Yes, I'm wondering if mangroves will start appearing in the Mediterranean any time soon.
I'm assuming the seeds would need to come in through the Gibraltar straight, which is not exactly wide... Also the Med is saltier than the Atlantic, not sure if that would be a problem for mangroves.
Gibralter has a tremendous flow of water through it from the Atlantic. but the obstacle is that the circulation of the North Atlantic brings mostly water from the North to feed that flow. The Suez Canal is a sea level canal, though, and feeds water from Indian Ocean via the Red Sea. The flow of water there is directly from Africa but not that far south, but there are mangroves in East Africa and in South Asia so that's not a deal breaker. Also, there is the matter of ship bilges being emptied, though I've no idea the current status of that type of transport of flora and fauna.
here's an article I found about dispersal of floating seeds. apparently there are some obstacles due to them sinking mumble mumble salinity:
Most mangrove propagules don’t travel far. They drop straight under their parent tree or get trapped in the tangled roots of the surrounding mangrove forest and take root a few feet or miles away. But long distance dispersal across oceans and seas is still important, said Van der Stocken. If mangroves need to expand their range because of unsuitable environmental conditions from climate change or weather events, as in Texas, being able to spread their genetic material long distances on ocean currents becomes important, he said.
Across the globe in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific mangrove populations, including those along the Gulf of Mexico, reduced water density was less apparent in the study models. However, the model found these regions might develop saltier water than the Western Pacific. Even if propagules travel the same distance, increased salinity might affect their survival, which will have implications for the dispersal dynamics of mangroves in those regions.
> I would not be surprised to see Mangroves at that latitude.
You should be! Per TFA: "60 miles north of its previously recorded range—by far the northernmost mangrove in the U.S"
IMHO each observation of a new out-of-range specimen will be unsurprising without remembering the poetic lessons of infinitesimals, ex. Ship of Theseus, if not the prosaics of infinitesimals themselves.
> It's probably more surprising that these areas aren't already subtropical.
Given my surprise at this comment, I think I may be missing the significance in the switch from unsurprising there's a new record for US mangrove latitude to surprising it wasn't already subtropical. Is a mangrove a sufficient condition for being subtropical? Is it a necessary condition? My understanding is Florida is firmly subtropical on all the tentpoles: hot summers, mild winters, and rarity of frosts (famously, enabling its orange farming).
> Climate change seems to reduce whatever factor caused the cooling there.
Occam's Razor would say this adds an unneeded factor of a previously-unknown-to-humanity outlier cooled state, to further an irrational argument that it isn't surprising.
As someone who grew up in Miami and took many field trips to mangrove forests as a student I was unaware they weren’t indigenous to all of Florida.
The article doesn’t touch on this but there are 3 species of Florida mangroves. Red mangroves grow directly from salt water up to 3 ft deep. They also have spindly roots that trap sediment that builds up into soil. And after a storm colonies of them can break away and form floating mangrove islands. So not only do they migrate by germinating in new locations, they physically lift up and move.
You're not on point. They probably only started to 'physically lift up' because the climate warmed. It says so in the second line. /s
I get that the human lifespan is quite a short thing, but it's it so hard to conceive of nature itself being in continuous flux? Is it really anthropogenic global warming? The historical record indicates huge changes..
I tend to think it was ever thus, and that 'climate change' is better considered a a corporate marketing initiative to get the consumer to happily accept more expensive yet inferior products.
Of course there has been 'climate change' and 'global warming' before, caused by things like large volcanic eruptions (deccan traps) or meteorites. But they have pretty universally coincided with mass extinctions. And when we say glabal warming is anthropogenic, we mean this time humans are causing the warming by emitting a lot of co2 (and methane and no2 etc). It is fairly unequivocal at this point. This time its entirely within our power to prevent another mass extinction, because this this time we are causing it. Why wouldnt we try?
Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes.
Also the fossil fuel economy is:
1. Polluting regardless of climate change, go behind an older bus and smell some fumes, see all the plastic littered about leading to things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
2. Ultimately unsustainable. We <<will>> run out of cheap fossil fuels, and biofuels take land away from agriculture and other land uses.
