[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Climate Change has already cost untold billions and those costs will rise with the temperature.

You'd have to be more specific about that. Do you mean there was a storm in New York kind of thing? Because if so, so what? Climate always changes. There's always storms.

Or do you mean you can show us an increase of untold billions since say the end of the last little warming burst in 1998 and during the current plateau, that is beyond anything comparable to previous eras.

If so, cool. Produce it.

Wanna see how there's more food, no increase in climate disruptions, and less actual pollution?

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Are we really kicking the can down the road or are we just working to slow down the inevitable?

Are we coming up with these schemes to stop/slow down a process we can't stop?

Philosophical, good, questions. Unfortuantely given the current denial culture we can't elevate the conversation to that level.

From my point of view, clearly we are at the point of adaptation over prevention at this point. The risk simply isn't real enough to force people to cooperate. Incrteasing the price of oil through taxes, regulatroy schemes, cap and trade, etc, may also cause more suffering to the poor than climate change in some cases. All things that need to be considered.

I'd invest in alternative energy R&D big time if I were in charge. And pick the low hanging fruit (e.g. coal burning power plants) with a good old fashioned regualtion (as opposed to cap and trade). Tariffs for countries that don't make any effort, with an exception for especiallly poor countries.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You'd have to be more specific about that. Do you mean there was a storm in New York kind of thing? Because if so, so what? Climate always changes. There's always storms.

Or do you mean you can show us an increase of untold billions since say the end of the last little warming burst in 1998 and during the current plateau, that is beyond anything comparable to previous eras.

If so, cool. Produce it.

Wanna see how there's more food and less actual pollution?

Not so much storms-- more like assume that anthropogenic climate change is a factor in ongoing trends. Maybe assume that for any trend, global warming due to humans contributes to some extent. So droughts happen in California all the time, but this drought is likely hotter than it otherwise would have been, so a factor of the cost could be ascribed to global warming.

Permafrost melts and shorelines erode naturally, but with warming arctic temperatures due to GHG emissions, the problem is a little worse than it otherwise would have been. So a portion of the cost to relocate all those Alaskan fishing villages fallling into the sea could attributed to climate change.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Unfortuantely given the current denial culture we can't elevate the conversation to that level.

From my point of view, clearly we are at the point of adaptation over prevention at this point. The risk simply isn't real enough to force people to cooperate. Incrteasing the price of oil through taxes, regulatroy schemes, cap and trade, etc, may also cause more suffering to the poor than climate change in some cases. All things that need to be considered.

I'd invest in alternative energy R&D big time if I were in charge. And pick the low hanging fruit (e.g. coal burning power plants) with a good old fashioned regualtion (as opposed to cap and trade). Tariffs for countries that don't make any effort, with an exception for especiallly poor countries.

I deny the end-times faith of tear down the current civilization to prepare for Global Warming Armageddon. If it's a culture to question that, it's one of common sense.

After that we don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what follows. There's nothing wrong with building dykes, or making alternative energy R&D easier, if it's not done in a manner where the detrimental outweighs the possible positives.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Not so much storms-- more like assume that anthropogenic climate change is a factor in ongoing trends. Maybe assume that for any trend, global warming due to humans contributes to some extent. So droughts happen in California all the time, but this drought is likely hotter than it otherwise would have been, so a factor of the cost could be ascribed to global warming.

Permafrost melts and shorelines erode naturally, but with warming arctic temperatures due to GHG emissions, the problem is a little worse than it otherwise would have been. So a portion of the cost to relocate all those Alaskan fishing villages fallling into the sea could attributed to climate change.

So you can't actually show this "increase of untold billions" as a result of proposed anthropogenic warming, but you think it should be there, right? I mean yeah there's a drought in California, but it's not the first or the worst so laying its cause on something new is more just a guess.

That's cool. There's no problem with putting forward another theory (or before the Technical Teddys arrive "hypothesis"), but let's be clear. That's all it is.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So you can't actually show this "increase of untold billions" as a result of proposed anthropogenic warming, but you think it should be there, right? I mean yeah there's a drought in California, but it's not the first or the worst so laying its cause on something new is more just a guess.

It wouldn't matter if I did show it. There's so much uncertainty inherent in it. If you accept that the planet is heating up due to global warming, why would you assume the cost is zero?

I was dealing with an engineering firm recently and it was pointed out to them that the structure they were about to build was predicated on their being permafrost. When it was pointed out to them that the area probably wouldn't have a permafrost base in 50 years, they had to a redesign. There's a real-world example of a real cost.

$1:

That's cool. There's no problem with putting forward another theory (or before the Technical Teddys arrive "hypothesis"), but let's be clear. That's all it is.

You gort that right. That's pretty much what science consists of: theories.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You gort that right. That's pretty much what science consists of: theories.

But the question is which theory is correct. The one that says "run, hide, destroy what you've built. Apocalypse is coming?"

Or the one that says, "Nah, there's no evidence you need to be worrying. Relax."

Hey speaking of Scientific theories, did you hear where the great scientific mind of Barrack Hussein Obama, lowerer of the Oceans has put a new one together?

