From CORNELL UNIVERSITY and the “we have compassion and fairness and you don’t” department comes this eye-roller. One wonders how they might rate the compassion and fairness of this statement:
“We are not morally bad people for taking carbon and turning it into the energy that offers life to humanity…” Carbon-based energy, which is “the most affordable and reliable source of energy in demand today, liberates people from poverty,” “Without energy, life is brutal and short.” – Dr. John Christy Source
Moral values influence level of climate change action
The findings also suggest that a moral value rated more highly by conservatives – purity – also appears to have a positive effect, though not as pronounced as compassion and fairness.
Those insights from a group of four researchers at Cornell – Janis Dickinson, professor of natural resources; Poppy McLeod, professor of communication; Robert Bloomfield, professor of management and professor of accounting; and Shorna Allred, professor of natural resources – were published in PLOS ONE. While prior research has investigated the relationship between moral values and environmental attitudes, this work extends this investigation to intentionality with respect to changes in environmental behavior.
The authors’ work is based on Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory. A professor at New York University, Haidt identifies five “moral axes” around which humans develop individual moral reasoning: compassion/harming, fairness/cheating, in-group loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation.
Previous research using Haidt’s moral foundations has found that those who identify as liberal prize the values of compassion and fairness most highly. Those who consider themselves conservative place nearly as high a value on compassion and fairness, but place a substantially higher value on in-group loyalty, authority and purity.
The Cornell researchers also found that belief in climate change was significantly associated with increased willingness to act, while those who identified as politically conservative, and who were older and male, were less inclined to act.
Given that liberal attitudes tend to favor action on climate change, Dickinson was not surprised that compassion and fairness correlated strongly with individual willingness to make lifestyle changes.
“Compassion and fairness make perfect sense, because climate change is an environmental justice issue, and being willing to do something about climate change also requires that we care about future generations. Both of those things require compassion and a sense of fairness,” said Dickinson, the study’s lead author. “But it’s not as clear why purity would be important. It may be because within the religious community, leaders have been focusing on the ideas that we are stewards of the earth and that there’s something impure about destroying natural systems.”
The association between the valuation of purity and a willingness to make personal lifestyle changes, while not as strong as for compassion and fairness, indicates the potential for alternative pathways to climate change action for liberals and conservatives.
“Our finding that willingness to take action on climate change was related to moral values embraced by both liberals and conservatives suggests that it is too simplistic to use political ideology alone to predict support for climate change action,” said McLeod.
“As we learn what’s important to different kinds of people with respect to climate change, that information can help us communicate in ways where the problem can be heard,” said Dickinson. “And I think we may be missing arguments that are important to people if we ignore moral diversity.”
###
“Two moral values highly rated by liberals ” This is odd, but true. They claim to value them, but will endlessly warp them to further their ends – they call it moral relativism. Of course, when it comes to climate they turn into fire and brimstone preachers
How is it compassionate and fair to deny the poorest and most vulnerable people of the world cheap available energy?
What am I missing here?
Logoswrench
November 16, 2016 at 2:18 pm
What am I missing here?
————–
The real meaning of insanity and idiocracy, I think….
Hopefully this is not too harsh.
cheers
+ 1
First they create their own definition of “success”, then find that personal attributes they most associate with themselves promote that success!
What could possibly go wrong?
Nice.
They say liberals value compassion and fairness. Liberals will say that.
People lie. They will say all kinds of crap to make themselves seem more worthy. It’s called virtue signalling. Why did the polls get it so wrong about the election? People lied because they didn’t want the poll taker to think poorly of them.
Liberals only think they’re compassionate and fair.
They’re actually pretty sanctimonious and nasty.
You nailed it.
Hmmm….”Act”? What does that mean? Protest? Riot? Throw public temper tantrums if they don’t get their way?
For me, I believe you are free to be an idiot if you want. Just don’t try to force me to “act” like an idiot also.
In my native land there is an old tradition of admiration for the men of power
http://novorossia.today/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/putin-trump.jpg
caption reads: “Let’s make the world great again” both in English and Russian
http://novorossia.today/149234-2/
WOOT!!!!!!!!!……….
R u sure u want one? If so you can print it from this link
Yep, in Putin’s case anyway, it involves rigging the system by eliminating opposition and swapping between President and Prime Minister every few years to make sure you can stay in power indefinitely.
Oh, and by rigging elections and making noises such that anyone who criticises you is anti-Russian, not just anti-Putin, always gets the *voting* on your side eh?