Plus, technologically, the writing is on the wall. Why would we be stupid and not use the sun's energy and not create advanced batteries, which can be used for all sorts of amazing things? Just to perpetuate combustion engines which are a miracle of technology for how well their work considering their rudimentary principles?
> Right now? No. But I also expect to live at least 30 more years and I want a nice world for my descendants, so yes.
Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying.
If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise?
The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?
Why would anyone watch a film with a second rate USofA VP when they could read the IPCC report in full or even just start with something basic like Syukuro Manabe's 1967 Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity ?
It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages).
Heat equations aren't that hard and the changes made by humans to the atmosphere are on record in gas libraries dating back to the Cold War and available in real time high resolution by dedicated satellites today.
There is no doubt in the matter of AGW anymore save in the minds of those challenged by math and susceptable to the FUD spread by denialists.
> Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying.
No, it doesn't.
> If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise?
Ummm.. we're already doing that. The status quo is corporations, look at this:
About 20% of those primarily work on fossil fuel extraction and distribution. On top of those there are about 15 ICE vehicle manufacturers that directly rely on fossil fuels for now, then a bunch of pharma companies that do the same (they would obviously get an exemption until we find a better solution).
This premise that somehow combating climate change is a corporate plot while not combating climate change is a grassroots initiative is false.
You're acting like we're a bunch of hippy libertarian hunter-scavengers doing our own things. We aren't. We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. We should make them invest that money we already hand over into things which are SUSTAINABLE long term.
> The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies.
It's not an "idea", it's a scientific theory with lots of data backing it. An "idea" is what Uncle Joe had last night when he decided to spend thousands of bucks on his huge truck to be able to roll coal.
> For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?
You know what, I've decided that I not only HATE climate change, I also HATE:
* micro plastics
* Great Pacific Garbage patch and all the plastics thrown randomly into nature
* particulate emissions from vehicles
* including tire and road wear particulate emissions
* loud vehicles everywhere in cities, taking up to 25% of ALL space in cities
* heat islands due to said vehicles needing flat concrete/asphalt surfaces EVERYWHERE
* etc.
I don't want to return to the Stone Age, I love tech. But this current generation of tech is long overdue for getting trimmed around the edges.
Walkability, bikeability, general liveability, electric bikes, electric mopeds, electric cars, induction hobs, electric ovens, heat pumps, good insulation for homes, higher density where there is demand for more housing, work from home, etc., etc., are ALL just good ideas for improving quality of life.
> We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations.
That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion?
You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it.
You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?
I'll prefix this to say that I'm currently reading a book that's having quite an impact on me, it's about American psychology, it's called Fantasyland. Its main point is that Americans, due to their founding myths of extreme individualism ("rugged individualism"), freedom above everything and religiosity, are more prone to conspiracy theories. That said...
> That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion?
It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency.
> You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it.
Ok, and this argument is utterly useless and nihilistic. The status quo is anti-climate change. As I said above, a lot of money (and power) in our societies is tied into fossil fuel companies, ICE vehicle manufacturers, etc. Who would be these massive and nebulous "climate change science buyers" and how are they outfoxing and outspending the proven massive "anti climate change science buyers" (companies totaling maybe at least a a third of the global economy!) ?
> You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity?
I expect poor people to be grandfathered in (they will be able to use their old stuff until it breaks down) and middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it.
> Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?
Just like, for example, ICE vehicle manufacturers have been doing at least since COVID? How much more does a comparable ICE vehicle cost compared to 10 years ago?
If anything, almost all the techs I listed in my previous comment have a much lower potential floor, i.e. they can be much cheaper than current tech. Electricity produced from renewables can be extremely cheap, especially solar in sunny places. Heat pumps are basic tech we've had for almost a century. EVs should drop in price like a rock once we have the manufacturing ecosystems built out and batteries continue getting cheaper.
