Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Considering how massively the current corona virus outbreak has enveloped global interests and attentions, we might just as well, while we wait this out, vary ourselves and speak of other contemporary issues.
Before Covid-19 the biggest, "crisis", to occupy media and politics has been the matter of climate change. Heavily politicized, this issue's discourse has been very toxic on both sides of the spectrum, with people denying the existence of global warming all together, and other alarmists claiming we are on the precipice of a, "the day after tomorrow", scenario, demanding tremendous measures and collective action to be taken. As a conservative politician I reject both these sides as completely unsubstantiated by facts.
So, my take on this whole matter is as follows:
1, Facts of the matter!
According to the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, global warming is an established fact and has been estimated around 50% as imposed by mankind. There is a scientific consensus around the reality of global warming as presented also by NASA wherein all agree that we do in fact face a change of the climate, as mankind has experienced before.
Now, also according to the established science, the effects of global warming are not equal to a catastrophic end of civilization. Far, far from it. Over the course of centuries it has been estimated that we will see a rise in water levels, more frequent storms, reduced levels of ice glaciers and changes in precipitation patterns, but these changes are not consistent globally. Some areas will be affected less than others, some in other ways, water levels will supposedly have risen by 1-4 feet by year 2100.
Overall, the conclusion is as quoted: "Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Which is a way of saying that due to how much more mankind is building nowadays, and how much more money the civilization we currently inhabit costs, natural occurrences will cost more to repair. This neither supports deniers in their cynicism nor confirms the alarmists scare and shame-tactics. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Furthermore, if we are to take a simple example such as, hurricanes, who according to scientific estimates are growing more numerous, stronger and more intense because of climate change, observing statistics seem to not back this up. Considering that data from 1990-2018 displays that the peak of number of hurricanes came in 2005 and has since then not exceeded 15 per year. Nor has the number of deaths aggravated, and of course, oft times scientific estimates have been found exaggerated, such as WHO who recently published a correction on the fatality rate on Corona previously said to be higher. https://www.iii.org/table-archive/20454
2, The populist hysteria!
Of course, one cannot mention the climate change issue without talking about young Great Thunberg. As a Swede myself I knew her before she ventured out, and I know her mother, Malena Ernman, is a known leftist icon here. While I hold not hatred for this young woman, I'm sure she means well, I actually feel sorry for he, she is a child, and is being exploited in the name of a political agenda. A 17 year old girl whose entire platform is running around screaming at adults that they're not doing what she wants them to do. And those who support her gush over her supposed bravery and importance, and when dissidents raise objections to her arguments and agenda, they are leveled with accusations of bullying a kid, "Oh how can you not listen to this child, this poor child, these are the children who're speaking, they're wiser than all of us". This is the bottom line, you're not supposed to listen to an angry child. An angry child should have no say in anything on global matters anymore than their allowance money. And what the left loves to do is put a symbol on a stage with which to beat down on those who disagree with them for political gain with pseudo-moralistic stances.
When actually analyzing what Greta wants, because reasonably if she's saying all the adults are doing it wrong she must have some suggestion on what to actually do, we find an absolutely insane agenda. Thunberg has officially declared that emissions aren't to be reduced, they are to stop, and we can't talk about a 0% net worth, but a real 0%. In essence, she along with the children she *claims* to speak for, "demands", that we shut down the entire economy of the world. And immediately stop all use of fossil fuels on governmental, institutional and organizational level. This* would be a day after tomorrow scenario, this would be catastrophe. And absolutely no serious scientific platform or individual, not even those politicians who wholeheartedly support her, would ever implement it. Because it's lunacy.
3, What we should do!
What we can and should do is mitigating carbon dioxide emissions, and implement measures that are reasonable for sustainable energy and green living. In my party, we have suggestions of raising punishments for environmental crimes, raise taxes on environmentally harmful activities, increase the possibility for countries and companies to phase out toxicity from everyday items such as clothes, cosmetics and electronics and protect the ecosystem of the Baltic sea.
And on to the subject of displacing blame. Thunberg is strangely silent on the emissions and activities on eastern nations, such as China, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan etc. Whilst projecting her anger and famous line, "how dare you", solely unto western nations. But how does that hold up factually? Not at all as it turns out. The US were the greatest reducers of carbon emissions last year, along with the EU, while statistically, 80% of all raised emissions came from Asia. https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
4, Conclusion!
This issue has inspired a lot of symbolic politics which I unreservedly find useless. It has driven a lot of political platforms for green parties although in the wake of previous elections, such European parties have done extremely poorly., because they offer no real and reasonable solutions, merely alarmist attitudes, shame-tactics, symbolic gestures such as an airway tax in the least flight-trafficked nation in the EU. And on the other spectrum it has spurred conspiracy theorists to decry the existence of global warming and blatantly display aversion to any proof whatsoever.
This mytake has revolved around the theme of always looking to the facts, to lean on reason and not emotion, concrete measures and not political symbolism, and an open and intellectually honest discourse.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
3Opinion
Very well said. Two points are pertinent.
First, the discussion about climate change has gone to the point of hysteria, thus depriving it of a certain dispassionate analysis that tends to undermine the sense that it is objective science. This is more impression, but to the non-scientist, the emotional shrillness to the conversation, married to the doomsday predictions, has undoubtedly raised the level of skepticism in the American public.