Let’s hope that “admiration” never extends to Trump.
Christ would we be in trouble.
“…..make sure you can stay in power indefinitely.”
No problem, Donald Snr,, Donald Jr., Ivanka, Baron, etc.; eight years each, not exactly indefinitely but close enough.
I see it as Putin taking a swipe at Obama and Hillary….I like his sense of humor
When is Mankind going to reward the preservation of life on Earth by avoiding the death of the Plant Kingdom due to CO2 atmospheric depletion. By far that is the most important ecology action ever undertaken, and is still not returned to levels that plants evolved in around 1000-1200 ppm. Liberating CO2 is a positive contribution!
“We are not morally bad people for taking carbon and turning it into the energy that offers life to humanity”
Indeed not
However *you* are short-sighted.
Fossil has had it’s day.
Thatcher saw that 30 years ago in the UK.
Thousands suffered because of her, with comunities decimated.
Those same communities suffer still with social dependency, drugs and crime.
Nothing really replaced the mines as jobs for the unskilled.
Lost out to “Globalism” – same as the US voted against last week.
New tech is coming, resist if you like but it’s got to the point now that gainsaying AGW is not only scientifically and logically daft, but also financially daft as well (as a long-term strategy).
The World has moved on and will continue that course with or with the US (for a while at least with Trump at the helm).
The US will eventually have to “cotton-on”, but by then the Chinese will have cornered the market.
Your loss.
BUT: Trump is a business-man. We shall see if that impulse overcomes the ideological rejection of AGW science (if he has – does anyone know beyond “It’s a hoax by the chinese”.. ..”I may have said that”?)
The likes of Elon Musk should be given support, especially if Trump wants to renew infrastructure. Musk plans to build the “Hyperloop” after all.
New infrastructure needs money, and if Trump plans to cut taxes …. well something/one has to pay for it.
“Fossil has had it’s day.” Nothing could be further from the truth. New sources such as the discovery of vast quantities of shale oil and gas in Texas are continually being discovered. Vast sources of coal are still waiting to be mined. Wind and solar are laughable as sources of energy – hideously expensive and unreliable, swallowing huge tracts of land, just to name a few of their serious drawbacks. They only make sense to those like yourself who have swallowed the CAGW ideology whole.
What killed the mines was first the unions, and then cheaper over seas coal.
Just how are technologies that don’t work, going to replace fossil energy?
Musks hyperloop should be built with private capital. Full stop. It is becoming increasingly evident that Elon Musk is a “super salesman” in the sense that he keeps the customers focused on a possible future rather than the disappointing present. He is a living Viagra commercial.
I recently caught sight of musician Jack Whites Tesla outside a Nashville venue with two expensive large fellows guarding it. A perfect visual of what is wrong with the subsidy sucking Tesla motor car company. Of course it would be impolite to mention his failed solar enterprise.
Our dear Elon is a sharlatan, a snake oil salesman and an illusionist.
He will do nothing like that “hyperloop” you mentioned.
His funding will get cut soon and all his ventures will end up like Solyndra.
Short Tesla at will.
EOM
Shorted at $250. Haven’t covered yet. It’s a great short, since there is no dividend to pay!
There are a lot of things wrong, confusing, and nonsensical in your post, but I will point out just one: tax cuts don’t have to be “paid for”. Tax cuts allow people who earned the money to keep it. Sure spending has to be cut (depending on where we are on the Laffer curve), but I disagree with the subtle liberal slant on tax cuts needing to be “paid for”. In actuality it is the big gov’t spending that needs to be paid for.
Unable to win the legal, rational, or scientific arguments leaves them with the last option….. the moral high ground. Supported and aided by a willing biased MSM their voice is heard. The attacks have only begun and I believe will do them more damage than good. Anarchists of any stripe are not appreciated.
The Progressive Superhighway leading to a short, brutish lifespan for the peasant working class is paved with climate change lies.
In the absence of belief in God, or some other abstract external moral arbiter, no moral judgement in absolute terms is possible.
This is why Marxism appeals to the selfishness of the individual, and disguises it as concern for society.
Left people – what you call Liberals – are inherently selfish and antisocial, which is why they project it onto ‘capitalists’ and other organisations that actually do benefit society in the whole..
