I don’t often do straight politics or even national concerns here. Some people (you know who you are) think everything I do is political. For example, I had an exchange on Google+ which included as the last post from my correspondent:
+Jan Galkowski don’t get snippy. I don’t have to listen to your superiority point of view. I didn’t deny the climate is experiencing change. I do question the contribution or amount of human development. Even you should entertain discussion. There has been falsified data. There is an agenda. And it isn’t saving the planet. While as an industrial we certainly produce a number of emissions, et al, we are among many, and we do have environmental controls. Talk again when China cleans up their act, and India.
To be complete, the entire exchange is quoted below. This is a classic interchange with a science denier: They don’t want to exchange on the actual Science, because they know they’ll lose on that terrain, and may not even know what you or I is talking about. They keep moving the discussion to human interactions, as if in a courtroom, where the veracity of the witness can be questioned.
Earth has had several ice ages; what happened between them? Global Warming. Or Climate change.
The bigger question is what, if any, effect are we having on it?
For the record, I’m not denying the climate is changing. But so far I’ve seen no proof we are changing it. But I have seen reports of falsified data. Science is supposed to be impartial; pure if you will. As soon as humans get involved so do agendas, and the whole damn thing goes out the window.
+Jay Abramson Learn some Physics, dude. You don’t need observational data. You need to know about triatomic gases, a bit of radiation physics, knowledge of global CO2 emissions, and a command of — wait for it — arithmetic.
+Jan Galkowski that’s funny. And here I thought Science was based on observation, theory and repeatable experiments to prove the theory. At least the American Heritage Dictionary thinks so:
n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
n. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
n. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.”
+Jay Abramson It is. But observations and experiment once done need not be repeated. And the Science I quoted above is accepted without question — even by the likes of YOU — when it is used in or used to make products which are convenient. So there’s no question of that. And if such Science, through logic and calculation, implies people are producing enough excess warming to change climate, well, there you go. You can’t deny it without then believing the products you use which rely on exactly the same Science are also hoaxes, such as cell or smart phones, laptops, and solar panels.
Unfortunately, there was a long post I made (via my Android “smart”phone) which did not make it into the mix. In fact there were a couple. One addressed Mr Abramson’s claim that people had nothing to do with climate change. The other had to do with the role India and China played. They never got posted to Google+. Alas. So I am reproducing the substance here.
On the former, I pointed out that all one needed to do to demonstrate people were responsible for climate change was to (a) find out how much people were emitting per year into the climate system, (b) understand the emissions spectrum of the Earth at its temperature, (c) understand the absorption spectrum of CO2, and (d) understand the Blackbody Effect in the context of Conservation of Energy.
On the latter, I pointed out, and referenced, that because CO2 is scrubbed from the climate system at a rate on the order of multiple centuries, it stays in atmosphere, on human scales, essentially forever. Accordingly, the groups most responsible for current climate change are those whose cumulative emissions are biggest, and the previous link demonstrates who those are. China is a distant third. India is a distance eighth, behind France.
I also indicated that anyone who felt so strongly about these matters could verify the basics themselves, and, if they in fact felt so strongly, they should. I indicated that Science is not a courtroom, where the most persuasive argument wins. Science is such a powerful system because you can replicate a result whether or not you agree with the person who claims it, or otherwise trust them.
And this brings us to Mr Trump. (I heretofore will not use the title “President”. He has, by his actions, disgraced his title to that address.)
James Fallows writes how (a) Mr Trump is increasingly becoming a demagogue, and (b) how this stain will (unfortunately, and I am no Republican) stick to Republican Party indefinitely. My minister summarized the moral problem as that Mr Trump has made cruelty and expressions of cruelty socially acceptable. Sure, this has been developing for many years, and Trump exploited it as much as extolls it.
I suspect this is, sociologically, the side effect of a large white populace experiencing the effects of an empire in decline. But that does not help the victims of their anger, nor absolve them of moral responsibility.