Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

no - I kept asking you to identify what the climate of the distant past... your going back 500 Million years ago... has to do with today's relatively recent warming, related climate change and attributions therein. Although you keep harping on that distant past, you're unable to answer this question/challenge put to you... well, other than your catch-all, hand-wave to the distant past's high CO2/temperature levels providing "optimal conditions to support human/plant life".

.

One of the things that early history has to do with is whether current conditions are within the Earth's experience or if the only way this could happen is human impact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

-1=e^ipi, way back years ago on these climate change threads I made the same point: before we go deciding whether we should change, not change, or reverse changes we have made to the climate, it might make sense to figure out what the optimal climate actually is. That's what we really need some more science on. What global average temperature and CO2 ppm level would maximize the Earth's carrying capacity for humans? What other factors (ocean current patterns, etc) can we control to enhance the Earth's ability to sustain human populations?

...

Of course, that viewpoint was completely ignored by both climate change alarmists and skeptics, so that they could continue their never-ending circular arguments with each other.

On the surface that makes sense, but really it's a subjective point and also almost impossible to assess. It's far more practical to assess impacts of change - especially since we have seen some change, and we can project costs into the future by projecting those, mathematically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the surface that makes sense, but really it's a subjective point and also almost impossible to assess. It's far more practical to assess impacts of change - especially since we have seen some change, and we can project costs into the future by projecting those, mathematically.

We don't really know how the real climate responds to the changes we are making now. The chances of being able to predict the response to large scale geo-engineering efforts is near zero. The chances for unintended consequences are huge. Adaptation as required is the only real option. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so wait and see?

Do not see why this is an issue since the effects that can actually be attributed to climate change to date are pretty minimal (some idiot claiming that every weather event is an effect of climate change does not make it true - weather is weather after all). Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't really know how the real climate responds to the changes we are making now. The chances of being able to predict the response to large scale geo-engineering efforts is near zero. The chances for unintended consequences are huge. Adaptation as required is the only real option.

Blind faith that no matter what we do, somehow we will muddle through. Sounds like religion to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind faith that no matter what we do, somehow we will muddle through. Sounds like religion to me.

Why do you think that spending billions on deploying solutions which we know will not solve the stated problem is rational? If you are looking for religion you will find it among the harebrained policies being promoted by the CO2 mitigation crowd. Hoping we will muddle through is a pragmatic approach given the options available. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you look at the costs of changing (and/or preventing change) with respect to the climate, you look at the costs and benefits of that change in climate, you look at various ways to change the climate, and then you choose the best course of action.

That is why you plan the best course of action that is optimal for humans on earth. If CO2 mitigation policies or alternatives (like increasing cloud cover using sea water) are necessary then do so.

Assuming it is even possible to do so, what happens when you finally do come to a conclusion as to an optimum level, only to find that you are almost at or even past it and your annual CO2 emissions are now 25% higher than when you started your study? What would be your plan then?

I agree. What humans are doing now with respect to CO2 emissions & climate change has no goal/objective. That's why discussing what is the optimal global climate for humans on earth, what course of action should we take with respect to climate change, are interesting topics.

Let's hope the people who will have do deal with the reality will find the subject as stimulating and interesting.

I understand that we can't just stop emitting greenhouse gasses or even stop their increase in the short term at least, but one would think we would be doing what we can to at least try and slow the process down until we can come to conclusions and formulate a plan, instead of just barging ahead with no concern for the consequences.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think that spending billions on deploying solutions which we know will not solve the stated problem is rational? If you are looking for religion you will find it among the harebrained policies being promoted by the CO2 mitigation crowd. Hoping we will muddle through is a pragmatic approach given the options available.

Insha'Allah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insha'Allah

Why don't you answer the question:

Why do you think that spending billions on deploying solutions which we know will not solve the stated problem is rational?

I went to the dentist the other day and was told that I had a cavity forming but we could 'wait and see'.

IOW - 'wait and see' is a perfectly rational response to hypothetical problems. It all depends on how certain the problem is and whether the cure is worse than the disease.

The one unique aspect of the climate problem is the experts who diagnose the problem have zero qualifications when it comes to figuring out what to do about it. This leads to inane efforts to 'do something' even though the things being done are a complete waste of time and will do nothing about the problem.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you answer the question:

Why do you think that spending billions on deploying solutions which we know will not solve the stated problem is rational?

Because we don't know that. Just because you want to believe that, it doesn't make it so.

I went to the dentist the other day and was told that I had a cavity forming but we could 'wait and see'.

IOW - 'wait and see' is a perfectly rational response to hypothetical problems. It all depends on how certain the problem is and whether the cure is worse than the disease.

Wait and see is a rational response when you know you have a solution. As in your dentist and your cavity. "Don't clean your teeth until we see how bad your gum disease gets" would not be a rational response.

The one unique aspect of the climate problem is the experts who diagnose the problem have zero qualifications when it comes to figuring out what to do about it. This leads to inane efforts to 'do something' even though the things being done are a complete waste of time and will do nothing about the problem.

No doubt you will have the same response when -1+e^ipi and his panel of experts finally come up with their determination of what is the optimal CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if I've consistently, as you say, accused you... you should be able to provide a quote to that effect. Waiting...

Perhaps consistently was the wrong word, but here is a quote:

I've certainly labeled you a concern troll; beyond that, we'll need a bit more time to flush out your real position.

what level would that be... what's the basis for your claim, strawman man?

Either 1850 or 1880 would be used as the benchmark. That's what the IPCC and various climate change mitigation advocacy groups use.