This massive selfishness is what leads to the need to crate moral compasses and spend their whole lives virtue-signalling – it’s simply their way of expiating the guilt they feel for being such selfish amoral Cnuts…
In fact the whole Liberal movement is based on generating guilt and selling products and politics on the back of it.
“In the absence of belief in God, or some other abstract external moral arbiter, no moral judgement in absolute terms is possible.”
heh- so your divine revelation puts you on the throne of judgement, eh?
i bet your inability to define the word ‘morality’ helps you work that sleight of mind.
what else do you talk about on that direct line to supernatural invisibles?
Gnomish,
I notice you do not offer any rational or philosophical rebuttal to Leo Smith’s point. Instead you attempt what you presume is witty sarcasm. By doing so, you demonstrate a lack of morality, as an honest person will admit it when they have no reasonable reply.
SR
stevan
i’m the only one here who defined the word and proved he knows what it means.
perhaps you had your head in an awkward position and missed it.
you don’t get a trophy for participating, you special flake, you.
go tweet a selfie or something
gnomish,
“morality is the science of choice in the face of alternatives based on a standard of value.”
So, raping little kids is moral to your mind, IF one conducts some sort of scientific testing that demonstrates the rapist gets pleasure from it, and that’s what they value?
(And folks wonder why God will let some go . . )
John, you are one twisted sob.
It’s no wonder you can’t tell right from wrong.
seriously- scrub your skull out with bleach.
and don’t post any more of you sick ideas.
Perhaps not, but I think I can tell word salad from a meaningful definition, kid.
john, you have no idea how much you reveal about yourself when your thoughts about morality are how to justify child molestation and when you use the word ‘kid’ as a deprecatory term.
these are red flags that call for an intervention. i only hope these thoughts that fill your mind have not led to overt acts.
unless your special fetish is blind, retarded kids, you will be caught.
I get it, you’ve got an imagination . .
PS ~ What you don’t seem to have, is any explanation for why raping children is not moral, according to your “definition” of morality. It really seems to me that you base your judgments about what is moral on something(s) else, but are not self aware enough to realize that.
Belief in God justifies the most horrific crimes against humanity, as we see today with ISIS:
Hosea 13:16
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
Atheists have also committed similar atrocities. Neither theism nor atheism are the bases of morality, but the choices made by individuals based upon their own inherent codes of conduct.
But the truly righteous can chose to disobey the barbaric commandments of God. Witness the case of the Amalekites, whom Saul spared, against the express orders of the Most High:
1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
1 Samuel 15:4 And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
1 Samuel 15:5 And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
1 Samuel 15:6 And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
1 Samuel 15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
1 Samuel 15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
1 Samuel 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
Chimp,
“Hosea 13:16
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.” ”
That is not God telling anyone to do that, it’s Him saying (in essence) that He will not protect the people of Samaria from those who will do it . . . There were (according to that Book you quote), some truly viscous people around those parts, which is why He sent “the sword of Israel” there to “surgically” remove them, rather than destroy the whole world like He did with the great flood.
If you omit the justification He gives for removing certain “tribes”, which is that they were descendants of what are called “fallen angels”, and therefore were not actually just human in the biological/genetic sense, it can seem like an “atrocity”. But in actuality (according to the Book) it was to spare mankind from being savaged by what we now might call a psychopathic “invasive species” that would eventually take over the planet again . . Which is to say prevent a great many atrocities . .
i am aware of your obsession with child rape, for damn sure. conjuring up these images gets you wet, does it?
there’s no way in hell i’m going to help you justify your perversion on moral grounds
that’s because i have a standard of values that is consistent with human nature – something you clearly do not.
maybe your buddies can help you at the next nambla meeting.
“(they)were not actually just human… But … what we now might call a psychopathic “invasive species””
that’s how it’s done.
anybody you don’t like, you define them as inhuman.
then nothing you do to them matters.
you are a freakin monster.
No one needs the Good Behavior Seal of Approval of a supernatural entity to define morality.
In the pagan Plato’s dialogue “Euthyphro,” the eponymous character tries to explain his conception of piety to Socrates: “the pious acts,” Euthyphro says, are those which are loved by the gods.” But Socrates finds this definition ambiguous, and asks Euthyphro: “are the pious acts pious because they are loved by the gods, or are the pious acts loved by the gods because they are pious?”
Non-religious bases for morality are infinitely more sound than basing moral precepts upon a hypothetical supreme or at least superior being. Moral behavior can be derived from philosophical first principles rather than from the dictates of a stern, righteous punishing daddy in the sky. Or wherever.
