From Richards long post:
In its simplest terms,
I believe in science and the scientific process I also believe that science has recently become politicized (and polarized) due to things such as climate change and the COVID pandemic response. We are sadly in a "post truth" society. The polarization has created loud voices shouting from either end of the spectrum. One end is saying “immediate” doom and the other waving their hands and saying, “absolutely nothing to see here”. As with most things the truth is complex and probably lies somewhere in the middle. I tend to believe it is much closer to the “doom” side than the “move along” crowd.
My response to this is agreement. Especially the 'post truth' comment.
Political polarization has created argumentative approaches that are not conducive to finding solutions and your closing statement is reflective of that.
Many people have picked a stance on the matter and will defend it at all costs, but it is based on little progressive science.
What is science?
The planet is constantly changing, and science is simply the reflective explanation of what we discover by what we know. If we accept that we are constantly learning and growing in our knowledge and understanding of how the planet functions, then we have to understand that our knowledge and understanding of scientific principle and fact is also flexible and changing.
That is why taking a position and holding it at all costs is rarely rational.
Yes, there are scientific principles like force and gravity that are immutable, but bioscience is profoundly different from physics, and the knowledge base is constantly growing and learning doesn't stop.
It continues to grow.
It is progressive and the understanding of climate change, its causes and effects relating to chemical activity and input of mankind is also changing.
Consequently, some of that knowledge can be misused and misapplied for political purposes and this is actually happening in the realm of politics and climate policy on an international level.
All of this can be overwhelming for the man in the street which is why it is common to find people who have taken a position and argue it from a personal point but rarely are able to substantiate their opinion with reference to anything in the current knowledge debate.
As Richard says, it is complex, and it is possible to choose particular arguments to support causes that no longer apply.
Messy.
And it can be very messy in political arguments.
But people should be aware that not everything you are told, particularly through mainstream media outlets is the truth. Much of it is commercially or politically motivated.
Opinion is shaped by media, and as one prime minister once said when asked how to respond to public disagreement, just send the propaganda.
From Richard's post:
Humanity has a history of looking at the vastness of the globe and feeling that our ability to impact it is limited or non-existent. The over exploited Atlantic Cod (as one example) begs to differ. Once thought to be a boundless resource has been effectively fished out. So yes, I think humanity is negatively impacting the climate in a significant way and I think there is significant evidence to support this. I also think there are cyclical and natural climate changes that are also at play, but don’t explain everything.
Teretong:
This is true.
Richard;
As to fossil fuels. Do I think their days are numbered? When stated that simply the answer is clearly “yes” as it is a finite resource. The real question is how many days are left? I don’t know the answer. It’s extremely unlikely it will be in my lifetime, but as a viable commercial fuel product, its end of life is probably sitting right there on the near horizon. And yes, fossil fuels (particularly crude oil and natural gas) are foundational components for many things used by society. I think that most likely economic pressure (higher costs due to eventual lower and lower demand for fuel) may drive innovation to create alternatives. It will take time and it will not be easy. I 100% believe that we need to transition to renewable energy sources. It will be a long, complex, and messy journey, but a necessary one.
Teretonga:
If we look at coal and other 'fossil fuels' we have an abundance on the planet that could sustain us for centuries if we learn to utilize them in a more productive way. That is also an economic question.
The CAFE comment below is a good example of why relying on industry and politicians to regulate and manage the planet for us is about as effective as putting our head in a noose and jumping off a wall....
Richard:
And yes, how we are trying to solve this is messed up. For example, the US CAFE standard (used to define fuel economy standards for US vehicles) are written in such a way that they support the creation of the stereotypical “Big American Car”. In short, the system uses a vehicles wheelbase along with a specific curve that defines the desired fuel economy. But the shape of that curve says that small vehicles have to have insanely high efficiency levels. The answer? Build bigger cars that have lower fuel economy expectations. Coincidently (or not!)… these same larger cars tend to have higher profit margins! This has resulted in the death of small vehicles in the US that could be affordable and efficient (if not to the lofty goals of a rigged CAFE system).
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...tation-wagons/
What do I worry about? If you look at the entire spectrum of opinions, you will find that most everyone agrees that the climate is changing. The disagreement is about who or what is at fault. My concern is that there is not as much discourse around what the impacts will be and how will humanity (really the entire planet) adapt in the most pain free and non-destructive way.
Teretonga:
This goes back to what was said earlier by both Richard and I.
The issues are complex and variable, and people tend to take a position and then argue that position when the sharing of information and learning is far more valuable. Having fixed positions and debate isn't as productive as feeding other what you do know, and learning from others what you don't know.
Teretonga:
I've left the F1 bit out as I think we all want F1 to grow and the current regulation changes for 2026 are in place. How the sport evolves over the next two years is another thread.
But I do tend to agree with Richard that for F1 to become a more 'traditional' form of the sport and less like a technology leader is desirable I don't see that happening.
The expense and costs of f1 are not sustainable from an economic point of view purely for entertainment, and for that reason if it shrank to purely entertainment it would die.
If it becomes a sport but not directly relevant to technology, it will also shrink. Current forms of the sport are struggling to maintain their economic strength as entertainment outside of F1 and even in the American scene major series like Indycar are actually struggling to maintain their profile outside of the traditional enthusiast base.
Richards comment below i heartily agree with.
'I think discussions like this are valid here, but man, if this dissolves into "but the expert I listen to says" as a way to continue a polarized and politized climate (and frankly "science on trial") discussion, I am out. I have zero interest in that game. Especially as I don't think it is a path to "truth" nor a productive discussion.