OKay, so you know how all these wars are popping up in places like Nigeria, or Syria/Iraq, or Palestine.

Well Barrack has come out of his laboratory wearing his white science coat, and after putting all the data together he's discovered the one uniting factor between all these locales. You know? The ones housing such diverse types as Boko Haram, ISIS, and Hamas, not to mention the Taliban.

Wanna know what the uniting factor is there?

Nope. It's climate change.

It's a theory. That means it's science right?

Now me, I of course scoff at BHO's theory. That makes me a denier, right? But he scoffs at my theory that "Yes, Islam has something to do with it."

So which of is the denier then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... urity.html

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But the question is which theory is correct. The one that says "run, hide, destroy what you've built. Apocalypse is coming?"

Or the one that says, "Nah, there's no evidence you need to be worrying. Relax."

Neither of those are theories.

The theory is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere have raised the average temperature of teh tropospehere due to additional near-surface heating due to the greenhouse effect.

But you amply illustrate the problem. You say, on the one hand, that you have some kind of acceptance of that theory, but every time the topic comes up you launch into one of these silly diatribes that completely derail the conversation.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

But the question is which theory is correct. The one that says "run, hide, destroy what you've built. Apocalypse is coming?"

Or the one that says, "Nah, there's no evidence you need to be worrying. Relax."

Neither of those are theories.

The theory is that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere have raised the average temperature of teh tropospehere due to additional near-surface heating due to the greenhouse effect.

But you amply illustrate the problem. You say, on the one hand, that you have some kind of acceptance of that theory, but every time the topic comes up you launch into one of these silly diatribes that completely derail the conversation.

That actual scientific theory above was not what you were insinuating.

You were trying to insinuate some goofy idea billions of dollars and climate disaster are a human-caused reality, and calling that science even though you can't actually produce any evidence of what you're suggesting.

If you're going to conflate nonsense with science, I'm going to mock that.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That actual scientific theory above was not what you were insinuating.

You were trying to insinuate some goofy idea billions of dollars and climate disaster are a human-caused reality, and calling that science even though you can't actually produce any evidence of what you're suggesting.

I was putting forth an opinion, not a testable scientific theory. That's basically what this forum is about. And along with that opinion I offered some supporting evidence. You, I note, offered no supporting evidence otherwise.

$1:

If you're going to conflate nonsense with science, I'm going to mock that.

Again demonstrating how useless the deniers are to the conversation.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I was putting forth an opinion, not a testable scientific theory.

No problem then.

As to the denier thing, yes I will always deny the warmist endtimes religious cult aspect of this. If you go there, there you'll be. And here will be me.

But here's what I'll never understand. You actually know better. You're Lombergian -Adaptation over mitigation. Why are you always trying to sneak those little "Oh my God. Disaster. You're all gonna die. It's science," quips in? Even if you could convince some poor sucker the world is going to boil to death, what would you get out of it?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

the fact China has had the world's second largest economy since 1850.

Now that's a new one on me. Have you got a link for that? (Not a Fiddle type link, either)

Yeah, I should clarify or more accurately, correct that. Up until the 1850-1860s, China had the leading economy in the world. However, being very slow to pick up on the Industrial Revolution,, as well as dealing with the left-overs from the opium wars and general corruption, China's share of the global economy fell almost 30% and stayed at about 5% until 1949.
However, despite the major losses, its domestic production and trade still made it the second largest economy on the planet. It just had no effect on the global economy because the vast bulk of its trade was internal.

Sorry, no link. Not everything I learn comes off the internet.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Of course the point about I made about China previously, illustrates part of the reason this "carbon credit" bullshit is just that.
We talk about "emerging" or "developing" economies when dealing with certain countries. Yet those countries and their people have been around for millennia. If they haven't figured it out by now, why the hell should we screw ourselves to help them?
"Oh, we need to give up our manufacturing jobs and cut back on our GHG emissions so China and India and whoever the hell else can have the jobs and crank out GHGs in an attempt to achieve first world status."

Fuck 'em!

By the way, IIRC, China recently surpassed the US as the world's largest economy so we can stop milking the developing/emerging economy bit when it comes to them.

[andyt]

Well, when the internet tells me it didn't attain second largest economy status until 2012, you'll have to provide something besides you just know. Based on GDP it certainly wasn't a player until the last couple of decades.

As for screwing ourselves, you realize climate change is a global phenomenon, no? It's as much about helping ourselves. As zippy said, there's no economy if there's no environment.

We should try harder than we are, is my point. At least try to go in the right direction. Good chance we've already blown it, but for sure we'll blow it if we don't even try.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

martin14 martin14:

But we need to raise taxes and stunt our economic growth to "save the environment".

Sounds just as stupid the other way. Stunt our environment to "save the economy." You can't eat money.

The big lie is that we need economic growth. We don't.

I'm glad that someone agrees with my way of thinking. To have 'more' than we did last year is just an artificial goal. To have 'enough' should be the goal.

That lie we tell ourselves I think is responsible for much of the (self inflicted) hardships we face.