It is fascinating to me to see atheists
I note that the behavior throughout history of atheists is no worse than that of alleged Christians, so obviously belief in an imaginary supernatural character grading people’s performance on earth, while counting head hairs and falling sparrows, doesn’t improve morality.
In the 20th century mass murdering atheists Stalin and Mao and pagan Hitler began to catch up with Christians’ centuries of genocide, but Christian atrocities continued, as for example in the Congo under its owner, the Catholic King of Belgium, and in the Croatian extermination camps.
Nothing to chose from between the behavior of believers and unbelievers. In everyday life, atheists behave better than do Christians. Nations with similar cultures but higher rates of atheism are more peaceful than more Christian states, let alone Muslim. The atheist violent crime rate is a lot lower than Christians in every country for which there are data.
Which is not surprising, since atheists and agnostics are smarter, richer, more productive and useful to society than the credulous, often criminal faithful.
(Oops, hit the ‘post’ button by accident ; )
It is fascinating to me to see atheists struggling to justify treating themselves as superior to a Creator God . . an Entity that (hypothetically) MADE our consciousnesses (and everything else), somehow not being as knowledgeable/intelligent as they . . I don’t know how this level of rationalizing is even possible . .
“No one needs the Good Behavior Seal of Approval of a supernatural entity to define morality.”
Says what worm? Such an Entity is OBVIOUSLY out of our league entirely, if real. I didn’t believe for most of life that such an Entity was real, but at no point did the idea that if real, I might be His moral (or any other form of) superior . . There seems to be an inability in some to think within the hypothetical of His existence AT ALL . . and they just keep treating what they can imagine as if a realistic approximation of what such an Entity could actually be like. It’s so childish, to me . .
John,
The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the existence of an entity which judges the moral behavior of people. It’s possible scientifically to be agnostic as to some kind of creator of the universe, but there is no rational basis for imaging a fairy sky judge.
Besides which, the behavior of the mythical biblical God of Abraham is appalling, by any possible moral standard. He is so vile that even those who worshiped Him refused to obey his genocidal commandments. The repulsive Sicko Perv happily admits to creating evil. Not to mention that still today, any omnipotent, omniscient being that might exist must obviously be unspeakably deceitful, deceptive and sadistically cruel.
Religious faith may be of some use to society, but for me, no thanks to such a celestial stinker.
timor domini principium mortis
“Our finding that willingness to take action on climate change was related to moral values embraced by both liberals and conservatives suggests that it is too simplistic to use political ideology alone to predict support for climate change action,” said McLeod.”
Well, there you go.
Colleges and universities have the art of virtue signaling down to a science.
“Moral values…”, said the External Moral Imperative, in a deep, resonant James Earl Jones-esque Voice.
I guffaw in its general direction.
Climate justice. The mary robinson foundition
http://www.mrfcj.org/principles-of-climate-justice/
She used the Irish presidency as a stepping stone to her higher agenda of spreading the wealth of the world evenly amongst the all the people.
But, guess what she’s seeking a €2,000,000 tax credit for the donation of her memoirs to the state.
All previous presidents gave them for free.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/diarmaid-ferriter-mary-robinson-s-legacy-in-no-need-of-a-vanity-project-1.2838667
“Compassion and fairness make perfect sense, because climate change is an environmental justice issue, and being willing to do something about climate change also requires that we care about future generations.”
They don’t seem to care that future generations will have to pay triple the cost for electricity and saddle them with more debt all to reduce the global temperature by .2 Deg C as if that matters one bit in the grand scheme of things.
I wonder how moral it is to enslave future generations of minorities as well as all Americans currently hovering around the poverty line. It reminds me when the Black Chamber of Commerce’s commission a study of the EPA carbon regulation and it impacts to minorities. The alarmist and the liberal elite have attempted to falsify the findings with a lot of misinformation and mud slinging. Its no wonder that minorities are slowly realizing what liberalism currently stand for. Attached is the article, within the attachment, you can hear Alford’s opening statements to the US senate sub committee. And yes, it’s the same Alford who was against the Kyoto Protocol, so Desmog probably has a dossier on him.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/black-chamber-commerce-epa-clean-air-plan-will-increase-black-poverty-23
I wonder how moral it is to enslave future generations of minorities as well as all Americans currently hovering around the poverty line. It reminds me when the Black Chamber of Commerce’s commission a study of the EPA carbon regulation and it impacts to minorities. The alarmist and the liberal elite have attempted to falsify the findings with a lot of misinformation and mud slinging. Its no wonder that minorities are slowly realizing what liberalism currently stand for. Attached is the article, within the attachment, you can hear Alford’s opening statements to the US senate sub committee. And yes, it’s the same Alford who was against the Kyoto Protocol, so Desmog probably has a dossier on him.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/black-chamber-commerce-epa-clean-air-plan-will-increase-black-poverty-23
Let me see; hmmm, errr … Cornell University – moral values – climate change … got it in one !