The main issue is the current price gouging, especially by middle men. A cheap solar panel or cheap-ish heat pump has humongous installation costs, frequently costing more than the equipment itself, which is insane.
Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. I have read and heard arguments from the other side, and I do understand the pain felt by many, but it's a pain that's generally going remain if we keep mass using fossil fuels PLUS we risk burning our future, completely. The risk just isn't worth it.
> It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency.
I'm happy with the basis of my opinions. I'm happy to express them and argue my side.
I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. I wouldn't say this, for example:
> middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it.
> Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short.
That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral - acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right.
Each person is given their own mental faculties to with as they like. We each have the opportunity to consider right and wrong, true and false in whatever way we like. One can have personally verified opinions or one can accept consensus opinion, or anything in between. Each of us gets to choose.
A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such).
> That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral.
At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less.
I'm at a point of life where:
a) I know I don't know everything
b) I know that I'm frequently wrong
However I also know that I read 10-100x more than the average person, I interact with people that do the same, I challenge my assumptions periodically (which average people don't do) and whenever possible, I verify things to make sure I'm aligned with reality (which average people do).
Most people just don't bother/give up/were never educated to nurture their intellectual side. It's fair to admit this, even though we might be idealists that hope that everyone will wisen up and do this. Some people will always remain dumb (due to lack of privilege or otherwise... at some point it doesn't matter, the end result is the same).
So, knowing the little I do know and the lot that I don't know, I'm fairly confident that the best model for our current reality regarding climate is accepting that humans are changing it, probably for the worse.
And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and...
So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors.
> I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral
Guess what, those Big Oil mega corps are forcing their reality on non-believer me every day. I want fewer of their cars, I want more greenery, I want more bikes, I want more ebikes, I want more and better side walks, I want my kids to breathe a clean air.
> I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others.
Then nothing will get done. Even the freest of direct democracies never has 100% consensus. Some people buckle up and get taken along for the ride, gritting their teeth.
> A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it.
It is based in violent use of force. I'm glad to hear that this suits you, I hope your opinions and convictions remain in line with the government's.
> Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such)
Hmm. This is not something you know; it might be something you believe. Unless you have personal experience of warlords.
When you say 'government' I think you are talking about the overt state apparatus - eg politicians, government buildings, courts, police, etc. But I think of a 'governance system', which includes schooling and media and both political parties. We are presented with an illusion of debate, reasoning, etc whilst being guided towards preordained goals.
> At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less.
Yes, you cannot verify everything. But do you actually verify anything? Eg, what climate change bits have you personally verified? I have tried btw, but the beaches I knew decades ago are still at the same height, plastic bags do not last for 100s of years - ie my personal verification leads me to the opposite conclusions of those that are commonly made.
> And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and...
You say we... Which group is this that you speak for? Which group has the real handle on truth that it can force everyone else to abide by it? Does truth really need to be forced on others - I would have hoped it it was true, it would demonstrable. If it is not demonstrable, perhaps it is not truth, despite all the books, shows on TV, etc.
> So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors.
So say, lots of group who are convinced of their position, environmental folk, religious, political, etc. They can't all be right though? It is it that the mightiest are the rightest?
For me, all that ideology is a recipe for confrontation. We all have to live here .. can we not do so with conversation, cooperating on those things we care about, and yet not forcing others to go against their conscience? I try not to force others, it seems a viable way to go. And it's not like I know the truth and have never been wrong. I would hate to force something on another, only to realise my force was in error later on, even if I was well meaning at the time. There's really no need to force others to act as you think is right, even if you have read a lot of books.
> Then nothing will get done.
It's really pretty good already. I don't need to force my "improvements" on the world.
You want to hang a label on my arguments - conspiracy theories, 'absolute relativist' (whatever that is) rather than engaging with the arguments. Nor do you acknowledge the hypocrisy of your position (that you want to force others to do as you say, even though you don't know 'the truth').
