Climate change as a tool of tyranny

[Brickjectivity]

Eh???

Climate is a worldwide phenomenon, not a local country storm in a teacup

I agree. We don't have the ability to control weather locally or even globally. One cannot toss the Sahara into a refrigerator without heating everything else twice as hot. Rain in Spain makes France more dry, and nobody makes make dew like the Romans' dew.

 

[Shaul]

This is a very odd post, at a number of levels. First, individual governments can’t change the climate. Secondly, there aren’t different ways to change the climate, that they can choose between. Thirdly, the climate can’t tyrannise or control the population.

Climate change is the net result of human activity all over the world, as a result of emission of various greenhouse gases that absorb radiation in the infra red and thereby delay the escape into space of heat from the ground, when it is warmed by the sun. Climate change is thus a result of how we all live, principally the traditional sources of energy used in a lot of our technology.

The effects are various: heatwaves and droughts, wildfires, fiercer hurricanes, changes in rainfall pattern that damage harvests, and sea level rise that threatens to inundate low-lying areas (Bangladesh, Netherlands, even New Orleans.) Such changes are already costing trillions in insurance payouts in rich countries, and can be expected to lead to large scale population migrations from poor ones, due to famine and flooding.

It strains credulity to imagine such effects would be deliberately exacerbated by any government, or what could possibly be gained.

You just argued that government policies have no impact on climate change. Was that your intention?

 

[Shaul]

Eh???

Climate is a worldwide phenomenon, not a local country storm in a teacup

Climate effects are both global and localized. Also governments could exploit global events to promote their perceived local self interests. Think proportionality, not absolutes.

 

[exchemist]

You just argued that government policies have no impact on climate change. Was that your intention?

Not being a total idiot, I obviously argued nothing of the kind. I said individual governments cannot change the climate.

Are you really unaware that there is global agreement to take action to limit climate change? Obviously, if all, or most, governments all do something together, that can impact the climate.

We are now up to the 27th meeting in the series. There are quantitative targets for mean temperature rise, signed off by most governments around the world. We hosted the 26th meeting in the UK. There is an intergovernmental cooperative effort to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

 

[ChristineM]

Climate effects are both global and localized. Also governments could exploit global events to promote their perceived local self interests. Think proportionality, not absolutes.

The global reach effects the local.

And what local events can be so accurately foretold that a government can profit from it.

Sure unscrupulous government can and does screw its population but i cannot see how climate change would have any significant value to them.

 

[Shaul]

I argued nothing of the kind. I said individual governments cannot change the climate. Are you really unaware that there is global agreement to take action to limit climate change?

We are now up to the 27th meeting in the series. There are quantitative targets for mean temperature rise, signed off by most governments around the world. We hosted the 26th meeting in the UK. There is an intergovernmental cooperative effort to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

So now you are arguing that the environmental policies of an individual country don't impact the global climate. So you would be fine if the United States didn't participate in any international climate accords and loosened climate change related policies.

 

[exchemist]

So now you are arguing that the environmental policies of an individual country don't impact the global climate. So you would be fine if the United States didn't participate in any international climate accords and loosened climate change related policies.

That would be an egregiously stupid conclusion to draw from my post.

 

[Shaul]

The global reach effects the local.

And what local events can be so accurately foretold that a government can profit from it.

Sure unscrupulous government can and does screw its population but i cannot see how climate change would have any significant value to them.

First of all, you are assuming governments act rationally. That is not a given. Governments wage wars which are obviously harmful to populations. Just as a government may decide it is "worth it" to wage war if it costs their enemies more then the "acceptable" harm to its own population, so too a government might decide that the effect of global climate change would hurts its "enemies" more than its own people. Also you ignore that some governments are just evil and would be fine with the entire world being harmed.

 

[Shaul]

That would be an egregiously stupid conclusion to draw from my post.

No, it would be a logical extrapolation. You wrote "individual governments cannot change the climate". Therefore the United States, being an individual country, cannot change the climate.

 

[ChristineM]

First of all, you are assuming governments act rationally. That is not a given. Governments wage wars which are obviously harmful to populations. Just as a government may decide it is "worth it" to wage war if it costs their enemies more then the "acceptable" harm to its own population, so too a government might decide that the effect of global climate change would hurts its "enemies" more than its own people. Also you ignore that some governments are just evil and would be fine with the entire world being harmed.

