Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think the rapid benefits to wildlife in now-vacated areas from coronavirus also provides examples of how dramatic positive impacts can indeed happen.

We had the same thing back in the early noughties with the foot and mouth outbreak over here; locking down the countryside for a few months during spring did wonders for the bird and insect populations. Not great for the farmers, but shows how quickly nature can bounce back if we just give it some space.

Yes, COVID-19 has caused the greatest drop on CO2 emmission in a long time....

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-set-to-cause-largest-ever-annual-fall-in-co2-emissions

A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous.

Since Corporations get 0 benefit from dropping carbon emissions and consumers can not do it. Guess what is left? That horrible thing we can not talk about.... politics.

Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah but you aren't really trying to convince that person, it's the other readers you are actually doing it for. Pointing out a fallacy is easier with a proper name to it. I certainly appreciate knowing 'nirvana fallacy' is a term.

It seems a variant on reductio ad absurdum to me, but it's a cool name, so I'll start using it when I encounter it now .

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, COVID-19 has caused the greatest drop on CO2 emmission in a long time....

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-set-to-cause-largest-ever-annual-fall-in-co2-emissions

A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous.

Since Corporations get 0 benefit from dropping carbon emissions and consumers can not do it. Guess what is left? That horrible thing we can not talk about.... politics.

Yes, but everyone still needs power. And to heat their houses. And have food. CO2 emissions are about far more than transport.

Oh and with that figure they’re converting the 2-3 months most places will be on lockdown to an annual reduction. If you multiply it back by 4, to be a “monthly” reduction it’s closer to 25%, which funnily enough matches the figure at the top of the article reporting that China’s monthly emissions are down by about 25%.

Anthropogenic climate change is real and the lockdown is having a huge, if temporary, effect.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

No. it doesn't. It might lead you to think the average person can't impact it, but pretending it's not humans at all is pure head-in-the-sand stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MDSW wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Yes, it takes courage to be a prominent liberal in modern america. As soon as anyone sticks their head up and makes a progressive statement, they are immediately sent threats of violence and even death.

Also since liberal views like worker's rights, far wages, etc are often frowned upon by corporate culture in america being a working person expressing liberal views can result in your losing your job for no given reason. I had family members lose their jobs over attending certain social or political rallies. Some employers even said if they saw their employees at a rally resisting his political POV they would be fired.

Sadly, no more...It has totally swung the other way, as in those with a liberal view are shouting from every news station and mountain top and those not following this tune are quickly condemned. The conservatives are those that are now being attacked (verbally and physically) for being a conservative, republican or heaven forbid, a Trump supporter.

I wonder if you're conflating experiences of very particular, predominantly online, contexts with the entirety of cultural interaction in the USA? Compare your overton window with that of literally anywhere else...

 Easy E wrote:
... A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous. ...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

Working from home created its own problems. Distributed (every home) power usage, instead of centralised (officeblocks and factories).
Even the tea-run is different to how it used to happen. The electrical power industries in the UK know to expect a surge in demand when the commercials come on during the evening soaps. The adverts start, and the millions of kettles in the UK's kitchens turn on. This is now day-long, not just after-hours.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140988383900063

So, demand has not really dropped, just changed. Human impact on the environment is not vehicular at the moment, but it is still there.

As for MM's movies...
Did the worst-case scenario not happen due to the message getting through?
I haven't watched any of them, but I have heard the gist of how they go. If the point got across, and people changed their ways, job done. Maybe.

Yeah, the pandemic has certainly caused a massive drop in traffic / driving, but a lot of other energy usage happens whether or not people are physically traveling to work.

Skinnereal - I think the problem in this particular case is that his documentary is mostly focused on belittling / knocking down the SOLUTION to the problem, rather than just pointing out how important the problem is itself.

He also completely ignored things like nuclear - there are lots of reasons why this might not be a great option, but to harp so much on renewables downtime / need of a backup and ignore that is just another strike against the intellectual honesty of this film.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not as bad as Morgan Sodding Spurlock.

Going from a Vegan Diet to near unrestrained consumption of nothing but McDonalds piles on the pounds, and wrecks your physical health?

Good findings, Sherlock....

That film actually made me more sympathetic to McDonald's. Which is nuts, right? Because even if he's only eating at McDonald's, he could have had a salad. They're on the menu, and people do order them. He also could have exercised hard to keep the pounds off. The whole thing was agenda-driven and ultimately arrives at an uninteresting conclusion -- that if you eat only at McDs and eat only the worst foods in the very largest sizes, it's pretty unhealthy for you. Sherlock indeed.

Then you find out his GF is a vegan chef and the whole thing becomes comedy. And for the record, that gak she was serving him looked gross.


