If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Climate Changists have gone from "it's a scientific consensus" to "odds are" it affects weather. We have to get these guys to Vegas. The House is a lot like Mother Nature   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 337
    More: Interesting, El Nino, Atmospheric Administration, scientific consensus, National Oceanographic, government scientists, Arctic sea ice, National Climatic Data Center, citizen scientists  
•       •       •

2084 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2012 at 9:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-11 12:36:40 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Any limitation or regulation of the use of fossil fuels will result in a decline in comfort and safety for whomever is regulated, plus a decline in profit for the energy producers.

Politics won't ever allow that to happen. Ever.


Let's make a wager, shall we?

I bet that you're wrong. I bet that with sufficient public outcry and environmental damage, regulation on the use of fossil fuels is entirely possible.

I bet that if there was some negative consequence from burning, oh I dunno, let's say coal, and that consequence was causing problems not just nearby but was spread across a large geographic area, forcing people who enjoyed no benefit from the local combustion of coal to pay the unpriced externality of that coal burning, they could do something about it.

Now, I'm just spitballing here, but I also bet that they could get some sort of market-based program in place that allowed the coal companies to clean up what they were doing in a way that didn't run them immediately out of business.

I'd bet that of course people like yourself would claim that it would be the end of modern civilization if any additional price was put on coal. I'd bet that people would claim it was all a hoax. I'd bet that they'd predict economic catastrophe.

I'd bet that the naysayers would be wrong. That we could get a regulations on coal burning. That we could see great environmental improvement. And that we could do so not only without destroying our economy, but for far, far less than most analyses predicted it would cost.

Would you like to take that bet?
 
2012-07-11 12:37:45 PM

KhanAidan: I don't understand your internal logic here.


You assume there is logic. He's either a little off his nut or a troll; I still can't tell which. In either case, logic doesn't even enter into it.
 
2012-07-11 12:39:32 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Jon Snow: People respond to economic incentives. They live in areas like California despite the risk of EQs because the economic benefits far outweigh the risks. That's not true in many of the places we're talking about once you remove subsidies for housing and business, and insurance.

Bullshiat.
The very structure of your language speaks to rich, white, upper-middle-class delusional values. It also reveals your agenda, which isn't really science, but actual social engineering. Remove the subsidies? You're really living in some delusional dream world. The oligarchs will nod politely at you and you will be summarily ignored, thank gawd.

But you're absolutely IRREFUTABLE, so there's that.


Um. Not rich, upper-middle-class here but I respond and agree with most of social engineering our world through new policy based on science. The more educated the public is on something, the more empowered the politicians are to change it. I think Jon is trying to explain things to you, and trying to say change won't happen but we're already seeing it with the resurgence of electric vehicles and added contributions and investments in renewable energy.

We can dream, educate, and change.
/worked for lowering the number of smokers and increasing public health and other countless issues science has helped us understand
 
2012-07-11 12:40:03 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: The very structure of your language speaks to rich, white, upper-middle-class delusional values. It also reveals your agenda, which isn't really science, but actual social engineering. Remove the subsidies? You're really living in some delusional dream world. The oligarchs will nod politely at you and you will be summarily ignored, thank gawd.


As a white male with a household income less than C$45,000 a year, with a family of 6 living in a 4 bedroom house on an acre of land....

... what are these subsidies? I mean, I don't need the money to live, but wouldn't mind a little extra...
 
2012-07-11 12:42:01 PM

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: Any limitation or regulation of the use of fossil fuels will result in a decline in comfort and safety for whomever is regulated, plus a decline in profit for the energy producers.

Politics won't ever allow that to happen. Ever.

Let's make a wager, shall we?

I bet that you're wrong. I bet that with sufficient public outcry and environmental damage, regulation on the use of fossil fuels is entirely possible.

I bet that if there was some negative consequence from burning, oh I dunno, let's say coal, and that consequence was causing problems not just nearby but was spread across a large geographic area, forcing people who enjoyed no benefit from the local combustion of coal to pay the unpriced externality of that coal burning, they could do something about it.

Now, I'm just spitballing here, but I also bet that they could get some sort of market-based program in place that allowed the coal companies to clean up what they were doing in a way that didn't run them immediately out of business.

I'd bet that of course people like yourself would claim that it would be the end of modern civilization if any additional price was put on coal. I'd bet that people would claim it was all a hoax. I'd bet that they'd predict economic catastrophe.

