Climate changing in Chile

[at46]

the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02 ... -be-libel/

Tim Ball's article was so unserious that the judge awarded him full legal costs!

[frozen-north]

No, that was a different case back in 2018. This is from a few days ago where the hockey-stick inventor refused to show his regression numbers.

In the Weaver case, they had also claimed a victory.

Climate skeptics are hailing the verdict as a key victory over extremists promoting human-caused global warming.

https://principia-scientific.org/breaki ... rt-battle/

In February, 2018, the suit by Weaver was dismissed on the grounds that Ball's attack on Weaver was so stupid and inept that it couldn't be considered libelous thus doing no injury to Weaver's reputation to an informed reader. Therefore the official judgement of the Canadian court system is that Tim Ball is either an incompetent idiot or someone pretending to be an incompetent idiot.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball

As for pretending that this has anything to do with the research behind climate change, that is nonsense.

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

[frozen-north]

Here is Dr. Mann's statement on his Facebook page about this case:

There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.

The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.

This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics ... ata-3.html

[frozen-north]

Fatalism, predeterminism, etc are valid philisophical ideas, so what is your response to those people?

Have you looked at the Wikipedia page on fatalism? It seems that there is a problem of fallacy with that idea. I guess that those that think it is a valid doctrine never go to a doctor.

One famous ancient argument regarding fatalism was the so-called Idle Argument. It argues that if something is fated, then it would be pointless or futile to make any effort to bring it about.

If it is fated for you to recover from this illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.
Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so whether you call a doctor or not.
But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness, or it is fated that you will not recover.
Therefore, it is futile to consult a doctor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

[41southchile]

Fatalism, predeterminism, etc are valid philisophical ideas, so what is your response to those people?

Have you looked at the Wikipedia page on fatalism? It seems that there is a problem of fallacy with that idea. I guess that those that think it is a valid doctrine never go to a doctor.

One famous ancient argument regarding fatalism was the so-called Idle Argument. It argues that if something is fated, then it would be pointless or futile to make any effort to bring it about.

If it is fated for you to recover from this illness, then you will recover whether you call a doctor or not.
Likewise, if you are fated not to recover, you will not do so whether you call a doctor or not.
But either it is fated that you will recover from this illness, or it is fated that you will not recover.
Therefore, it is futile to consult a doctor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

Yeah I did see that ,

[41southchile]

I'd like to tell you all a little about the story of Extinction Rebellion.

Being polite doesn't work. Being annoying (preachy) does.

Um , No it doesn't. What ? .....[plus your comments on XR etc etc]

I think some of the younger, naiver supporters of XR probably think net zero 2025 is right. I personally don't think the leaders of XR are truly serious about it. I think they called for 2025 to try and get say, 2035. The government has now signed up to 2050 in law so the range of possibilities is now 2025 - 2050. So they shifted that range.

Being polite and leading by example is playing the long game I think. It works better when you have time to steadily build up your argument and therefore works better with something like feminism or gay rights - at least at the current time in history and at least in the West - where there is no sudden point that there will be a disaster if we don't act by point x, nor no danger that gay people will be subject to mass abuse if we don't act rapidly.

It also depends on where you are in history. Being provocative was necessary for gay rights and feminism in the early days when the situation was totally unacceptable and they were very niche issues where something had to be done to wake people up and get attention. But now great progress has been made on both issues. It would therefore (at least in some countries including say UK, US, Chile, European countries) seem inappropriate now on either issue to, say, make a huge protest with a million people and not let politicians into the Parliament until they agree to take certain measures. But if women had done that 100 years ago I would have had relatively more sympathy with it.

The idea of reducing our carbon footprint to flight climate change is an extremely niche idea at the moment in practice when you look at the evidence about how many companies, governments and people are truly doing it. Global carbon emissions need to reduce by a huge amount and so far are not reducing at all. So, I would argue, a more aggressive approach is justified at this very early stage in the movement. Taking a risk with more aggressive activism may be the only shot left at this stage. If it causes a backlash and causes people to hate environmentalists and eat more meat, then that's a risk worth taking, because the scientific consensus is we're fu**ed anyway if we carry on as we are for another 10 or 20 years.

I do think there is too much left wing preachiness in other areas such as social justice and I agree with your comments on the flaws of the left on free speech especially on college campuses. This is causing a backlash. I do think that the Democrats and some left wingers have lost the plot and gone too far to the left on some issues (notably immigration and abortion in my view), risking the election of right wingers by not presenting the centre option that people want.