OTHER PEOPLE’s MONEY and the Great GW Gravy Train.
So, with this so-called “study”, they are just milking the system whilst they can. The gravy train will be stopping pretty soon if and when President Trump decides to close their railroad line.
Hey ho ! Let the wailing begin.
WL
the fairness and morality argument would hold if i could be convinced that they are right about climate change but still refused to take climate action. it does not apply to the debate on how fossil fuel emissions affect climate.
As for moral high ground, Progressives adopt “relative moralism.”
What is relative moralism?
First, relative moralism is in stark contrast to absolute moralism. Absolute moralism is embodied in the 10 Commandments from the Old Testament. The 10 Commandments offer a common absolute moral framework in Judeaism and Christianity, the key examples being: thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not bear false witness (lie about your neighbor). In the New Testament, we see the ultimate example of absolute morals as Jesus accepted crucifixtion for himself at the hands of the Roman soldiers rather than allow others to suffer his fate.
The Progressive orthodoxy has relative moralism as its core tenant. It is essentially “the ends justifies the means.” Moral values only are judged against other moral values for their virtue. A seniority ranking then emerges between morals.
An example is that “it is okay to keep Africa and the millions of people there in energy poverty if it means helping to save the planet.” The premature deaths of African babies, the wide-spread poverty, and the disease are rationalized as necessary in the War on Climate Change.
When you hear of Progressives (usually calling themselves Atheists) wanting governments to get rid of public displays of the 10 Commandments, the real intent is to breakdown society’s absolute moralism and thereby further the societal acceptance of relative moralism.
Islam embraces relative morals. In Islamic societies murder is not justified or condoned,… unless it is an infidel who blasphemed their prophet, or if a cleric had issed a Fatwa against the murdered, then murder is okay. That’s Relative moralism in action.
In the Climate Change religion, relative moralism is on full display. Thus it is okay to fudge climate data to keep the faithful unquestioning of the church orthodoxy with “hottest year evah! claims. It becomes okay and necessary to destroy the lives of coal miners and their communities in order to “fight climate change.”
And the list of relative moralism atrocities continue, with the real end goal that wealth and political power are slowly accumulated in the hands of the Progressive elite ruling class.
you are so confused…
so you preach…
how quintessentially progressive.
hunchbrain.
no, I don’t tell others how to live their lives. I do not advocate the seizure of personal property to further equality in outcomes. Equal opportunity is all that the state should impose. Different Outcomes are thus inevitable in a society, with the result be an unequal distribution of wealth.
Furthermore, I do not hide behind a childish screen name to hurl insults.
When I hurl insults, everyone knows whence they came.
it is your right to confuse yourself.
it is your right to abuse language by debasing it to semiotics.
it is your right to submit and obey and exhort others to do the same.
there is no 11th commandment ordering that ‘thou shalt think for thyself’
it seems you wouldn’t understand the irony if there were… lol
gnome
nōm/
noun
1. a legendary dwarfish creature supposed to guard the earth’s treasures underground.
informal
2. a small ugly person.
informal
3. a person regarded as having secret or sinister influence, especially in financial matters.
“the gnomes of Zurich”
==========================
I’m inclined to put you down as #2.
oh, i’m so triggered…lol
joel, you are the moral relativist because you have no standard of values.
that makes your entire jeremiad a shining example of progressive hypocrisy.
of course, if you did have a standard of values you could define it in a single sentence.
then you could properly lay claim to some glimmer of understanding of the nature of morality.
that was lobbed easy over the net, preacher. ball’s in your court.
morality is the science of choice in the face of alternatives based on a standard of value.*
*that’s the answer in the back of the book- so you have no excuse now.
I know immorality when I see it, just as one does not need to be an MD to see someone is sick and in need to medical care.
I know honesty matters above all else.
The dishonesty of the Progressives is the result of a relative moralism that allows them to establish “climate justice” virtues over social justice. And SJ over economic justice. And thus econic justice over honesty and integrity.