Edit: 60 Minutes basically wrote the book on skewing interviews and stories to fit their agenda. I was at a company that was the subject of one of their 'investigations', and saw both the raw footage of the interview and the version that aired. You guys have no idea how much they do...and how good they are at it. I had to give them a ton of credit even as the story was a silly hit piece...what they do is like art. The craftsmanship is really top-notch...the cuts, the zooms, etc.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
... A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous. ...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

Working from home created its own problems. Distributed (every home) power usage, instead of centralised (officeblocks and factories).
Even the tea-run is different to how it used to happen. The electrical power industries in the UK know to expect a surge in demand when the commercials come on during the evening soaps. The adverts start, and the millions of kettles in the UK's kitchens turn on. This is now day-long, not just after-hours.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0140988383900063

So, demand has not really dropped, just changed. Human impact on the environment is not vehicular at the moment, but it is still there.

As for MM's movies...
Did the worst-case scenario not happen due to the message getting through?
I haven't watched any of them, but I have heard the gist of how they go. If the point got across, and people changed their ways, job done. Maybe.

None come to mind as having changed minds or influenced behavior.

We certainly haven't seen any gun control changes or limits on foreign donations/influence, for example.
He just collected money from people already angry about those things.

 Easy E wrote:
Yes, COVID-19 has caused the greatest drop on CO2 emmission in a long time....

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-set-to-cause-largest-ever-annual-fall-in-co2-emissions

A hopping 5.5%. That is with almost all people not driving or traveling. Therefore thinking about this as a consumer problem is ridiculous.

Since Corporations get 0 benefit from dropping carbon emissions and consumers can not do it. Guess what is left? That horrible thing we can not talk about.... politics.

I'm personally looking forward to tangible drops in temperatures to tie it all together. I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.

 Just Tony wrote:

I'm personally looking forward to tangible drops in temperatures to tie it all together. I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.

That's... not how climate works. At all.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

I'm personally looking forward to tangible drops in temperatures to tie it all together. I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.

That's... not how climate works. At all.

Human activities have increased carbon dioxide emissions, driving up temperatures. Extreme weather and melting polar ice are among the possible effects.
What is climate change?
The Earth's average temperature is about 15C but has been much higher and lower in the past.
There are natural fluctuations in the climate but scientists say temperatures are now rising faster than at many other times.

THAT was a quick grab from a BBC article on climate change, the first non-ad article through google. So a slowing or dropping of temps, according to you, won't be a result of dropping CO2 emissions. Then what's the point of trying to course correct?

Arguing against a point I didn't make, but I'll bite.

1) Current climate change occurs as a result of constant emissions, which are currently reduced, but not eliminated - so at best it's slowed down a bit, but certianly not reversed.
2) Climate =/ weather.
3) Because climate change is a gradual process over time, a one-time, brief, and limited reduction in emissions will have almost no effect on the process - it requires sustained effort to effect a sustained change.

With polar ice melting and glaciers disappearing, that will take a very long time to recover from. Melting can happen fast, but re-freezing doesn't.

The ozone layer has taken decades to start rebuilding:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46107843

We are unlikely to benefit much from any attempts to slow climate change, but future generations will.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm also hoping on about a 25% reduction in world population in tandem since lifeforms produce a fair amount of our CO2 currently.

LOL

Paging Hugo Drax.... Paging Hugo Drax.... you are needed in the launch facility...... Mr. Drax, Paging.




Some lifeforms put out CO2, while other lifeforms recycle it. If only we could create some sort of balance where more CO2 wasn't being put out, so existing CO2 recycler lifeforms had a chance to do their jobs? Too bad that cycle got broken....

 Skinnereal wrote:
With polar ice melting and glaciers disappearing, that will take a very long time to recover from. Melting can happen fast, but re-freezing doesn't.

The ozone layer has taken decades to start rebuilding:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-46107843

We are unlikely to benefit much from any attempts to slow climate change, but future generations will.

On this point I disagree; we are unlikely to benefit in certain ways from attempts to slow climate change. The climate itself comes to mind. But, say, reduced air pollution? That has tangible health benefits to people well within the span of their own lives.

I've heard that reduced human activity as made the waters of Venice so clear now people can actually see all the corpses the mafia's been dumping in the canals for so long.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
We are unlikely to benefit much from any attempts to slow climate change, but future generations will.

On this point I disagree; we are unlikely to benefit in certain ways from attempts to slow climate change. The climate itself comes to mind. But, say, reduced air pollution? That has tangible health benefits to people well within the span of their own lives.

