 years.

 

[steve-b]

Theo520:

LeafByNiggle:

Do you want more? Read about the Fred Singer, given a platform by the Reagan Administration, who tried unsuccessfully to derail action on acid rain.

And of course there is Rush Limbaugh who denies acid rain was a problem even to this day.

And here is one by CFACT.org that, incidentally, also denies global warming is a problem.

How many do you need before you are convinced that denial of acid rain as a problem was and is a real thing?

You still don’t ‘get it’. Of course there was disagreement on the threat of ‘acid rain’, but real science was done and action was taken. Stop pretending that I indicated unanimous support.

Similarly, when we look back on the days of global warming denial from a few decades hence we will (hopefully) be able to say real science was done and action was taken. Some action has already been taken, and a lot of real science has been done.

What is it that you disagree with in the CFACT article, where have they misquoted the actual science?

I don’t want to get into re-litigating acid rain right now. Isn’t it enough to establish that they are downplaying the danger the acid rain ever posed?

So says the daily beast. The fact is we cannot know how many died and how many lives were saved by environmental awareness. And you cannot lay the entire blame for a complete ban of DDT at the feet of Rachel Carson. See pointed out dangers of DDT that were real, and people reacted.

We do know DDT was essential in eradicating Malaria in many countries where it was used, very easy to project the lives that could have been saved in countries where it was not used to eradicate this disease.

It is a little harder, but nevertheless reasonable, to project a large number of people who were not killed because of environmental awareness in general (not just DDT). Rachel Carson lit a spark that spread way beyond her immediate concerns. Who knows when widespread concern for the environment would have awakened if not for her book? I would guess it was inevitable, but without her, it might have been delayed another 20 years.

The Obamas apparently just closed on a $15 million dollar beachfront property, 20+ acres and huge house, in Nantucket. I guess, just as an observation, they’re not worried much about global warming and a rising ocean.

 

[PetraG]

Perhaps, but the total elimination of DDT was not the answer.

I’m a chemist. The evidence does not defend the use of DDT as responsible stewardship of the Earth.

Insects develop a resistance to DDT, but they still accumulate it in their bodies and the compound moves up the food chain. It takes an extremely long time to break down into anything innoculous, as its primary decomposition products are also toxic. While limited use in extreme situations such as you describe could be defensible, ultimately it is not a satisfactory solution to the problems you’re describing.

This is about as balanced a review as you’re likely to find.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3114806/

“In some situations, DDT will provide the greatest achievable health benefit, but arguing that DDT is safe is ignoring the cumulative indications of many studies. The centrist-DDT position, including its recognition of this paradox, seems the only logical and rational conclusion. We have suggested possible ways to manage or address the paradox. A major priority of the centrist position is to use or develop effective alternatives to DDT. The centrist-DDT position remains, however, open to attack from both sides of the spectrum. The debate is likely to continue, but this must not hinder improvement and innovation for a better, safer, and healthier future.”

 

[PetraG]

The Obamas apparently just closed on a $15 million dollar beachfront property, 20+ acres and huge house, in Nantucket. I guess, just as an observation, they’re not worried much about global warming and a rising ocean.

The Obamas are not ever going to have normal private lives again.
Where did you want the Secret Service to have to protect them? Or do you think avoiding hypocrisy requires that people who want to lower CO2 output should be advocating for the destruction of large houses? This would make you happy? Why would anyone doubt this?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Obamas apparently just closed on a $15 million dollar beachfront property, 20+ acres and huge house, in Nantucket. I guess, just as an observation, they’re not worried much about global warming and a rising ocean.

The Obamas are not ever going to have normal private lives again.
Where did you want the Secret Service to have to protect them? Or do you think avoiding hypocrisy requires that people who want to lower CO2 output should be advocating for the destruction of large houses? This would make you happy? Why would anyone doubt this?

Well, all I can say to THAT is, most people I talk to, have a HUGE problem in particular with hypocrites, and hypocrisy in general.

Not to mention, It also tells one what THEY (the Obamas) deep down, truly believe. Then again, maybe it’s NOT their money they used.

 

[Ender]

The evidence does not defend the use of DDT as responsible stewardship of the Earth.

I think it does, in fact I consider it unconscionable not to use it because it is so obviously effective (IRS is Indoor Residual Spraying).

For example, when DDT was replaced with alternative chemicals for IRS in South Africa, the number of cases and deaths from malaria increased suddenly. The reintroduction of DDT (among other new measures) halted and reversed this epidemic, strongly indicating the effectiveness of DDT for IRS

A major priority of the centrist position is to use or develop effective alternatives to DDT.

No one objects to this, the question is what to do in the mean time? Until such time as a completely safe, effective, and inexpensive alternative is available what is the argument against using DDT?

For more than six decades, DDT used in IRS for malaria control has protected the lives of millions of people and prevented the suffering of millions more across the globe

This argument seems decisive to me:

“Even if the many studies on DDT do eventually conclude that there is some proven human health harm from DDT, that risk would still have to be balanced against the risks from malaria” (Africa Fighting Malaria 2010).

The human health hazard of using DDT will have to be great indeed to balance a million deaths from malaria each year.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Obamas apparently just closed on a $15 million dollar beachfront property, 20+ acres and huge house, in Nantucket. I guess, just as an observation, they’re not worried much about global warming and a rising ocean.

The house is actually on Martha’s Vineyard, not Nantucket. It is beachfront property, but only if you consider the shore of Edgartown Great Pond to be a beach. (It is not oceanfront property.) It probably is subject to sea level rise, though, being so close. I think of the Obama’s purchase as displaying not so much a disbelief in global warming, but a willingness to share a little bit in the fate of humanity at large. Imagine if the Obama’s had purchased a mountain top retreat instead. “They’ve got money to protect them from global warming, and don’t care what befalls the rest of us.”