Doing Nothing About Climate - A Radical Option

[myata]

This is your entire problem. You cannot seperate reality from virtual reality. There ZERO REAL evidence that shows that GHGs will have a net negative effect on society. There are plenty of climate models but they are not real nor are they evidence.

It's hard to get I know. The society has established that GHG emissions are undesirable and must be curbed. If somebody, business or individual continue to emit undesirable substance, they contribute to the negative effect on the society and should pay to compensate for the negative impact.

The notion of negative effect of the global warming has been established as an accepted scientific theory, and it cannot be negated without scientific argument of merit, something that you folks, at this time simply do not have.

And therefore, logically and in plain words, your position is finally reduced to that of denying a rational truth, the "ostrich positon". Of course you can call it "rational" or "justifiable", just as some people think it rational to argue that dinosaurs walked this Earth with humans, or fight crime by building jails, or improve "transparency" of government by fighting tooth and nail against any bit of information being made public. I'm not going to argue the choice of words, but remaining in the logical and rational domain, that's pretty much the only strategy that is left at your disposal.

[Riverwind]

The notion of negative effect of the global warming has been established as an accepted scientific theory, and it cannot be negated without scientific argument of merit, something that you folks, at this time simply do not have.

The 'negative effect of the global warming' is NOT an established scientific theory because we do not know what the effects will be. The only thing that the science tells us it it will get warmer if we emits GHGS. More importantly, we know from history warming is invariably for humans. Claiming that warming is necessarily bad is nothing but a religions belief equivant to the belief that eating pork is wrong.

[myata]

I know you'd love nothing more than to go into another of infinite cycles of pseudo about scientific polemics, but sorry, no such luck and not this time. You had your chance to post meaningful scientific argument against this theory and had it disputed in a meaningful way, you weren't interested, and so it must be clear to anybody thinking with an opened mind, that the position of irrational denial of established reality to the best of our knowledge of the day, the "ostrich" position, is where you are standing, as of now.

Edited December 24, 2009 by myata

[eyeball]

I don't think environmental issues would be enough of an incentive to military action.

If the effect of climate change is even half as bad as advertised, I think military action to hold refugees at bay or help refugees over-run a border (preferably someone else's) is inevitable. I suspect we'll also see an increase in the numbers of dictators and super-power proxies.

I have little doubt that humanity will blithely throw ten times as much money at militarily adapting to climate change than any amount its willing to part with for preventing or mitigating it. Our capacity for collective venality is just too entrenched I think. As the world warms the water-hole shrinks and the ecological bottleneck narrows, the animals will get meaner. It appears we're determined to go through it the hard way so its probably time to embrace the horror.

Survival will definitely trump virtue.

Perhaps we better start listening to the militarists amongst us and steel ourselves for the inevitable.

Edited December 24, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

I know you'd love nothing more than to go into another of infinite cycles of pseudo about scientific polemics, but sorry, no such luck and not this time.

Then step up. You provide your evidence that the net negative effects of GHGs is a scientific fact.

Here is a summary of the peer reviewed literature of the economic effects of climate change.

There have been 13 – count them, 13 – studies published in the peer reviewed literature that have wrestled with the economic implications of a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GhGs) on a CO2-equivalent basis. Those 13 studies have yielded 14 estimates of what will subsequently happen to global GDP. For those who are curious, 10 of those studies assume a subsequent warming of 2.5 C; two assume that a 1 C warming would follow; and two assume a 3 C warming would follow.

Here are the estimated changes to GDP relative to a baseline scenario where no CO2e buildup occurs: +2.5%, +2.3%, +0.9%, +0.1%, no change, -0.1%. -0.4%, -0.9% -1.3%, -1.4%, -1.5% -1.7% -1.9% and -4.8%. In short, climate change will either add or subtract about one year of economic growth from the global economy in the second half of this century.

Your mouthing off about how GHGs are KNOWN to have a negative effect cannot be supported by any evidence I have seen. Edited December 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

Here is a summary of the peer reviewed literature of the economic effects of climate change.

The positive findings in that dataset reflect the fact that temperature has an ambiguous effect on human health; that very little of the modern industrialized economy is weather dependent, that adaptation to climate change is relatively cheap, and that many clear benefits follow from CO2 saturation and warmer weather.

The productivity of our ecosystems are certainly weather dependent and our economy is dependent on the productivity our ecosystems. A natural ecosystem can sustain itself just fine without a human economy but I fail to see how a human economy can sustain itself for long without a productively functioning natural ecosystem.

[Michael Hardner]

If the effect of climate change is even half as bad as advertised, I think military action to hold refugees at bay or help refugees over-run a border (preferably someone else's) is inevitable. I suspect we'll also see an increase in the numbers of dictators and super-power proxies.

I have little doubt that humanity will blithely throw ten times as much money at militarily adapting to climate change than any amount its willing to part with for preventing or mitigating it. Our capacity for collective venality is just too entrenched I think. As the world warms the water-hole shrinks and the ecological bottleneck narrows, the animals will get meaner. It appears we're determined to go through it the hard way so its probably time to embrace the horror.

Survival will definitely trump virtue.

Perhaps we better start listening to the militarists amongst us and steel ourselves for the inevitable.

Military action where ? The Mexican border ? Super-power proxies in the 3rd world ?

As has been on other threads, disparaging humanity and referring to "us" as being lacking in intelligence is a lazy way to think of it. Humans are who we are, and we need to factor that into our problem solving.

[eyeball]

Military action where ? The Mexican border ? Super-power proxies in the 3rd world ?

As has been on other threads, disparaging humanity and referring to "us" as being lacking in intelligence is a lazy way to think of it. Humans are who we are, and we need to factor that into our problem solving.

That's what I just did. I factored in the probability that people, potentially huge numbers of them, will be displaced by climate change. I wouldn't be surprised if long-term military and real politic strategists are already factoring in possible military alliances adjacent to or in the path of refugee migration routes. The potential to squeeze profits out of this are also huge. I didn't say we were unintelligent I simply said we were venal.

[Riverwind]

The productivity of our ecosystems are certainly weather dependent and our economy is dependent on the productivity our ecosystems. A natural ecosystem can sustain itself just fine without a human economy but I fail to see how a human economy can sustain itself for long without a productively functioning natural ecosystem.

GHGs are no danger to the eco system itself. In fact, CO2 is likely a net benefit to the eco-system. My reference is saying is the weather/climate can change but it won't affect humans. Edited December 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

GHGs are no danger to the eco system itself. In fact, CO2 is likely a net benefit to the eco-system. My reference is saying is the weather/climate can change but it won't affect humans.

If our ecosystems benefit from our CO2 emissions no doubt humans will too.

If anything we should be increasing CO2 emissions.

[jbg]

GHGs are no danger to the eco system itself. In fact, CO2 is likely a net benefit to the eco-system. My reference is saying is the weather/climate can change but it won't affect humans.

I wouldn't exactly call the Ice Ages events that wouldn't, if repeated, affect humans. I would say they're very hard to prevent.

[Pliny]

Then step up. You provide your evidence that the net negative effects of GHGs is a scientific fact.

Here is a summary of the peer reviewed literature of the economic effects of climate change.

Your mouthing off about how GHGs are KNOWN to have a negative effect cannot be supported by any evidence I have seen.

Keep up the good work, Riverwind. I appreciate it.

[jbg]

At the risk of spamming, cross-posting, or committing any of the Seven Original Sins or Ten Plagues, a Merry Christmas to all!!!