Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Paris Climate Summit


Recommended Posts

It's a matter of costs and benefits. You need to consider both to determine the best policy response.

Well I'm glad you finally admit that there are benefits. Was that so hard?

Those so called potential benefits have been predicted for years, hadn't you heard? The downsides however seem to far and away offset them. Again, one only need to look to the more southern latitudes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Those so called potential benefits have been predicted for years, hadn't you heard?

And in the case of the CO2 fertilization effect, the benefits have been observed:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CO2_Fertilization_grl_Donohue.pdf

As explained by Socrates, knowledge starts once you acknowledge what you do not know and it is better to admit what you do not know rather than pretend to know what you do not know. There are benefits to climate change and there are costs. A priori there is no reason to expect benefits to exceed costs, nor a reason to expect costs to exceed benefits. Thus the optimal response to climate change is not obvious and one must look to empirical evidence to ultimate answer the question of what the best response is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in the case of the CO2 fertilization effect, the benefits have been observed:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CO2_Fertilization_grl_Donohue.pdf

As explained by Socrates, knowledge starts once you acknowledge what you do not know and it is better to admit what you do not know rather than pretend to know what you do not know. There are benefits to climate change and there are costs. A priori there is no reason to expect benefits to exceed costs, nor a reason to expect costs to exceed benefits. Thus the optimal response to climate change is not obvious and one must look to empirical evidence to ultimate answer the question of what the best response is.

We all probably learned about photosynthesis in grade school science class. It has worked well in greenhouses that have extra CO2 pumped in for sure. It's things like severe droughts, or floods, and other severe weather events that you can control in a greenhouse, but not in our global greenhouse, that will plague us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gains in Canada would be offset by losses in more equatorial countries. And yeah, it's apparently OK for a country to be wiped off the map so Canada can have a longer growing season...Oh my bad, it's just in the loss column on the excel sheet. No big.

It is unfortunate that this kind of hyperbole colors the debate.

The planet is warming, very slowly and very little. It is not at all clear that this matters. It is not clear that any country will be wiped off the map. We have no idea if the changes are even net negative or positive. Some areas of the world's climate may change, there is no reason to assume some will not change for the better.

The problem is that every conceivable change in any environment, is chalked up to climate change, whether or not there is a clear connection. We have always had hurricanes, we have always had el nino, we have always had flooding and droughts and changes in arable land. We are obviously going to notice a lot more of things today today, as our ability to notice things has never been greater.

This is not an extinction event. We basically have no idea how severe it is, but changes far more drastic than even the worst case scenario posited by the IPCC, have occurred in human history and were not anything remotely close to extinction events. At one time a thousand or so years ago, it was warm enough that there were vineyards and wineries in Britain.

For right now, the costs of trying to stop global warming are enormous. Firstly, Canada's impact is almost nothing, and we could de-industrialize our whole country without making a fraction of a dent in the 'problem'. Secondly, the costs of just dealing with changes in climate are orders of magnitude lower than trying to stop it.

Attempts to stop 'climate change' are probably going to create far more suffering, death and poverty than any amount of climate change could, even by the worst predictions of the IPCC.

Lastly, the IPCC's own best models, when you plug in data from 50 years ago and look at today, they badly overestimate temperatures. Why would I trust them to be any better in predicting something I cannot measure in the future?

If you think scientists are non-emotional, morally perfect robots who do not respond to the same human incentives that everyone else does, I would call you naive. The IPCC is full of scientists who's own financial and professional livelihoods are directly dependent on, and inseparable from, the predictions being as bad as absolutely possible. We have no problem believing doctors might prescribe or treat based on their own financial interests. For some reason climate scientists are exempt from this basic understanding of human nature.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate that this kind of hyperbole colors the debate.

I almost didn't put that line in tbh. But something about the statement;

Even if you hypothetically lost Tuvulu, you don't think gains in Canada due to longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilization effect, more precipitation, etc. can't more than offset that?

Rubbed me the wrong way. After deleting and readding it a few times over I left it in. *shrug* We all have our swords to die on.

For right now, the costs of trying to stop global warming are enormous. Firstly, Canada's impact is almost nothing, and we could de-industrialize our whole country without making a fraction of a dent in the 'problem'.