I'd bet that the naysayers would be wrong. That we could get a regulations on coal burning. That we could see great environmental improvement. And that we could do so not only without destroying our economy, but for far, far less than most analyses predicted it would cost.

Would you like to take that bet?


i.e. See the Acid Rain program by the EPA, their sulfur dioxide cap and trade system put in place in 1990.
 
2012-07-11 12:42:48 PM

KhanAidan: I don't understand your internal logic here.


Is internal logic like internal combustion? Is it different from just combustion?
Logic is logic.

No, the AGW crowd does not understand that they are arguing for carbon taxes and other governmental controls on fossil fuel emissions and consumption. That's exactly what I'm saying, because they haven't thought their broadcasting of their cunning brilliance all the way through. If there is any effect from waving their arms about CO2 causing all kinds of badness, the only possible effect can and will be a scheme whereby certain groups make tons of money and the rest of us will certainly suffer somehow.

Is that counterintuitive? Oh yes, it is.
There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.

Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.
 
2012-07-11 12:45:12 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Snow and his ilk failed to convince even me. That's a huge failure. If they can't even convince me


NAMBLA Spokesman: Why, those anti-pedophile activists failed to convince even me. Failing to convince me is an utter failure! I should be the most convincable of all! After all, why would I want to hurt kids? I love children! *licks lips creepily*
 
2012-07-11 12:47:12 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.


{citation needed}
 
2012-07-11 12:48:59 PM

thecpt: We can dream, educate, and change.
/worked for lowering the number of smokers and increasing public health and other countless issues science has helped us understand


So don't conflate other social issues with use of fossil fuels, upon which our entire grand experiment is built and upon which our entire standard of living (such as it is) depends.

If you want a preview of the natural result of CO2 arm-waving alarmism, you need to cut your energy use in half. Immediately. That means half the heating, half the driving and half the electricity use. Or else simply take half your income and burn it on the hibachi grill. That would nicely simulate the social impact of carbon controls. Let me know how that turns out for you.
 
2012-07-11 12:49:43 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: We didn't start the warming. The warming is a fact. There were once glaciers. The glaciers melted and are melting.



You sound like you would be surprised by the first frost in October.

"Didn't the snow and ice in the backyard all melt away months ago? Why isn't it still getting warmer, damnit?!"
 
2012-07-11 12:50:03 PM

verbal_jizm: HotIgneous Intruder: There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.

{citation needed}


Wasn't there that 5000-strong academic and scientist protest in Canada yesterday because of cuts to education and science programs?
 
2012-07-11 12:52:41 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.


Source, from your retarded Google search, this article

The Opposition has forecast large boost in prices on account of the carbon tax, but Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note that the levy is expected to boost inflation rate by only 0.7 per cent

When was the carbon tax introduced? Why, July 1st, 2012, of course. That's right, boys and girls, our economic expert (who is also an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, for real yo) assures us that he has rigorously studied Australia's economy over the past, um, 11 days.

What he does know for sure is that despite all the lip-service he pays to hating scare tactics and loving evidence-based reasoning, why, those scary forecasts a scant few days into the carbon tax must surely be right. Sure, it's the opposition saying it, so they have a vested interest in the scare tactics it presents to gain political cachet, and sure 11 days is nowhere near enough to go "THIS HAS ALREADY CONTRIBUTED TO AUSTRALIA'S INFLATION!" like HotIgneous Intruder does.

But the important thing that we remember here, boys and girls, is that HotIgneous Intruder only pays lip service to this. In reality, he hates evidence, and loves scaremongering. Remember when I pointed out the other inconsistencies he behaved by? We refer to those as patterns of behaviour.
 
2012-07-11 12:53:15 PM

wippit: Wasn't there that 5000-strong academic and scientist protest in Canada yesterday because of cuts to education and science programs?


Keeping you stupid is a government imperative. But maybe those cuts are what the people want, if the government is truly representative of the people. Maybe your people are sick of idiot academics farking up the economy and social policy.
 
2012-07-11 12:54:49 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: When was the carbon tax introduced? Why, July 1st, 2012, of course. That's right, boys and girls, our economic expert (who is also an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, for real yo) assures us that he has rigorously studied Australia's economy over the past, um, 11 days.


Uh no. I cut in a link. Yoo decide. You're the genius.
 