No im not.

War is a straw man.

And you seem to think governments are stupid.

And you end with another straw man

 

[sun rise]

governments could exploit global events to promote their perceived local self interests. Think proportionality, not absolutes.

So now you are arguing that the environmental policies of an individual country don't impact the global climate. So you would be fine if the United States didn't participate in any international climate accords and loosened climate change related policies.

The title of this thread is "Climate change as a tool of tyranny" And the OP was

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

You've changed the subject from that title and the OP which we responded to. So are you playing "gotcha" or wanting to have a serious discussion? Because my reply is to answer that question by modifying the OP:

Since governments actively cooperating can affect the climate, "anthropogenic climate control" in ways that mitigate the real anthropogenic climate CHANGE, this does not mean that individual or a small number of unscrupulous governments can change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

 

[Quintessence]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

"Possibility" isn't a high bar to clear; of course it's possible.

But setting aside that this smells more than a whiff of conspiracy theory thinking (aka, this is wildly implausible) an unscrupulous government would be catastrophically, unbelievably stupid to attempt such means to those ends when it is vastly, vastly simpler and safer to use other means to those ends. Changing climate as a means of control is akin to cutting off one's own legs to stick it to the body. Catastrophically, catastrophically stupid. And it wouldn't even work well, either.

 

[We Never Know]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

We can manipulate weather but climate is a bigger picture. Could we manipulate climate? I would say possibly.

"Weather modification is the act of intentionally manipulating or altering the weather. The most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding, which increases rain or snow, usually for the purpose of increasing the local water supply.[1] Weather modification can also have the goal of preventing damaging weather, such as hail or hurricanes, from occurring; or of provoking damaging weather against the enemy, as a tactic of military or economic warfare like Operation Popeye"

Weather modification - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[syo]

If we assume anthropogenic climate control is real, then it is possible for unscrupulous governments to change the climate in ways that will tyrannize populations and control them.

kill them.

 

[Shaul]

No im not.

War is a straw man.

And you seem to think governments are stupid.

And you end with another straw man

A straw man is a rhetorical fallacy where someone misrepresents someone else's argument rather than that person's actual argument. I haven't done anything like that. Straw man wikipedia page

 

[Shaul]

We can manipulate weather but climate is a bigger picture. Could we manipulate climate? I would say possibly.

"Weather modification is the act of intentionally manipulating or altering the weather. The most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding, which increases rain or snow, usually for the purpose of increasing the local water supply.[1] Weather modification can also have the goal of preventing damaging weather, such as hail or hurricanes, from occurring; or of provoking damaging weather against the enemy, as a tactic of military or economic warfare like Operation Popeye"

Weather modification - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So what is your point?

 

[Shaul]

"Possibility" isn't a high bar to clear; of course it's possible.

But setting aside that this smells more than a whiff of conspiracy theory thinking (aka, this is wildly implausible) an unscrupulous government would be catastrophically, unbelievably stupid to attempt such means to those ends when it is vastly, vastly simpler and safer to use other means to those ends. Changing climate as a means of control is akin to cutting off one's own legs to stick it to the body. Catastrophically, catastrophically stupid. And it wouldn't even work well, either.

Discussing the possibility is the best we can do since it is not possible to know the inner workings of governments. Different countries experience disparate effects from climate change and have different ability levels for dealing with it. This being the case it follows that a government might decide it was in their interests to exploit climate change.

 

[Soandso]

Cool story

 

[ChristineM]

A straw man is a rhetorical fallacy where someone misrepresents someone else's argument rather than that person's actual argument. I haven't done anything like that. Straw man wikipedia page

So intentionally including war in a failed attempt to dis my argument wasn't a straw man?

Can i suggest you contact the OED and ask them to change their definition.

 

[Shaul]

So intentionally including war in a failed attempt to dis my argument wasn't a straw man?

Can i suggest you contact the OED and ask them to change their definition.

But I didn't suggest that you were arguing that. I was using it. I also didn't then "destroy" the concept. I suggest you reassess your understanding of what a straw man argument really is. I don't think you understand it.