You would be a tyrant. If you were to succeed, all those you forced would rightfully seek to de-throne you, and replace your 'rule by science' with rule by principles of their own: Jesus, Marxism, etc.
All the while everyone would be missing the point that one cannot force others to accept their (self proclaimed) enlightened view of 'right'/'truth'. Either the truth is self-evident, demonstrable, or one ought to be able to tolerate a variety of opinions.
The truth is demonstrable and since reality is complex, demonstrating it can be a life long pursuit. You are a climate change skeptic, which puts you against the scientific consensus which I agree with, which should have ended this discussion a long time ago.
I've engaged with your arguments more than I should have, I'm not going to change your mind.
I should have actually ended this discussion at "science can be bought" bit, which was a prima facie fallacy for climate change, when climate change deniers HAVE THE MOST MONEY, WHICH I HAVE POINTED OUT REPEATEDLY.
So basically you were accusing the weaker and poorer party of buying science while the more powerful and richer party did... What exactly? :-))))
But you have not demonstrated the truth to yourself - so you are instead comforting yourself by aligning with the "scientific consensus". This is a religious position.
You have failed to engage with me, as you are not putting forward a personal position - you are simply saying 'scientific consensus', as if deference to scientific opinion is the truth. But it is your belief system - you are verifying nothing. You merely pay lip service to the scientific method, while reading this or that.
This is no different to other religious positions, that are not grounded in empirical observation - such as Christianity or Marxism.
When I was a boy we played capture the flag in some of the undeveloped waterfront acreage that is all covered by condos for decades now. If you found a place that was dry land and you had to go through mangroves to get to, that was an isolated place.
Before development, lots of the Intracoastal and side canals had mangroves before the first seawalls were built, we thought they were a nuisance when there were so many it was difficult to find a sandy spot to beach a small boat and go ashore.
The local kids called them gooli-gooli plants, everybody else was from up north and they didn't know what they were either :)
38 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadAnyway, if you're talking about Aedes Aegypti, it's been causing various kinds of outbreaks in Europe since the 1800s.
It's probably more surprising that these areas aren't already subtropical. Climate change seems to reduce whatever factor caused the cooling there.
I'm assuming the seeds would need to come in through the Gibraltar straight, which is not exactly wide... Also the Med is saltier than the Atlantic, not sure if that would be a problem for mangroves.
here's an article I found about dispersal of floating seeds. apparently there are some obstacles due to them sinking mumble mumble salinity:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19072022/mangrove-seeds-o...
Most mangrove propagules don’t travel far. They drop straight under their parent tree or get trapped in the tangled roots of the surrounding mangrove forest and take root a few feet or miles away. But long distance dispersal across oceans and seas is still important, said Van der Stocken. If mangroves need to expand their range because of unsuitable environmental conditions from climate change or weather events, as in Texas, being able to spread their genetic material long distances on ocean currents becomes important, he said.
Across the globe in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific mangrove populations, including those along the Gulf of Mexico, reduced water density was less apparent in the study models. However, the model found these regions might develop saltier water than the Western Pacific. Even if propagules travel the same distance, increased salinity might affect their survival, which will have implications for the dispersal dynamics of mangroves in those regions.
You should be! Per TFA: "60 miles north of its previously recorded range—by far the northernmost mangrove in the U.S"
IMHO each observation of a new out-of-range specimen will be unsurprising without remembering the poetic lessons of infinitesimals, ex. Ship of Theseus, if not the prosaics of infinitesimals themselves.
> It's probably more surprising that these areas aren't already subtropical.
Given my surprise at this comment, I think I may be missing the significance in the switch from unsurprising there's a new record for US mangrove latitude to surprising it wasn't already subtropical. Is a mangrove a sufficient condition for being subtropical? Is it a necessary condition? My understanding is Florida is firmly subtropical on all the tentpoles: hot summers, mild winters, and rarity of frosts (famously, enabling its orange farming).
> Climate change seems to reduce whatever factor caused the cooling there.
Occam's Razor would say this adds an unneeded factor of a previously-unknown-to-humanity outlier cooled state, to further an irrational argument that it isn't surprising.