But climate change is not one of those issues in my opinion, i.e. not an issue where left wing parties are too left. On environmental policies even the average Democrat in the US is quite weak on environmental policies and offering the absolute bare minimum vs what science demands. I have not heard any of the major candidates say we need to eat less meat or fly less. So they are talking about renewable jobs powering economic growth. They are only giving the more pleasant half of the truth.

The manufacturer and cult of Greta Thunberg, and on ER , always thought she looked trained up just like some poor child actor, well acting is certainly in her family.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/2 ... -thunberg/

[Britkid]

The BBC has done an article today on Greta today. It even mentions the article you cite and seems quite relevant to this thread.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49291464

Below quotes from the article.

Those who have resorted to personal attacks on the activist appear to be "retreating into various forms of denial", Nigel Thomas, professor of childhood and youth at the University of Lancashire, says. "Given the seriousness of scientists' climate warnings, some "may feel threatened by a teenager who has clearly understood and faced up to the trouble we are all in".

Her brand of environmentalism, however, does not appeal to everyone. In particular, those who "don't like being told what to do" .

[picalena]

I don't think people feel threatened by a teenager so much as they are weary of the constant sounding of the alarm by those who don't practice what they preach. It is a head-scratcher why Ms. Greta sailed across the ocean so she wouldn't emit any carbon, but two crew members are being flown to sail the boat back. And if they are sailing the boat back, how is she getting back? I also question using a teenager basically as a human shield in eco-warfare. That's ... just not right.

And then there's Al Gore living in a monstrous house and using billions of gallons of water on his lawn, and Obama buying a big house that will be under water when the oceans rise. It's confusing at best, and insulting at the least. I also remember when I was a teenager (right after the earth cooled), and we were told the same cataclysmic stuff we are being told now. At some point, you have to follow the money. Because that is what this is all about.

[41southchile]

The BBC has done an article today on Greta today. It even mentions the article you cite and seems quite relevant to this thread.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49291464

Below quotes from the article.

Those who have resorted to personal attacks on the activist appear to be "retreating into various forms of denial", Nigel Thomas, professor of childhood and youth at the University of Lancashire, says. "Given the seriousness of scientists' climate warnings, some "may feel threatened by a teenager who has clearly understood and faced up to the trouble we are all in".

Her brand of environmentalism, however, does not appeal to everyone. In particular, those who "don't like being told what to do" .

With all due respect, it's the BBC
I know many people , seemingly middle of the road people here, that are no fan of Trump but the one thing they have picked up on is how biased and full of crap the likes of BBC and CNN are of course on the otherside is fox and other right wing outlets , but they are all singing from the same hymn book.. It's the same in Chile too, liberal (left wing) and media on the right, but I guess that's what the world is these days, polarisation and no one believing what the otherside says.

[41southchile]

No water = no mining = no money for Chile

https://www.emol.com/noticias/Economia/ ... neria.html

[41southchile]

Ok I'm going to be brutal, but saw this article https://www.soychile.cl/Santiago/Socied ... equia.aspx
They are collecting grass in las Condes schools and golf clubs to send to campesinos on social media, I get it people feel the need to do something in the face of this devastating drought in a large part of Chile, but, this is bullshit. Just like I saw a photo on WhatsApp the other day of a guy in the hills up north giving a cow that was skin and bones, nearly dead , a two liter bottle of water. (Cows need between 50 and 100 litres per day)
There is no point in prolonging the misery of these animals, any farmer in NZ whenever they know a drought is coming, the first thing you do is cut your losses and sell your animals, the cost of maintaining them is not economically viable, its cheaper to sell and rebuild numbers when conditions improve. It would be cheaper to sell the animals now for what the can get and for government , or citizens to give money directly to campesinos to survive, otherwise it's just cruelty to animals prolonging their suffering, even if it rained for the next week, which coming into summer seems unlikely, the pasture is dead and needs resowing and will be months before they can get feed. Unsurprisingly looks like Lavin is involved in this feel good waste of money and energy "plan"

[fraggle092]

Feral goats and free-range Goat farming are environmentally damaging. Quite common In the IV Region, an area where deforestation and desertification are always big issues, but especially now with the current drought.

Anyone who has ever seen a herd of goats come through an area knows what a devastating effect they have on vegetation, they eat everything. But since there is nothing much for them to eat at present, local farmers are asking the government to provide them with forage.

Why is this environmentally damaging activity being encouraged by a government allegedly concerned with Climate Change ?
What should get the priority, the needs of subsistence farmers, or action on Climate Change?

There's no easy answer, especially when you see the people being affected.
.

,