2012-07-11 12:55:29 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: If you want a preview of the natural result of CO2 arm-waving alarmism, you need to cut your energy use in half. Immediately. That means half the heating, half the driving and half the electricity use. Or else simply take half your income and burn it on the hibachi grill. That would nicely simulate the social impact of carbon controls. Let me know how that turns out for you.


Both me and my wife telecommute for work, grow as much food as we can, and only turn on the heat (wood heat) when the house temp is under 60 F.

So, what do I win?

Other than a poopload of savings...
 
2012-07-11 12:55:41 PM
See? AGW is an ideological argument.
Strictly abstract.
 
2012-07-11 12:57:54 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: KhanAidan: I don't understand your internal logic here.

Is internal logic like internal combustion? Is it different from just combustion?
Logic is logic.

No, the AGW crowd does not understand that they are arguing for carbon taxes and other governmental controls on fossil fuel emissions and consumption. That's exactly what I'm saying, because they haven't thought their broadcasting of their cunning brilliance all the way through. If there is any effect from waving their arms about CO2 causing all kinds of badness, the only possible effect can and will be a scheme whereby certain groups make tons of money and the rest of us will certainly suffer somehow.

Is that counterintuitive? Oh yes, it is.
There is a reason why academics and "scientists" always fail miserably at forming social policy.

Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.


Which one am I supposed to click?

Anyways, why are you so against any changes?

Example: I hate my old school. They cut out food carrying trays for meals and gave plates instead meaning you couldn't stack 3 plates and two drinks in one trip. They said it was to be more "green" which is essentially true. Less dishes to wash, students would eat less food and also waste less cause if you go up for one plate you are probably going to eat everything on that plate as opposed to getting 3 plates and realizing you're full half way through.

Yes. It was essentially to cut cost under the guise of "green." Didn't make them wrong. We started wasting a lot less and cut how much water we used by a lot. Especially if you consider excess eating as waste as I do.

Our civil engineers were recording the amount of organic waste we were outputting and they said it dropped significantly.
 
2012-07-11 12:58:15 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Keeping you stupid is a government imperative.


Dr. Mojo PhD: The Opposition has forecast large boost in prices

[which will of course happen in the future] on account of the carbon tax, but Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note that the levy is expected to boost inflation rate [which will also of course happen in the future] by only 0.7 per cent

HotIgneous Intruder: Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food

[stated as if it has already happened] and has even increased the inflation rate [stated as if it has already happened, and fails to mention the 'by 0.7 per cent' part].

Looks like they certainly succeeded with you. Why, by God, you aren't even located in Australia, and the Australian opposition can tell you something will happen tomorrow and you'll come along and act like it happened yesterday.

Remember, boys and girls. Internal contradictions. Patterns of behaviour.
 
2012-07-11 12:58:15 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Snow and his ilk failed to convince even me. That's a huge failure. If they can't even convince me, they will never convince the necessary senators and even more wobbly representatives.


It's impossible to "convince you" because you're not actually having an argument about scientific evidence and objective facts related to climate dynamics. You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.

But you cannot or will not see that the two are separate issues. The fact that humans are warming the planet through (among other things) our use of fossil fuels is inextricably associated in your mind with disrupting (or worse! regulating) a lifestyle based on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

That's why you keep saying cause and effect don't matter. To you, they don't.

To people who aren't childishly lashing out at perceived threats to their way of life, cause and effect certainly matter, and the evidence for anthropogenic warming is robust, consillent, and compelling.
 
2012-07-11 01:00:42 PM

Jon Snow: t's impossible to "convince you" because you're not actually having an argument about scientific evidence and objective facts related to climate dynamics. You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.

But you cannot or will not see that the two are separate issues. The fact that humans are warming the planet through (among other things) our use of fossil fuels is inextricably associated in your mind with disrupting (or worse! regulating) a lifestyle based on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

That's why you keep saying cause and effect don't matter. To you, they don't.


Typed before I saw:

HotIgneous Intruder: AGW is an ideological argument.


Beautiful.
 
2012-07-11 01:02:25 PM
People arguing at shadows on the walls that look like things they fear.

