Monday, 27 October 2014

The climate cannot be changed by political views.

Here is the post I just put on the climate page on Facebook and applies to every single person with an opinion on the topic. Would you write about biology in a chemistry exam, or buy drain cleaner when you were sent to buy biscuits? No? Then why talk about people's politics or religion when arguing your point over the climate? How does someone's personal views affect the temperature rise in relation to added CO2, the sole topic of global warming (unless you ignore the IPCC and add methane)? Does your politics mean you feel the cold more or less or read temperature scales differently? Unless they do then dragging in irrelevant and unconnected topics is just the sign of a weak mind.

The climate is not connected to: Politics, religion, peak oil, and technically economics, or any other subject which may get thrown in the mix. This is because:
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere either raises the temperature sufficiently to cause problems or not. We can only measure this and its effect roughly (I have read all the reasons why), and also need a century to prove the actual result either way which is impossible. Going by the trend though it is looking like about a 1.5 rise for reasons I've explained at length many times already.
Who you support politically is not going to change this. Your religious beliefs, or lack of them, cannot make this change at all. If there is peak oil then we will either find more or create something else at a pace we can manage it, and is an independent issue totally unconnected to the climate, especially as seeing peak oil as genuine would help climate believers as they would rather we didn't use it even with a plentiful supply, and to be fair only a handful of people peddle that nonsense here, but do it a heck of a lot at the moment.

Economics is really unrelated as well, except the marginally relevant cost-benefit analysis of making energy unaffordable and limited for any unquantifiable returns for the temperature (except we KNOW the rate of CO2 has never fallen despite years of taxes and switches to renewables). But whether you are a communist, Keyenesian, libertarian or socialist the climate will react the same way.
Finally the messenger is irrelevant, as 99% of articles online contain direct links to peer reviewed sources. Whoever reports them, at most, can make assumptions as to the significance of these figures, but cannot ever make them different by the act of persuasion. They can tell you the temperature won't rise or will rise by 6C, but neither are correct as they simply don't know, so it is up to the reader to sort the FACTS from the OPINIONS, and best of all ignore both sets of opinions and make their own BASED ON THE FACTS alone.

Anyone: Blaming believers/deniers based on their politics.
Dismissing information based solely on who wrote it.
Making suggestions people's religious beliefs affect the results of rising CO2.
Bringing anything else into the mix besides the known and possible figures and consequences, and any solutions should they believe they are better than adaptation is simply peeing in the pool and demonstrates a lack of academic ability and sheer bloody ignorance. I am not picking on anyone here, I AM PICKING ON EVERYONE. I am sick and tired of constantly picking people up for bringing in irrelevancies, and will put it all here in one place so everyone knows they have been informed, and if you follow this extremely basic and simple advice, you will be better off, this page will be better off and run more smoothly, and OTHER PEOPLE WILL SEE IT AND FOLLOW and they will also be better off. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


  1. Political and economic views are relevant in several ways. Most obviously, the usual policy conclusions of those concerned with AGW involve governments doing things to slow it. How attractive that idea looks depends in part on how you view governments, whether you think they will try to figure out the optimal policy and follow it or use AGW as an excuse for doing whatever is politically profitable, whether or not it helps. For one example of the latter pattern, consider biofuels.

    1. Political parties of course vary in their preference of different policies in response, as their leaning will give different weights to certain issues in cost-benefit analysis. But actually suggesting that individuals interpret the actual science differently because of their personal politics is the same as suggesting it is based on their race or hair colour. They can accept that is crazy but not apparently the other.

      You are talking about professional politicians doing their job and making decisions based on party lines as they are obliged to do, but any individual who is a politician has an equal chance of interpreting the dire dog's breakfast of climate data independently of the party they are a member of, and technically every single person would actually interpret the same data based on their intelligence and education, I really can't see why their politics would make them believe the temperature will rise more or not than their hair colour would. I hope I've managed to separate the two issues you raised.