Here is an example of a climate alarmist saying that we need to return to pre-industrial levels.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions

ther 1850 or 1880 would be used as the benchmark. That's what the IPCC and various climate change mitigation advocacy groups use.

Assuming it is even possible to do so, what happens when you finally do come to a conclusion as to an optimum level, only to find that you are almost at or even past it and your annual CO2 emissions are now 25% higher than when you started your study? What would be your plan then?

If that is the case, then you have to look at the net cost of doing nothing (in terms of the environment) and compare that to the cost of performing mitigation policies (in terms of the economy). If the mitigation costs are higher than the environmental benefits then it wouldn't make sense to perform mitigation policies as opposed to the 'do nothing' approach. More likely though, we would choose a compromise between environmental concerns and economic concerns. So overall, we probably will not end up at the 'optimum level'. Furthermore, even if the benefits of mitigation exceed the costs of mitigation, we should still compare mitigation to other options to counter climate change (such as increasing cloud cover using sea water or building a giant space mirror). And even if mitigation is the best plan, you still need to get all countries in the world to agree (including theocracies that believe the earth is 6,000 years old and do not agree with evolution) and you have an issue of game theory where a country's best interest and the global best interest are often not the same.

I understand that we can't just stop emitting greenhouse gasses or even stop their increase in the short term at least, but one would think we would be doing what we can to at least try and slow the process down until we can come to conclusions and formulate a plan, instead of just barging ahead with no concern for the consequences.

I don't see how it is rational to slow down the process if we disagree if the process is beneficial or not and we don't have a plan. Formulate a plan first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we don't know that. Just because you want to believe that, it doesn't make it so.

It is not hard to do the calculations based on the amount of energy required and the technology and resources available today. All of the people claiming it is possible assume the magic technology fairy will appear and provide solutions which solve all of our problems - the only problem is the magic technology fairy is not real.

IOW - we know it can't be done. We know this with more certainty than we know that CO2 will be bad.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, then you have to look at the net cost of doing nothing (in terms of the environment) and compare that to the cost of performing mitigation policies (in terms of the economy). If the mitigation costs are higher than the environmental benefits then it wouldn't make sense to perform mitigation policies as opposed to the 'do nothing' approach. More likely though, we would choose a compromise between environmental concerns and economic concerns. So overall, we probably will not end up at the 'optimum level'. Furthermore, even if the benefits of mitigation exceed the costs of mitigation, we should still compare mitigation to other options to counter climate change (such as increasing cloud cover using sea water or building a giant space mirror). And even if mitigation is the best plan, you still need to get all countries in the world to agree (including theocracies that believe the earth is 6,000 years old and do not agree with evolution) and you have an issue of game theory where a country's best interest and the global best interest are often not the same.

Mitigation for what? You have a situation where you know you will not be able to stop the process anywhere near what is optimum or any time in the future, because you have taken no steps to deal with the cause.

I don't see how it is rational to slow down the process if we disagree if the process is beneficial or not and we don't have a plan. Formulate a plan first.

Any time you are causing at situation that is likely not reversible, it is rational not to rush into it until you know what the eff you are doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not hard to do the calculations based on the amount of energy required and the technology and resources available today. All of the people claiming it is possible assume the magic technology fairy will appear and provide solutions which solve all of our problems - the only problem is the magic technology fairy is not real.

IOW - we know it can't be done. We know this with more certainty than we know that CO2 will be bad.

I guess we are screwed then. If we can't deal with causes of a problem we are making, why would any rational person think we are capable of dealing with both the causes and its effects sometime in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would any rational person think we are capable of dealing with both the causes and its effects sometime in the future?

Actually, adapting is a easier than mitigating because:

1) We already have the necessary technology

(sea walls, irrigation, flood control, better plant breeds, air conditioning, et. al.);

2) In the future we will be richer and better able to pay

(50 years ago the world GDP was 5x less than today in 50 years it will 5x more)

3) In the future population growth will level off.

4) Adaption is local and no global agreement among countries with different interests is required.

So rationally, adaptation makes so much more sense it makes me wonder why people are so resistant to it as the preferred option.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, adapting is a easier than mitigating because:

1) We already have the necessary technology

(sea walls, irrigation, flood control, better plant breeds, air conditioning, et. al.);

2) In the future we will be richer and better able to pay

(50 years ago the world GDP was 5x less than today in 50 years it will 5x more)

3) In the future population growth will level off.

4) Adaption is local and no global agreement among countries with different interests is required.

So rationally, adaptation makes so much more sense it makes me wonder why people are so resistant to it as the preferred option.

You make a whole hell of a lot of assumptions.

In other words. Insha'Allah

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a whole hell of a lot of assumptions.

I have looked at the problem weighed the pros and cons of the different actions and come to a conclusion.

You logic is basically: "scientists who know squat about engineering or economics have declared that we need to reduce CO2 emissions therefore we must do something to reduce CO2 emissions not matter what the cost or the effectiveness of the policies".

I suggest you look in a mirror before you accuse others of being dogmatic.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at the problem weighed the pros and cons of the different actions and come to a conclusion.

You logic is basically: "scientists who know squat about engineering or economics have declared that we need to reduce CO2 emissions therefore we must do something to reduce CO2 emissions not matter what the cost or the effectiveness of the policies".

I suggest you look in a mirror before you accuse others of being dogmatic.

Bully for you.

Your logic seems to be we will be able to dig ourselves out of any pile of crap we put ourselves in. Don't worry be happy. Insha'Allah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...