I'll leave you with Naomi Klein on the topic, as I've done before:

... if the arguments which make the case for global warming are accepted, then our whole way of life--primarily, its reliance upon non-renewable energy sources like oil for easy mobility, cheap goods, anxious consumption, irresponsible levels of waste, and a casual and inattentive relationship with the planet we live upon and the food from it which we eat--must change. Capitalism must change. And that, Klein argued, I think rightly, is a stark challenge that most self-identified liberals (though maybe "neoliberals" would be a better description) and environmentalists just don't appreciate.

...And so, Klein called for starkness--for recognizing that global warming is not something that can be fixed or moderated or addressed by us; it is, rather, something that, if we want to survive as a civilization and a species, demands something of us. She said her tentative title for her next book is "What Climate Change is Telling Us About How We Must Evolve"....and she credits the global warming deniers for at least recognizing that demand for what it implies. In the same way powerful corporate interests attack unions, push for deregulation, insist on the legitimacy of their habits of consumption, praise globalization, denounce all forms of protectionism, and defend their wealth from the demands of the commons, they also fight the science of global warming tooth and nail--because to give it credence would be to invite a fundamental economic transformation, one that would undercut their position of privilege entirely.
 
2012-07-11 01:03:18 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Dr. Mojo PhD: When was the carbon tax introduced? Why, July 1st, 2012, of course. That's right, boys and girls, our economic expert (who is also an expert on the Dunning-Kruger effect, for real yo) assures us that he has rigorously studied Australia's economy over the past, um, 11 days.

Uh no. I cut in a link. Yoo decide. You're the genius.


Yes yes, you certainly didn't verifiably state that it has already raised prices and inflation rates as a certainty when the reality is that these are government opposition forecasts or anything. People totally can't look that up or anything. I know, I know, linking to it is so primitive, you'd think I was trying to invent the wheel or fire or something by linking back to your own embarrassing statements. Next thing you know I'll be screenshotting that post to use in future threads concerning your credibility and it'll be just like that time I vandalized Ugh's cave by adding a giant boner to mammoth he took months to paint in guano.

Immediately following up your breathless statement of the Aus gov't opposition's forecasts as if they were things that had already happened (in your massive knowledge that spans the 11 days since the tax was introduced) with an equally breathless paean to how governments want to keep us stupid was a nice touch, I must admit.

It takes a certain level of hellishly terrifying, 'does this guy seriously breathe my air?' level of stupid to actually lack that much introspection.
 
2012-07-11 01:04:02 PM

HotIgneous Intruder:
So don't conflate other social issues with use of fossil fuels, upon which our entire grand experiment is built and upon which our entire standard of living (such as it is) depends.

If you want a preview of the natural result of CO2 arm-waving alarmism, you need to cut your energy use in half. Immediately. That means half the heating, half the driving and half the electricity use. Or else simply take half your income and burn it on the hibachi grill. That would nicely simulate the social impact of carbon controls. Let me know how that turns out for you.


Not necessarily. Electricity isn't always fossil fuel based. I want electricity that isn't via Nuclear power which already makes 20% of our grid. France's grid is around 80%. There goes the heating and electric part. The driving can be electric based too, but since I don't have that kind of car please know that I was wise enough to find an office job a mile away from my house in a city that has a lot of public transportation. In that case I felt it socially responsible, and much more convenient, to make a change in my life.
 
2012-07-11 01:05:02 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: See? AGW is an ideological argument.
Strictly abstract.


No it isn't. You're the one who started posting your paranoid political views.
 
2012-07-11 01:05:30 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: People arguing at shadows on the walls that look like things they fear.


Dr. Mojo PhD: The Opposition has forecast large boost in prices on account of the carbon tax, but Mr Swan said in his weekly economic note that the levy is expected to boost inflation rate by only 0.7 per cent


HotIgneous Intruder: Ask the Aussies about their carbon tax, which has been used as an excuse to raise prices on everything from fuel to food and has even increased the inflation rate.


What's it like, having absolutely zero introspection? What's it like seeing the shadow of something you fear -- raising prices and inflation rates as a mere spectre in the future -- and so pissing your pants in terror you act as if it is a foregone conclusion?
 
2012-07-11 01:05:44 PM

Jon Snow: Jon Snow: t's impossible to "convince you" because you're not actually having an argument about scientific evidence and objective facts related to climate dynamics. You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.

But you cannot or will not see that the two are separate issues. The fact that humans are warming the planet through (among other things) our use of fossil fuels is inextricably associated in your mind with disrupting (or worse! regulating) a lifestyle based on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

That's why you keep saying cause and effect don't matter. To you, they don't.