Maybe their heirarchy is:
CJ > SJ > EJ > truth. IOW, truth be damned if needed for the cause.
Hence we have fiddled and fudged climate data, circular climate models, as a means justified by a desired end. And that is immoral when it also is used to prevent the economic development of developing countries using affordable carbon-based energy.
Good night small ugly person.
you know what you can’t conceive when you feel it, because metaphorz! therefore you preach like the iconic liberal.
and your winning argument in any debate is to divert, insult and run away.
more iconic liberal. the species could be described using joel as the holotype.
it’s displacement behavior and cognitive dissonance on display in all its exopthalmic, hyperventilating impotence.
SUP (aka Gnomish),
You are very much the Monty Python Black Knight, and all wanting to pass a moral checkpoint must get by you. Now having lost both arms and legs, you continue to blather on about your superiority (with obtuse words to feign righteousness).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw
i thought you were going to bed, joelo.
qui consolatur canem consolationis?
How do you get rated Professor in that establishment?
This paper appears to be one of the many that won’t be replicable. Just a few gripes with the basic premise:
“The authors’ work is based on Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory. A professor at New York University, Haidt identifies five “moral axes” around which humans develop individual moral reasoning: compassion/harming, fairness/cheating, in-group loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation.”
Apparently Mr. Haidt makes things up, or had a useless research plan to begin with. I very much doubt that he came up with these by testing how effective the several hundred possible antonyms or opposites there are. His moral axes are skewed. Compassion/harming? When I show compassion for someone I try to help. The opposite would be indifference. Fairness/cheating. Interesting skew, I think most people would say fairness/unfair- as in not paying equal pay for equal work. In-group loyalty/betrayal another case of polar opposites that are 75degrees or so off. There are many opposites for loyalty depending on the situation. A common on-line thesaurus doesn’t even include subversion. Purity/degradation- again there are a lot of possible opposites- impurity comes to mind, foul, dirty, depraved, evil, licentious, etc.
Like almost all ‘science’ related to human behavior and thinking getting a clear cut result without bias or confusion is extremely difficult. Coming up with useful terms that mean the same thing to both the investigators and the subject is highly subject to bias on both sides of the experiment. Using Trump terror to caption a picture of paid demonstrators vandalizing and looting is one example.
The above is couched in terms of “life style changes” which is a fuzzy way of saying sacrifice. But without some kind of group loyalty a significant sacrifice is not possible. But the free market is continually forcing us to make life style changes which have the same effect as sacrifices. For instance if technology had stopped changing in 1900 Americans would emit 3 times more CO2 than they do today. (Johan Norberg, Progress, 2016 p 123) It seems every effort to frame this as a moral issue side-steps the data that show that progress is the best substitute for sacrifice ever invented. The invisible hand of environmental improvement.
Ok, let us play their game. The climate sensivity of a gas is temperature gain that would result if the amount of that gas in the Earth’s atmosphere were doubled. According to their reports, the IPCC does not really know what the climate sensivity of CO2 really is but a mean value of their range of guesses might be around 3 degrees C. But CO2 is not the most climate sensitive gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. That would be N2 which also holds more heat energy than the rest of the Earth’s atmosphere combined. N2 is also not a good LWIR radiator like the greenhouse gases are so it holds heat energy a lot longer yet it gains it quite readily via conduction and convection.. The climate sensivity of N2 is at least 25 degrees C. Getting rid of all N2 in the atmosphere will definately cool the planet down. So instead of campaigning to get rid of all CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere it would be much more effective, in turms of curbing global warming, to get rid of all the N2 in the Earth’s atmosphere instead.
To maintain 1 bar SLP, what mole for mole gas should we replace it with?
That is the point, the average pressure will change. When one burns fossil fuel, O2 is taken from the atmosphere to form mostly H2O and CO2. Most of the H2O is returned to the surface as some form of precipitation so there is little change in the mass of the atmosphere but trying to double or half the amount of N2 is another matter. Doubling or halving the amount of N2 in our atmosphere would cause a huge chahge in surface pressure and with it a very significant change in surface temperature. The 33 degrees C that the Earth is warmer because of the atmosphgere is all a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient caused by gravity. There is no additional warming caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. The burning of fossil fuels would cause a significant change in the average surface temperature of the Earth if it resulted in a significant change in surface pressure but it does not.