3 ms·

I don't self-identify as liberal, but I'd say that corporations and oil are the villains to mainstream liberals; you have to go pretty far left (as in, farther

by lukifer 13y ago

I don't self-identify as liberal, but I'd say that corporations and oil are the villains to mainstream liberals; you have to go pretty far left (as in, farther than Chomsky) to find those against all forms of capitalism. That said, you're right about confirming pre-existing prejudices; in that sense, every ideology or belief is a conspiracy. Climate scientists are not immune to this phenomenon, but the act of science is to proactively try to correct for these kinds of biases, with the added constraint of having to "show your work". While mainstream science can get it wrong, 95+% consensus is very hard to achieve due to either ideology or external influence, especially worldwide. Those scientists might be wrong, but they're not all duping us as part of some plot.

gadders 13y ago
You don't have to go very far to find people against "growth" in western societies. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam etc all seem to think that growth is an evil that should be opposed. I don't think they are duping us, but a mixture of pre-existing biases combined with enormous funding certainly helps to create the idea of a consensus.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Those groups exist, and do contain some anti-industrial proponents, but they have very little influence on policy. They get the same token gestures from the Democrats as the Republicans give the pro-lifers, only far, far less. If there's a corruptive element to climate change policy, it's a cash grab from green energy companies. After 2000, the Democrats know that the green voters won't dare vote third party again (sadly), so don't care about appeasing them beyond gestures.
- minikites 13y ago
  Growth can't continue forever: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-... >Before we tackle that, we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from now.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    400 years ago humans didn't have usable heat engines, mobile chronometers, thermometers, and numerous other technologies essential to living a life differentiated from that of the Neanderthals. It isn't for certain that we'll make similar progress in the coming 400 years, but it's plausible. I don't think it will take that long to construct a Dyson swarm, for instance. The physicist you link really begs the question when he forbids "space cadets". It's also questionable to equate growth in economic well-being with growth in energy use. They have certainly been related for a long time, but advances in materials, miniaturization, automation, and other engineering will make the environmentalists' goal of stabilizing per-capita energy use feasible.

by lukifer 13y ago

gadders 13y ago

You don't have to go very far to find people against "growth" in western societies. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam etc all seem to think that growth is an evil that should be opposed. I don't think they are duping us, but a mixture of pre-existing biases combined with enormous funding certainly helps to create the idea of a consensus.

lukifer 13y ago
Those groups exist, and do contain some anti-industrial proponents, but they have very little influence on policy. They get the same token gestures from the Democrats as the Republicans give the pro-lifers, only far, far less. If there's a corruptive element to climate change policy, it's a cash grab from green energy companies. After 2000, the Democrats know that the green voters won't dare vote third party again (sadly), so don't care about appeasing them beyond gestures.
minikites 13y ago
Growth can't continue forever: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-... >Before we tackle that, we’re too close to an astounding point for me to leave it unspoken. At that 2.3% growth rate, we would be using energy at a rate corresponding to the total solar input striking Earth in a little over 400 years. We would consume something comparable to the entire sun in 1400 years from now.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  400 years ago humans didn't have usable heat engines, mobile chronometers, thermometers, and numerous other technologies essential to living a life differentiated from that of the Neanderthals. It isn't for certain that we'll make similar progress in the coming 400 years, but it's plausible. I don't think it will take that long to construct a Dyson swarm, for instance. The physicist you link really begs the question when he forbids "space cadets". It's also questionable to equate growth in economic well-being with growth in energy use. They have certainly been related for a long time, but advances in materials, miniaturization, automation, and other engineering will make the environmentalists' goal of stabilizing per-capita energy use feasible.