NO. They don't matter to anyone. We all just want to keep living like this or better, forever and ever. It's pipe dream. Leave it to the "scientists" to step in and decide who lives and who dies, literally.
Dr. Strangelove, anyone.
 
2012-07-11 01:06:46 PM

s2s2s2: serial_crusher: Hmm, it's almost as if theories on environmental change are challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced?!

But let's live according to it, then change with it?


What should we live according to, if not the current scientific thinking?

Wishful thinking?
 
2012-07-11 01:07:31 PM
Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.
 
2012-07-11 01:08:19 PM

thecpt:
Not necessarily. Electricity isn't always fossil fuel based. I want electricity that isn't via Nuclear power which already makes 20% of our grid. France's grid is around 80%. There goes the heating and electric part. The driving can be electric based too, but since I don't have that kind of car please know that I was wise enough to find an office job a mile away from my house in a city that has a lot of public transportation. In that case I felt it socially responsible, and much more convenient, to make a change in my life.


Are you against all nuclear power? Or just uranium-fueled nuclear power?

I can't find much on heat output of a thorium reactor, but most of the other variables are a lot better than uranium.
 
2012-07-11 01:08:39 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: I'll leave you with Naomi Klein on the topic, as I've done before:

... if the arguments which make the case for global warming are accepted, then our whole way of life--primarily, its reliance upon non-renewable energy sources like oil for easy mobility, cheap goods, anxious consumption, irresponsible levels of waste, and a casual and inattentive relationship with the planet we live upon and the food from it which we eat--must change. Capitalism must change. And that, Klein argued


Does Naomi Klein normally refer to herself in the third person, or when you attempted an appeal to authority before fleeing the thread in cowardice, having a breakdown, were you so busy tripping over your own feet that you couldn't bother typing "I'll leave you with a random blogger with a stock blogspot template musing on something Naomi Klein once said which I will now make my own argument from"?

There's a difference. You're incompetent, I don't expect you to know the difference, but I can certainly tell you that in the circles where intelligent people travel, it's not really considered (how should I put this?) ... sane if you do something like saying "And now, before I run from any further argument because I can't actually make one, I'll leave you with a quote from the Bible" -- and then you quote the Communist Manifesto, because hey, Marx mentions religion in it, right?
 
2012-07-11 01:09:51 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: You're flailing against a perceived attack on socio-politico-economic identity markers that have nothing to do with things like Milankovitch cycles, radiative forcings, or the carbon cycle.


But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.
THAT is why you miss the social bus, Jon. You've spent your life counting the rings on the tree that fell and killed your child.
 
2012-07-11 01:11:18 PM

Jon Snow: HotIgneous Intruder: I bit and asked Jon what his magnificent irrefutable solution to this problem would be. He remains silent.

Jon Snow: If you want to see an example of how to stabilize GHG emissions (which does not mean reducing emissions to zero, mind you), the stabilization wedge conceptual framework has plenty of examples of getting from here to there using commercially available technologies[1][2][3].

[1] Pacala, S., and R. Socolow (2004), Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science, 305(5686), 968-972, doi:10.1126/science.1100103.
[2] Stabilization Wedges Introduction
[3] Blok, K., N. Höhne, K. van der Leun, and N. Harrison (2012), Bridging the greenhouse-gas emissions gap, Nature Climate Change, 2(7), 471-474, doi:10.1038/nclimate1602.


Color me shocked that HII continues to ignore the evidence placed in front of him and argue that no one has presented solutions. He always seems to forget that other people have the ability to scroll up and read what was posted.

Why, that's something you'd expect from a shill and a liar.

So, HII, why wouldn't the stabilization wedges concept work in practice?
 
2012-07-11 01:13:40 PM

wippit:

Are you against all nuclear power? Or just uranium-fueled nuclear power?

I can't find much on heat output of a thorium reactor, but most of the other variables are a lot better than uranium.


Confused. Maybe my wording was the bad. I want electricity that isn't fossil fuel based via the use of Nuclear Energy. I think their heat output is negligible in the cause of what the crisis is. I find fast breeders to be a little scary, but I'll allow it.
 
2012-07-11 01:13:45 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: NO. They don't matter to anyone. We all just want to keep living like this or better, forever and ever. It's pipe dream.


