I’ll be honest, I’m surprised it took this long for the Warmists to make the link, as they typically attempt to hijack everything
Why the #MeToo movement gives me hope we can fix climate change
After smoking and drink-driving, could climate change provide the next big behaviour-change challenge? The latest science tells us that nothing short of rapid, transformative change in our infrastructure and behaviour can prevent the loss of the climate we depend on – yet the message is only now being officially endorsed at the highest scientific level, because the implications are terrifying for today’s political and economic gatekeepers. It means real change, which incumbents always fear.
But are we better at society-wide changes in attitude and behaviour than we give ourselves credit for? And do recent cultural shifts relating to everything from diet to plastics, sexism and attitudes to gender and identity suggest that we might be entering a phase in which more rapid behavioural changes are possible? Research in a new report for a soon-to-be launched international alliance of concerned groups suggests so. (snip)
These examples all provide grounds for hope – but there are signs that something else is happening that might bring even faster shifts in attitude and behaviour closer to what is needed to meet vital climate targets. A mixture of new social movements and social media now seem capable of transforming gradual background shifts into defining moments of change.
They reveal that while change can take decades, these days new social norms can become established almost overnight. From the shift around single-use plastics, to the #MeToo movement and the rise of the vegan diet, things are moving fast. The male-only charity fundraiser went out of business following a single investigative report by the Financial Times into the Presidents Club scandal. Likewise, the tide turned rapidly against male-only conference panels once they began to be named and shamed online.
Proving once again that this whole anthropogenic climate change shtick is not about science, but about control of people’s behavior (as well as implementing taxes/fees) and lives. It’s politics and sociology. And they should be really careful as to what they push, because they could suddenly find themselves in the crosshairs of leftist Outrage, as we’ve seen happen with other pushes.
It proves nothing of the sort. As has been explained to you numerous times, the science behind human-caused global warming is clear, with changes in human behavior needed to reduce carbon pollution emissions.
You don’t favor taxes or governments or international cooperation – we get it. But your political beliefs do not change the scientific basis of global climate change.
Acid-rain and the hole in the ozone layer, both established by science, required global cooperation and changes in behavior. Characterizing air and water pollution was a science-based endeavor, and reducing the pollution required changes in behavior. The link between tobacco use and human health is based on science, but to reduce the effects required changing behaviors.
When we understand the scientific underpinnings of behaviors (individual and systemic in societies) that harm humans, we address solutions through social and political avenues. What approach would you take?
With ALL of the examples you gave above, the scientific method was employed.
The methods of testing, controls, theories and results were published so that others could prove or refute the results. If the results did NOT match the theories or inferences, then the theories were modified or discarded.
With AGW the theory, Climate Change is caused by Humans, is stated as a fact.
When challenged regarding the data, the IPCC refused to release both data and methodology for review.
When the theory did NOT predict the present day events, (i.e. higher temps, more hurricanes, loss of Artic Sea Ice), the historical temperature records, which WERE held in high esteem as accurate were “adjusted” to make it look as if it were uniformly colder in the past.
It’s a sham and a scam to get your money and freedom.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if they take your money, (fool and his money are soon parted), but I do care about the poor and middle class who will be devastated and decimated by these high taxes so they can “fix the weather”.
Since you seem to think that the prices that you pay won’t skyrocket making many of the basic essentials of life in the 20th century possible, (adequate heat/cooling/lighting/electricity), into unaffordable luxuries that only the super rich will have, I couldn’t care less about your emotional rants.
You’ve done nothing to reduce your own Carbon use, and only want to restrict other’s freedom and wealth because you’ve swallowed the greed, jealous bitter pill that is the American Left.
That’s just not true. Anyway, the IPCC does not “hold” the data or methodology, it’s held by individual researchers, universities and government bodies (e.g., NOAA). It’s all available for you to review.
That’s just not true. Temps are higher as predicted, Arctic ice has been measured by satellite the last several decades and is decreasing. As scientific methods improve, data are improved.
Who’s behind this conspiracy?
How do you know anything about my carbon use?
“Temps are higher as predicted.†Gee, tough call there seeing as they’ve been rising since 1850 or so. The point is that the alleged rise , whatever the cause, is less than their “predictionsâ€. “Arctic ice decreasing.†Of course that’s not the point. The point would be what’s causing the decrease. Arctic deceased considerably earlier last century with much lower CO2 levels. And yes, the temperatures have been “adjustedâ€, as shown many times.
It’s clear, alright.
Clearly phony. Rigged data and computer models and rigged peer review.
Give it a rest.
You give it a rest.
Youse guys keep lying, I keep correcting your lies.
Like about how Congress works? Like about how the scientific method is based on proof, not “consensus”?
Yes. You typed:
Maybe you’re just ignorant or lying or both. Doesn’t matter, you’re just wrong. Scientific theories are not validate by proof. Evidence becomes so overwhelmingly supportive of the theory that it becomes increasingly unlikely that the theory will be invalidated.
According to tRump’s NHTSA:
But they concluded that it’s too late to make much difference.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-sees-a-7-degree-rise-in-global-temperatures-by-2100/2018/09/27/b9c6fada-bb45-11e8-bdc0-90f81cc58c5d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.83ee07bb9af2
And how many holdovers from Demo Administrations wrote that?
So you think Democratic holdovers claimed it was too late to take any action of climate change?
Or are you suggesting Dems wrote that the Earth will warm 4C but good conservatives wrote that we shouldn’t act on climate change.
You’re funny!
Oh, I’m sure they claimed all of it. They love scaring the foolish.
Jeffery, in particular.
You’ve stopped making sense. Sad.
Like about how the scientific method is based on proof, not “consensus�
Maybe you’re just ignorant or lying or both. Doesn’t matter, you’re just wrong. Scientific theories are not validate by proof
You are really that ignorant?
And, yes, sweetie, you said it and I called you on it. Of course, if I were that uninformed, I try to lie my way out of it, too.
But, for the record, why do you think STEM degrees spend so much time teaching you how to prove your contentions? Something to talk over beer and looney psychologists with their legs in the air later?
gee whiz,
Ignorance it is, then. But it’s not my job to educate you.
Have you ever taken a science class? Conducted experiments, run a research program?
Google ‘Scientific Theory’ and read, maybe even learn.
What would you consider proof that atmospheric CO2 is causing the Earth to warm?