The article doesn’t touch on this but there are 3 species of Florida mangroves. Red mangroves grow directly from salt water up to 3 ft deep. They also have spindly roots that trap sediment that builds up into soil. And after a storm colonies of them can break away and form floating mangrove islands. So not only do they migrate by germinating in new locations, they physically lift up and move.
I get that the human lifespan is quite a short thing, but it's it so hard to conceive of nature itself being in continuous flux? Is it really anthropogenic global warming? The historical record indicates huge changes..
I tend to think it was ever thus, and that 'climate change' is better considered a a corporate marketing initiative to get the consumer to happily accept more expensive yet inferior products.
Will you just roll over and die like a dinosaur if you could do something about it?
Also the fossil fuel economy is:
1. Polluting regardless of climate change, go behind an older bus and smell some fumes, see all the plastic littered about leading to things like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
2. Ultimately unsustainable. We <<will>> run out of cheap fossil fuels, and biofuels take land away from agriculture and other land uses.
Plus, technologically, the writing is on the wall. Why would we be stupid and not use the sun's energy and not create advanced batteries, which can be used for all sorts of amazing things? Just to perpetuate combustion engines which are a miracle of technology for how well their work considering their rudimentary principles?
Everyone wants a nice world. But this misses the point of what I'm saying.
If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise?
The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies. For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?
It's 57 years old but still an absolute stonker of a paper, rightly considered the single most influential paper in climate research. (and only 19 pages).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...
Heat equations aren't that hard and the changes made by humans to the atmosphere are on record in gas libraries dating back to the Cold War and available in real time high resolution by dedicated satellites today.
There is no doubt in the matter of AGW anymore save in the minds of those challenged by math and susceptable to the FUD spread by denialists.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
No, it doesn't.
> If you give up lots of your money and resources to politicians and corporations, do you think you will get a nicer world? Even if that's what they promise?
Ummm.. we're already doing that. The status quo is corporations, look at this:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/
About 20% of those primarily work on fossil fuel extraction and distribution. On top of those there are about 15 ICE vehicle manufacturers that directly rely on fossil fuels for now, then a bunch of pharma companies that do the same (they would obviously get an exemption until we find a better solution).
This premise that somehow combating climate change is a corporate plot while not combating climate change is a grassroots initiative is false.
You're acting like we're a bunch of hippy libertarian hunter-scavengers doing our own things. We aren't. We live in societies quite tightly controlled by corporations. We should make them invest that money we already hand over into things which are SUSTAINABLE long term.
> The climate change idea has been promoted since the seventies.
It's not an "idea", it's a scientific theory with lots of data backing it. An "idea" is what Uncle Joe had last night when he decided to spend thousands of bucks on his huge truck to be able to roll coal.
> For an example of broken promises, you should re-watch Al gore's first movie. People loved the film at the time. Count the number of failed predictions. Is it ok to shout fire in a crowded cinema? Is it ok if you are a politician, the fire is fake, and you have fire retardant blankets to sell? Or is that just business?
You know what, I've decided that I not only HATE climate change, I also HATE:
* micro plastics
* Great Pacific Garbage patch and all the plastics thrown randomly into nature
* particulate emissions from vehicles
* including tire and road wear particulate emissions
* loud vehicles everywhere in cities, taking up to 25% of ALL space in cities
* heat islands due to said vehicles needing flat concrete/asphalt surfaces EVERYWHERE
* etc.
I don't want to return to the Stone Age, I love tech. But this current generation of tech is long overdue for getting trimmed around the edges.
Walkability, bikeability, general liveability, electric bikes, electric mopeds, electric cars, induction hobs, electric ovens, heat pumps, good insulation for homes, higher density where there is demand for more housing, work from home, etc., etc., are ALL just good ideas for improving quality of life.
Even if climate change doesn't happen.
https://imgur.com/up6yu
That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion?
You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it.
You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity? Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?