You said you were leaving. It's pretty cute how you need the last word, how even after promising to take your ball and go home you can't.

HotIgneous Intruder: Dr. Strangelove, anyone.

[...was fiction.]

HotIgneous Intruder: People arguing at shadows on the walls that look like things they fear.


LOLDELUSIONAL. Again, seriously, how's that lack of introspection and self-awareness working out for you?
 
2012-07-11 01:15:21 PM

gilgigamesh: lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

You're suggesting some cabal with semi-religious overtones that incorporates virtually every climatologist, which for some unfathomable reason has as its sole agenda enriching poorer nations at the expense of richer ones, and you still have the temerity to sit there and smugly lecture the rest of us about critical thinking?


You are right, sure it is not a conspiracy. That is why they deleted all their emails and research..right?
 
2012-07-11 01:16:06 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.


So you've now gone from "B-B-BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE! HOAX!" to "IT'S REAL! IT'S REAL AND NONE OF IT MATTERS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO WORK BREAKING COAL TO BUY THEIR SANDWICHES ANY MORE!"

Great.
 
2012-07-11 01:16:17 PM

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.


Your opinion is the opposite of what was concluded by the British Government's study on this topic, the Stern Review. To my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive study conducted on the economic impacts of mitigation (reducing emissions to limit the magnitude of climate change) and adaptation (doing nothing and dealing with consequences as they arise). Link to executive summary here. From it:
"The Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."
 
2012-07-11 01:16:26 PM

Jon Snow: Fractional attribution of extreme weather events != the robust consensus that anthropogenic radiative forcings (mainly but not only long-lived GHGs like CO2 and CH4) have altered the planetary energy balance, causing us to warm towards a higher equilibrium.

You're welcome.

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period.

How many dozens of times does it need to be pointed out to you that glacial-interglacial cycling is driven by orbital forcing, that orbital forcing has been in the direction of cooling for the past several thousands of years, and that anthropogenic warming has sharply reversed this cooling and is pushing us in an entirely new direction?

lordaction: The Global Warming Climate Change is nothing more then a cult. It is nothing more then a guise to transfer wealth to poorer nations from the richer ones. Any idiot can figure this out but nobody said liberals had critical thinking skills.

[i.imgur.com image 500x399]


The cartoon is perfect. That is exactly what I think. The only thing missing is I am pretty sure the Jews are involved somehow. They probably own the banks that will process the "carbon credits" or something.
 
2012-07-11 01:17:42 PM

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.


Here's a link that's a little bit of what you're talking about. It at least gives a CBO estimate on the costs for emission reductions.

Link

It's actually extremely hard to figure out what the economic impact of reduction programs will be. The knock-on effects could be pretty harsh if individual firm reduction costs are high. That being said the EPA's acid rain program only costs about a fourth of what was forecast. Europe's reduction program has also come in under cost. Imagine that, government programs that fall under their cost estimates!
 
2012-07-11 01:18:49 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: I'll leave you with Naomi Klein on the topic


1) That's someone else's shiatty blog, not Naomi Klein.
2) I'll go ahead and bet that you aren't really leaving us.
 
2012-07-11 01:18:57 PM

lordaction: You are right, sure it is not a conspiracy. That is why they deleted all their emails and research..right?


They deleted all their emails and research. Every one. All of them. Thousands and thousands of scientists woke up one day and said, "I'm going to delete my emails and research."

It was a conspiracy to do nothing, and lordaction, so fiercely wed to reality as he is, has blown the cover right off this lunatic fiction that happened in a dream he had last week after reading a Michael "I believe in spoon bending and auras" Crichton novel and eating pizza with a mysterious, semen-like substance on it. Oh, and meth. Lots and lots of meth.
 
2012-07-11 01:21:56 PM

lordaction: You are right, sure it is not a conspiracy. That is why they deleted all their emails and research..right?


Sorry, you're far too late to get involved now with that weaksauce lying. HotIgneous Intruder has already claimed all the derp and there's none left for you. Better luck next thread.
 
2012-07-11 01:22:31 PM

chimp_ninja: wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.

Your opinion is the opposite of what was concluded by the British Government's study on this topic, the Stern Review. To my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive study conducted on the economic impacts of mitigation (reducing emissions to limit the magnitude of climate change) and adaptation (doing nothing and dealing with consequences as they arise). Link to executive summary here. From it:
"The Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year."