That's why we need a global strategy, in which Canada has its own part to play. We can't just ignore international commitments on climate change just because global warming may benefit Canada (at the expense of others...and that would be my assumption, based on expert opinions of which I've read)

Attempts to stop 'climate change' are probably going to create far more suffering, death and poverty than any amount of climate change could, even by the worst predictions of the IPCC.

I'll go ahead and die on this sword too...It's a shame this kind of hyperbole colours the debate. :P

Why would I trust them to be any better in predicting something I cannot measure in the future?

Always a good reason to be a skeptic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well played, ha. But it is a relative statement, how is it hyperbolic?

Well, my statement was more of an emotional response to a logical statement. In the end I wasn't the one who suggest that a country would be 'lost' I was responding to such a post. Your statement is a deliberate exaggeration the effects of "management of climate change", which you can't know. Just as I can't know that the results of climate change will result in the loss of...well anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS is a symptom of what happens to a region that is failing - reasons which include a drier climate caused by AGW that has made it harder for people to live there. A classic example of the African proverb, when a water-hole gets smaller the animals get meaner.

A tipping point perhaps in human interactions at which violence is likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At one time a thousand or so years ago, it was warm enough that there were vineyards and wineries in Britain.

There have been continuously since the Romans introduced them. They disappeared, for the most part, a couple hundred years ago due to a disease epidemic followed up with free trade policies that left local wine less able to compete. It had zero to do with climate change.

Edited by biotk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my statement was more of an emotional response to a logical statement. In the end I wasn't the one who suggest that a country would be 'lost' I was responding to such a post. Your statement is a deliberate exaggeration the effects of "management of climate change", which you can't know. Just as I can't know that the results of climate change will result in the loss of...well anything.

I think we can know to much more accurate degree, the effects of de-indutrialization (or increased industrial costs), or lack of development of developing countries due to fossil fuel restrictions, than we can know the effects of climate change. We have many examples of the former and exactly the type suffering it creates, and none of the latter. Plus we can reliably estimate the cost of the former and the effect of that on the cost of living, whereas the actual dollar cost of the latter is really just speculation.

It is quite easy to go from 'gas costs x today' to 'gas will cost y if proposal a is enacted tomorrow'. It is a total guessing game to know how living standards would change as a result of climate change. There are tons of example of nations going backwards (such as during communist times) and how scarcity, high costs and black markets change life. What will warming or more/less raining do? We don't even know what the changes will be, much less what the consequences are.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

We all probably learned about photosynthesis in grade school science class.

Based on our previous interactions in other threads, I doubt you did.

that will plague us.

I don't think your certainty is justified. I think it's due to confirmation bias of narratives that existed before the issue of climate change came about, such as the narrative that humans are sinful creatures that decided to eat the magic fruit in the garden of eden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on our previous interactions in other threads, I doubt you did.

I don't think your certainty is justified. I think it's due to confirmation bias of narratives that existed before the issue of climate change came about, such as the narrative that humans are sinful creatures that decided to eat the magic fruit in the garden of eden.

I didn't realize your science was based on biblical references. Stephen Harper's church, CAMA, would certainly welcome you. They sorta think it doesn't matter what man does to the earth, god will simply fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ISIS is a symptom of what happens to a region that is failing

Post WW2 Japan and Germany didn't have any equivalent of ISIS. Many parts of South America are poor, where is the South American ISIS? Where is the Haitian ISIS?

You're deluded if you don't think belief in certain magical fairy tails is the primary cause of ISIS.

A tipping point perhaps in human interactions at which violence is likely.

I think poverty is far better at explaining violence than climate. If we perform drastic mitigation measures and increase the cost of energy significantly, do you think there will be more poverty or less?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize your science was based on biblical references. Stephen Harper's church, CAMA, would certainly welcome you. They sorta think it doesn't matter what man does to the earth, god will simply fix it.

Wow, you really didn't understand what I wrote. I was giving an example of a bullshit narrative that existed before the issue of AGW became well-known by the public and how it relates to confirmation bias for the public when it comes to AGW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're deluded if you don't think belief in certain magical fairy tails is the primary cause of ISIS.

Belief in magical fairy tails is the way the leaders of ISIS control or temp to reward. Means to an end. I don't believe for a second that the leaders of ISIS put more stock in fairy tails than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post WW2 Japan and Germany didn't have any equivalent of ISIS. Many parts of South America are poor, where is the South American ISIS? Where is the Haitian ISIS?