> That's right. No need to cheer on the tightening control though. That is a form of fanaticism - you think you know what is right and everyone ought to do it. One should do things according to one's conscience. But, other opinions are available! Who has the truth to know right from wrong? Is it ok to have a different opinion?
It is ok, but not opinions are equal. Not all are equally well founded, not all are equally well reasoned, not all weigh all arguments by their importance and urgency.
> You do realise, that even science opinions are purchasable? If you have the money and need scientific support, you will get it.
Ok, and this argument is utterly useless and nihilistic. The status quo is anti-climate change. As I said above, a lot of money (and power) in our societies is tied into fossil fuel companies, ICE vehicle manufacturers, etc. Who would be these massive and nebulous "climate change science buyers" and how are they outfoxing and outspending the proven massive "anti climate change science buyers" (companies totaling maybe at least a a third of the global economy!) ?
> You possibly have a lot of disposable income, are quite young, live in a city, etc. But what of people with different life situations, with 'legacy' heating systems, ovens, etc. Do you want them to be penalised to do 'right thing'? Perhaps they should scrap their old but serviceable car? Pay more for their electricity?
I expect poor people to be grandfathered in (they will be able to use their old stuff until it breaks down) and middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it.
> Is that progress, or just a trick to get people to pay more?
Just like, for example, ICE vehicle manufacturers have been doing at least since COVID? How much more does a comparable ICE vehicle cost compared to 10 years ago?
If anything, almost all the techs I listed in my previous comment have a much lower potential floor, i.e. they can be much cheaper than current tech. Electricity produced from renewables can be extremely cheap, especially solar in sunny places. Heat pumps are basic tech we've had for almost a century. EVs should drop in price like a rock once we have the manufacturing ecosystems built out and batteries continue getting cheaper.
The main issue is the current price gouging, especially by middle men. A cheap solar panel or cheap-ish heat pump has humongous installation costs, frequently costing more than the equipment itself, which is insane.
Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short. I have read and heard arguments from the other side, and I do understand the pain felt by many, but it's a pain that's generally going remain if we keep mass using fossil fuels PLUS we risk burning our future, completely. The risk just isn't worth it.
I'm happy with the basis of my opinions. I'm happy to express them and argue my side.
I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others. I wouldn't say this, for example:
> middle and upper class people to foot the bill for innovating and reducing costs for everyone, since they can most afford it.
> Anyway, you seem quite conspiracy-minded (please read Fantasyland if you have the time), so I'm going to cut this discussion short.
That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral - acts of force (wrongs) can not be made right.
Each person is given their own mental faculties to with as they like. We each have the opportunity to consider right and wrong, true and false in whatever way we like. One can have personally verified opinions or one can accept consensus opinion, or anything in between. Each of us gets to choose.
Absolute freedom doesn't exist either.
A government is a legitimate monopoly of violence and I'm all for it. Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such).
> That's fine. I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral.
At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less.
I'm at a point of life where:
a) I know I don't know everything
b) I know that I'm frequently wrong
However I also know that I read 10-100x more than the average person, I interact with people that do the same, I challenge my assumptions periodically (which average people don't do) and whenever possible, I verify things to make sure I'm aligned with reality (which average people do).
Most people just don't bother/give up/were never educated to nurture their intellectual side. It's fair to admit this, even though we might be idealists that hope that everyone will wisen up and do this. Some people will always remain dumb (due to lack of privilege or otherwise... at some point it doesn't matter, the end result is the same).
So, knowing the little I do know and the lot that I don't know, I'm fairly confident that the best model for our current reality regarding climate is accepting that humans are changing it, probably for the worse.
And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and...
So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors.
> I'll say that these 2 ideas are flawed that a/ you know something to be true because you've been told it is, even though you do not have not personally verified whatever-it-is, leaves you very open to manipulation by whoever has the megaphone you listen to and b/ the idea that the apparent consensus opinion is right and should force it's version of reality on non-believers is immoral
Guess what, those Big Oil mega corps are forcing their reality on non-believer me every day. I want fewer of their cars, I want more greenery, I want more bikes, I want more ebikes, I want more and better side walks, I want my kids to breathe a clean air.