Well, I've never been accused of being an optimist...
 
2012-07-11 01:23:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: But none of those causes matters a fark to someone who can't afford food.


As cited above, the costs of inaction exceed the costs of mitigation. You continue to commit the fallacy that "doing nothing" is always free and without consequence.

So, by your assertion that we should decide things based on someone who cannot afford food, we should pursue emissions reduction strategies because it will limit damage to agriculture, thus lowering long-term food prices.
 
2012-07-11 01:24:02 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: HotIgneous Intruder: Dr. Strangelove, anyone. [...was fiction.]


Only a scientist would note that Dr. Strangelove was fiction as part of a refutation. It was also satire, which holds stereotypical behaviors up for ridicule and shaming.

The rest of us understand that and most of the rest of us understand that fiction is a lie that tells the truth. In fact, there's more truth in fiction than there is in nonfiction. If you want politicized lies, look no further than the scientific academic community. Lemmings and wholly political animals, much as they would deny it.

Dr. Strangelove: if the shoe fits, wear it.
Humans: never trust them, especially the ones higher up in hierarchical structures. They lie like dogs to advance their agendas.
 
2012-07-11 01:25:52 PM

wxboy: Dos anybody have any good links to the real cost associated with adaptation vs. mitigation starting now or in the near future, as well as comparing those with the cost of ignoring the issue completely?


I will dig some up.

My personal, nonscientific opinion is that we're probably past the point where trying to undo the damage is less expensive than learning to live with it, thanks to the inaction caused by politics thus far.

No one (in terms of proposed international agreements) is "trying to undo the damage". Basically every plan that has international support allows for further warming up to a point.

I'll say that again, because climate denialists have so polluted (if you'll pardon the expression) the discourse that most people think intergovernmental agreements are focusing on reducing CO2 levels below what they are now. In fact, all of these proposals are aiming at allowing them to increase further, to ~450-600ppm (depending on which plans we're talking about) before stabilizing.

Now, we've learned a lot in the past 10 years about long term ice sheet stability, non-climatic consequences (e.g. ocean acidification), and have failed to see some of the assumed positives of a small amount of warming (crops haven't benefited as some expected)- all of which are hinting that aiming for a doubling of preindustrial CO2 isn't in our longterm interests. But as far as I know, that's still the plan most treaties are aiming for.

The "learning to live with it" part of your statement is quite questionable. If we pursue unchecked emissions, what level of sea level rise do we "learn to live with"? One meter? We might see that by end of century. Two meters? Sea level rise is expected to be nonlinear once ice sheets really start going. We know that multimeter SLR on centennial timescales is possible from the paleo record.

How do you "learn to live with" SLR that has no effective upper level?

The costs of hitting a specific target increase the longer we wait to pursue mitigation. However, the costs of avoiding the worsts impacts are well below the costs of enduring them for some time to come.
 
2012-07-11 01:27:36 PM

wxboy: Well, I've never been accused of being an optimist...


True, but the Stern Review dovetails with nearly every pollution study-- it's always cheaper to control chemicals at a source (concentrated, localized, more predictable) than it is to address them after release (diluted, widespread, less predictable).

Look at asbestos, or whatever your favorite relevant story is. Compare the cost of using other materials (often more expensive ones-- asbestos was dirt cheap) to just continuing to build with asbestos and paying for cleanups when you need to take buildings down later.
 
2012-07-11 01:29:23 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: They lie like dogs to advance their agendas.


Because Newton, Einstein, Hawking, Watson & Crick, Lorenz, etc. etc. were all dirty liars...

Especially that Einstein, advancing his agenda of relativity that bastard.
 
2012-07-11 01:29:30 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: If you want politicized lies, look no further than the scientific academic community.


weknowmemes.com

I thought you were "leaving us"?
 
2012-07-11 01:29:38 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Only a scientist would note that Dr. Strangelove was fiction as part of a refutation.


Only a moron would miss the point that a person who barks about jumping at shadows is pissing his pants over fiction.

HotIgneous Intruder: It was also satire, which holds stereotypical behaviors up for ridicule and shaming.


Stereotypical behaviours like a pie fight. You know, because if there's one thing world leaders do, it's pie fight.

You missed the "hyperbole" part of Dr. Strangelove there, chief.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report