Second, the question has become entwined with politics. Whatever the merits of the proposed solutions to the climate change problem, partisans on one side saw it as an opportunity to advance a political agenda. That was invariably apt to produce a backlash.
Compounding all this is simply the populist tone of the times. The nation has been here before.
In the 60's the old saw had it "that you can't trust anyone over 30." The populist eithos has it that experts and elites are odious and only out for themselves. Established institutions are "the Swamp" or the "Establishment" and are inherently untrustworthy and are designed to thwart the will of the people.
Thus, two things have combined to undermine belief in climate change. The first, being that insofar as scientists and other experts represent an elite, the automatic deference that is normally granted to their experience and opinions is forfeit. They may speak with all the authority of the data, but the response is to distrust them and the data. In that connection, the party political cast of the debate is both symptom and a further complication of the problem.
Secondly, the scientific community, perhaps eager for relevance, allowed emotion to substitute for reason. In an emotional culture, that was destined to be fatal. Instead of a temperate tone to their scientific analysis and its potential implications, the country is at the point where we are all dead in 12 years.
Suffice to say, no scientist has said that. However, the more shrill the tone, the more the analytical voices have been drowned out. All other more credible temperate voices going thereby unheard.
In this, whether by accident or design it is hard to say, the scientific community has lost control of the tenor of the debate and therefore the message. Scientists writ large forgot that it does not matter what you want to say, it is what you want the other side to hear.
When the scientists are characterized, fairly or not, as predicting doomsday and of advocating certain political agendas to forestall that outcome, the other side will stop listening. Thus science surrendered its one advantage - the idea that analysis and data are all that matter.
Beyond all this, there is the existential point to it all. The country is having a hard enough time managing its southern border, and now it is supposed to manage the temperature of the planet.
Suffice to say, the enormity of that is a deterrent to acceptance of the argument. When people cannot digest, or feel that they cannot control, something, they tend to write off the significance of that thing. That may be then at work in the climate change debate.
In this, the scientific community, and those politicians inclined to agree with it for reasons not explicitly political and opportunistic, would have been well advised to chop the issue down to bight sized chunks. In effect, to bring it down to a human level and to make it seem manageable and graspable.
Indeed, given the limits of both science and culture, that is where things are bound to end up. Some problems do not have solutions. Rather, they are just difficulties that society must manage as best it can.
Suffice to say, taking all the foregoing into account, that is what the climate change issue really amounts to. Not a problem with a solution, but a difficulty to be managed. It is well past the point, scientifically and culturally, when it can be anything else.
Thank you Nightdrot, and I do agree. It's hardly the first time a populist dogma has been erected to nominally represent the wrongs or injustices of the world. And as the actual scientific consensus panders to neither side of the politicized spectrum they have the responsibility to speak much louder on the topic.
Thank you for the kind comment. I would only add that science must not only speak more loudly, but more carefully. The scientific community let the argument get away from itself and is now in the odd position of warning the public temperately.
They are not doing very well - and the same thing is starting to happen with coronavirus, too. The scientific community needs to remember - as I said - it is not just what you want to say, it is what you want the other side to hear. Measured words and a temperate tone matter.
I can certainly see the wisdom in that.
If I must:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wTrHN-e0KMwAgain, strange how lazy people seem to be in reading what I actually write. I denounce both the alarmists and the deniers.
Again, strange how lazy people seem to be reading into what you want them to beLIEve. I'll never agree with you so that's that.
And neither does this comment make any sense. That's fine. Some people are simply incapable of rationality. I know it full well.
You rational? You pass your post of as fact. It's bupkus. Don't bring opinions into a scientific debate.
I have clearly categorized where my own opinions come in and where facts come in. Facts that are verifiable. Again, you say there is no consensus, what do you call NASAS report then, which includes statements from every serious scientific institution including IPCC?
What I am saying in this mytake is that the middle ground is reality, neither supportive of doomsday sayers nor naysayers.
Lol if the climate is changing I'm certain it doesn't have anything to do with human activity. If we were suddenly tasked with INCREASING the average global temperature by 5 degrees Fahrenheit WE COULDN'T DO IT!
On what grounds are you *certain* it has nothing to do with human activity when the scientific consensus is that such is the case?
Scientists are not in consensus with anything regarding "climate change." Rather, I submit the contrary is true when it comes to actual scientists who actually look at factual data. The hysteria of "climate change" is utterly forced upon the masses by a group of people who rely on emotions and never logic.
Based on that statement it seems like you did not read my mytake properly. I personally decry both sides, deniers and alarmists. But that global change is true and happening, there really is a consensus on that, simply follow the links I provided. Surely IPCC and NASA, who in their own evaluations include statements from every serious scientific institution, must count as consensus.
Yeah sorry to waste your time.
There is no consensus.
@October808 Follow the links I provided and you'll see that the official sources go against that claim.
Girl that spokesperson is a legit scientist. He PROVED there is no consensus. Sounds lke you're the denier her. And for kicks, 'Wuhan Virus'.
'here'
@October808 I really have no idea what you're blabbering about.
The unintelligent rarely do.
Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!