> I don't expect to be able to force my opinions on others.
Then nothing will get done. Even the freest of direct democracies never has 100% consensus. Some people buckle up and get taken along for the ride, gritting their teeth.
It is based in violent use of force. I'm glad to hear that this suits you, I hope your opinions and convictions remain in line with the government's.
> Because I know that the alternatives are much worse (warlords and such)
Hmm. This is not something you know; it might be something you believe. Unless you have personal experience of warlords.
When you say 'government' I think you are talking about the overt state apparatus - eg politicians, government buildings, courts, police, etc. But I think of a 'governance system', which includes schooling and media and both political parties. We are presented with an illusion of debate, reasoning, etc whilst being guided towards preordained goals.
> At the end of the day, I cannot verify everything, everywhere, all the time. That's why smart people use the same "web of trust" principle that computer security does, where you trust people close to you and then other less and less.
Yes, you cannot verify everything. But do you actually verify anything? Eg, what climate change bits have you personally verified? I have tried btw, but the beaches I knew decades ago are still at the same height, plastic bags do not last for 100s of years - ie my personal verification leads me to the opposite conclusions of those that are commonly made.
> And I'm mature enough to understand we can't persuade 100% of the people, especially in the age of internet and nutjobs being able to congregate and convince themselves that up is down and the sky is red and gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat and...
You say we... Which group is this that you speak for? Which group has the real handle on truth that it can force everyone else to abide by it? Does truth really need to be forced on others - I would have hoped it it was true, it would demonstrable. If it is not demonstrable, perhaps it is not truth, despite all the books, shows on TV, etc.
> So I'm fine with dragging some people along for the ride against their will. Societal progress always works this way, especially since some of those opposed are malicious actors.
So say, lots of group who are convinced of their position, environmental folk, religious, political, etc. They can't all be right though? It is it that the mightiest are the rightest?
For me, all that ideology is a recipe for confrontation. We all have to live here .. can we not do so with conversation, cooperating on those things we care about, and yet not forcing others to go against their conscience? I try not to force others, it seems a viable way to go. And it's not like I know the truth and have never been wrong. I would hate to force something on another, only to realise my force was in error later on, even if I was well meaning at the time. There's really no need to force others to act as you think is right, even if you have read a lot of books.
> Then nothing will get done.
It's really pretty good already. I don't need to force my "improvements" on the world.
Nothing I know about reason and science makes me think this is the right approach.
You would be a tyrant. If you were to succeed, all those you forced would rightfully seek to de-throne you, and replace your 'rule by science' with rule by principles of their own: Jesus, Marxism, etc.
All the while everyone would be missing the point that one cannot force others to accept their (self proclaimed) enlightened view of 'right'/'truth'. Either the truth is self-evident, demonstrable, or one ought to be able to tolerate a variety of opinions.
I've engaged with your arguments more than I should have, I'm not going to change your mind.
I should have actually ended this discussion at "science can be bought" bit, which was a prima facie fallacy for climate change, when climate change deniers HAVE THE MOST MONEY, WHICH I HAVE POINTED OUT REPEATEDLY.
So basically you were accusing the weaker and poorer party of buying science while the more powerful and richer party did... What exactly? :-))))
LOOOL. Logic, there is little.
Have a nice day.
You have failed to engage with me, as you are not putting forward a personal position - you are simply saying 'scientific consensus', as if deference to scientific opinion is the truth. But it is your belief system - you are verifying nothing. You merely pay lip service to the scientific method, while reading this or that.
This is no different to other religious positions, that are not grounded in empirical observation - such as Christianity or Marxism.
Before development, lots of the Intracoastal and side canals had mangroves before the first seawalls were built, we thought they were a nuisance when there were so many it was difficult to find a sandy spot to beach a small boat and go ashore.
The local kids called them gooli-gooli plants, everybody else was from up north and they didn't know what they were either :)