Yep, true.
I was referring more to the warming part of the problem, but yes, there are other benefits.
Off-the-line starts in an electric car are quite nice, so there's that, too

 Vaktathi wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 SkavenLord wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Michael Moore is still around? That's....unfortunate.

Oh dear. Does he have a bad reputation? I'll admit to having thrown this up without much knowledge of his work.

the right wing in America dislike him as he's got a liberal bent so he;'s seen as a bit polarizing

That's pretty much true. In america if a person is to the left of atilla the hun he's guilty of being polarizing and divisive,.

If a person it extreme far right the left if guilty of polarization dnd divisiveness for disliking him.

That isn't why Moore is disliked, or why he is disliked by both sides. He takes a current social issue and basically profiteers on it, while making arguments and using tactics that range from deceptive to outright dishonest. He edits interviews heavily to the point that the speaker seems to say the opposite of what they were actually saying when recorded, and pays for other interviewees to recite the views he's chosen to push. When called on it, he claims its valid to make the case because the issue is 'so important.' But what it actually does is undermine efforts towards real solutions, and undercuts efforts to make the issue a genuine concern (rather than part of 'fake news').

He chooses sensationalist over authenticity and helps build the circus of 'truth is about how you feel, not facts' that we have to deal with today.

I remember seeing Bowling for Columbine, and getting to the ending where Moore actively shows himself getting into Chartlon Heston's home for an interview under false pretenses, and basically tries to character assassinate him in his own living room, undercutting the message of the entire movie and made Moore look like a total donkey-cave. There's a way to make those points, and that was not it.

And Heston was slowly ailing at the time. It was this one incident that turned me 100% against Moore. He's a hack and can rot for all I care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, i always knew about it the idea and got frusterated when people brought it us, didnt know it was an actual Fallacy.
Problem is, pointing out a fallacy only works when the man themsevles beleives in fallacies.
If you point out to someone you they are using a fallacy, most of the time, they will not care and continue.

The problem with overemphasizing fallacies, is that people who have no idea what they actually are, tend to invoke them incorrectly to shut down debate. The two most abused are the "strawman argument" and "no true scotsman". Which is why I don't pay much mind to them in a serious, adult discussion unless they are painfully and ridiculously obvious, to the point where they are making discussion impossible.

Michael Moore is a whiney guy that has some cool approaches at Mockumentary but real bs-ideas

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.

And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.

And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.

Ah, yes - that clever government plan whereby they fund climate change scientists to 'manufacture' a climate crisis so that they can make themselves look bad by ignoring it!

It all makes sense now.

SlaveToDorkness - I mean, confirmation bias is a thing, but this is something that's obviously a problem long-term, and that's basically universally agreed upon. I do agree that *how* long-term has certainly been the subject of some bad hypotheses / confirmation bias / doomsaying in the past... but it's an issue, no matter how you slice it, or when the bill comes due.

The particular issue here was Michael Moore bashing all solutions to the problem (in a dishonest / non-credible way)... not the fact that there is a problem that needs dealing with.

 insaniak wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.

And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.

Ah, yes - that clever government plan whereby they fund climate change scientists to 'manufacture' a climate crisis so that they can make themselves look bad by ignoring it!

This made me chuckle, thank you.

 gorgon wrote:
...that if you eat only at McDs and eat only the worst foods in the very largest sizes, it's pretty unhealthy for you.

Not that I disagree with your overall point but it was part of the rules of his experiment that he only ordered the larger sizes when asked whether he wanted them by the servers and he kept a tally of how many times and where he was asked that question.

Which is a valid point to make as the server asking that question is a psychological manipulation tactic to increase the likelihood of you ordering it.

I think he did also have some rules regarding what he was ordering from the menu as well (he had to order everything from the menu at least once). Also, the dressings available with the salads can make them higher in calories than the burgers.

 insaniak wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Almost leads you to believe that it’s not humans...

97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities, this isn't an opinion it's a fact.

And 100% of those studies are government funded and literally paid to find a crisis.

Ah, yes - that clever government plan whereby they fund climate change scientists to 'manufacture' a climate crisis so that they can make themselves look bad by ignoring it!

Not to mention it shows a lack of understanding about how science works. Sure, there are corrupt scientists and paid-for studies which have known issues. Pharmaceuticals are especially bad for it. But the idea that an entire area of science is entirely corrupt is preposterous, even without taking into account Insaniak's extremely valid point of "why?" If there really was no evidence of human-caused climate change scientists would find it. In fact, there are instances of the opposite of what you're describing where energy companies have commissioned studies that have later been criticised and shown to be incorrect through the application of the scientific method.

And not only in climate change denial. The infamous Vaccines Cause Autism study originated from and was debunked in the same way.