Boy you're not regarded as the King of Fallacies around here for nothing.

You're deluded if you don't think belief in certain magical fairy tails is the primary cause of ISIS.

You're drunk on kool-aid if you think it is.

I think poverty is far better at explaining violence than climate.

I think climate change that leads to and exacerbates poverty is a more appropriate way to line up causes and effects.

If we perform drastic mitigation measures and increase the cost of energy significantly, do you think there will be more poverty or less?

I think we've left it too late to expect much if anything. In any case poverty will clearly only make things worse.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Post WW2 Japan and Germany didn't have any equivalent of ISIS. Many parts of South America are poor, where is the South American ISIS? Where is the Haitian ISIS?

You're deluded if you don't think belief in certain magical fairy tails is the primary cause of ISIS. The tale is the core reasoning behind their actions, as stated openly by them. It is also the core recruiting tool.

I think poverty is far better at explaining violence than climate. If we perform drastic mitigation measures and increase the cost of energy significantly, do you think there will be more poverty or less?

The narrative is always 'their country was destroyed', and 'colonialism and occupation did it'. These two giant glaring examples, the number 3 and 4 economies in the world today, are simply omitted from the story line.

Belief in magical fairy tails is the way the leaders of ISIS control or temp to reward. Means to an end. I don't believe for a second that the leaders of ISIS put more stock in fairy tails than you do.

You must be kidding. ISIS is arguably the leading fairy-tale believing organization in the world today, of any note.

ISIS is a symptom of what happens to a region that is failing - reasons which include a drier climate caused by AGW that has made it harder for people to live there. A classic example of the African proverb, when a water-hole gets smaller the animals get meaner.

A tipping point perhaps in human interactions at which violence is likely.

Right, all that violence over the last several thousand years in that area, is due to climate change.

This is the ultimate example of how non-falsifiable the climate change narrative is. Literally anything counts.

I think climate change that leads to and exacerbates poverty is a more appropriate way to line up causes and effects.

Too bad their is no evidence it is doing that. There is plenty of evidence however, that raising the cost living substantially, which is what is proposed to fight climate change, does in fact do that.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad their is no evidence it is doing that. There is plenty of evidence however, that raising the cost living substantially, which is what is proposed to fight climate change, does in fact do that.

So you don't think changing rain belts and rising sea levels is going to have any affect on people in the developing world?

How interesting. You feel they'll start eating sand or growing gills? And yes, it's already happening, no matter how much you don't want to be believe it.

Tell me, do you think the laws of physics surrounding CO2 absorption somehow don't apply because your economic views are on the line?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's already happening

Now would be the perfect time to prove it, prove that climate change, which has only really started affecting us for the last 50 years or so (the, we burn too much carbon climate change) is at fault and be sure to prove that it isn't one of a hundred other things that are at fault when you do it. Where are people eating sand where they weren't 50 ears ago, because of climate change, and where are people drowning, because of climate change, and climate change alone. Of course you can't, then again it's easy to prove that the things you mention have happened many times in the recent history of civilization, im assuming we weren't at fault four thousand years ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now would be the perfect time to prove it, prove that climate change, which has only really started affecting us for the last 50 years or so (the, we burn too much carbon climate change) is at fault and be sure to prove that it isn't one of a hundred other things that are at fault when you do it. Where are people eating sand where they weren't 50 ears ago, because of climate change, and where are people drowning, because of climate change, and climate change alone. Of course you can't, then again it's easy to prove that the things you mention have happened many times in the recent history of civilization, im assuming we weren't at fault four thousand years ago, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_

It's actually about a hundred years ago, when the industrial revolution began.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi is atheist?

Well I'm glad you aren't in charge of foreign policy.

No hes not an atheist but that doesnt change the fact that ISIL is primarily a political movement. You have 20+ million people in Iraq and Syria that are being forced live under the rule of Iranian backed Shia in Iraq and Allawites in Syria. THAT is why ISIL exists... and it exists completely because sunni arabs are disenfranchised. The group was started with an oath to free sunnis from the rule of foreigners and shia. It would not exist group would not exist if the Baath party had not been toppled during Operation: "Oops! Shoulda thought THAT through a little more."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...