Agreed. I'm hoping folks will stay on topic, refrain from ad hominem attacks, and just plain try not to be mean. Then we can maybe even move on to polite, cordial...nice?
It's not religious. It's not fundamentalist. It's not exaggerated. And the folks talking about it aren't panicking. It's has nothing to do with world government or sovereignity. Socialeconomic progress hasn't been halted by the laws passed, which aren't particularly draconian (many are voluntary.)
So, yeah, other than all of that, top notch analysis!
jcburns Agreed. I'm hoping folks will stay on topic, refrain from ad hominem attacks, and just plain try not to be mean. Then we can maybe even move on to polite, cordial...nice?
Wanna explain how we can do that when one poster keeps talking down and demeaning the rest of us?
Norm
Deleted already answered by jcburns
Miningman Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism. Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread. Time to re-post!
Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism.
Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.
Time to re-post!
Minningman,
Thanks for adding a little perspective to what stopping manmade climate change will really require of us.
Notice that when I question the risk of cost for something that might not be needed, how easily concern about cost is dismissed by the proponents. They are able to scoff at the concern about cost and how it is nothing compared to the risk of posed by climate change.
This is because nobody talks about the cost because it would take the steam out of the cause. Like the fast salesman, proponents only talk about cost by saying the if we don’t act now, it will cost more in the future. So the risk is presented as a bargain opportunity.
Average Americans are lead to believe that all they have to do is say they care about stopping climate change and that is the end of their contribution. Yet if we are swept down this road by full agreement, the cost will be like nothing the world has ever seen before.
We will recognize the greatest of all possible crises, and petition world government to take the quickest emergency action possible to fix it. There is not enough money in the universe to pay for that.
No American on the climate change bandwagon would be willing to live with the kind of personal sacrifice that climate change dogma actually requires. Their support is only symbolic.
Who's that, Norm?
Euclid Miningman Future generations will shake their heads in bewilderment how scientists using mathematical models with notorious levels of inaccuracy predicted global warming of a few tenths of a degree exaggerated to apocalyptic levels, creating a global scale panic, resulting in governments enacting draconian laws halting socioeconomic progress, nations giving up their sovereignty in favour of world government, and millions of scared minions willingly sacrificing their personal and economic freedom on the alter of a pseudo-environmentalist religion. I would never have thought that people would fall to the allure of an endlessly entertaining saturnalia of ill begotten ideas. Climate change fundamentalism will be remembered by these future generations every bit as bizarre as Communism. Posted this earlier on the "Climate Change" thread. Time to re-post! Minningman, Thanks for adding a little perspective to what stopping manmade climate change will really require of us. Notice that when I question the risk of cost for something that might not be needed, how easily concern about cost is dismissed by the proponents. They are able to scoff at the concern about cost and how it is nothing compared to the risk of posed by climate change. This is because nobody talks about the cost because it would take the steam out of the cause. Like the fast salesman, proponents only talk about cost by saying the if we don’t act now, it will cost more in the future. So the risk is presented as a bargain opportunity. Average Americans are lead to believe that all they have to do is say they care about stopping climate change and that is the end of their contribution. Yet if we are swept down this road by full agreement, the cost will be like nothing the world has ever seen before. We will recognize the greatest of all possible crises, and petition world government to take the quickest emergency action possible to fix it. There is not enough money in the universe to pay for that. No American on the climate change bandwagon would be willing to live with the kind of personal sacrifice that climate change dogma actually requires. Their support is only symbolic.
For the sake of continuing this arguement let's say that the both of you are wrong and the scientific consensus is right, and global warming is human-caused. Not trying to insult, just want to take the other side of the debate.
What will future generations think of us then, when in 300 years they look back at history and see that we had a chance to slow (or even stop) the warming trend and did little or nothing about it? All because we were too wrapped up in arguements about belief vs science, because that's really what this is all about.
It's a shame that Al Gore snatched it up already, because "inconvenient" really is the perfect word to describe this situation. Reducing man-made greenhouse gas emissions requires actions that will hurt a lot of people in the short-term, believe me I realize that (many friends would lose their jobs if coal and oil/gas production end), but when weighed against the future of entire nations (who will be drowned by sea level rise or turned to desert by warmer temperatures and different weather patterns) the short-term pain outweighs the long-term gain. That is of course as long as we are willing to think on a global scale, instead of wanting to shut our doors and not work together.
If we fail to take action then I imagine that we will be viewed the way we view the Treaty of Versailles, where self-interest and doing things the way we had always done them before won out over a chance to change and truly rebuild & integrate a continent together, with disatrous results in the future.
But if we in the West decide to ignore those who will be most affected (Much of North America and Europe may well benefit from moderate global warming, except of course for low-lying areas rising sea levels will flood) then yes, the costs of changing our behaviour to reduce emissions outweigh the benefits.
And I am not American (Canadian, duh eh), but do consider myself a rider on the "climate change bandwagon" if that is what we are calling it, though not a particularly vocal one (in my social circles it makes for awkward conversation, not worth it in person). I believe we are making steps in the right direction with regard to cleaner technologies, but we still have a long way to go. I do not own an electric car, but do not drive a massive lifted F350 like everyone else in my neighborhood either, instead I have a smaller more fuel-efficient vehicle. I have a gas furnace in my house, but also a wood stove, and I turn the thermostat down when I can. I also only buy LED lightbulbs now, which are more expensive up front but last longer and use less power.
These actions reduce my bills, while at the same time reducing my emissions. I do not change vehicles often (run 'em till they die) but in the future I might consider an electric car, that is if batteries that can reliably ignore the Canadian winter are invented. I also might consider putting solar panels on the roof or a small wind turbine in the yard if it proves cost-effective, and the prices for those have been coming down over time, and if I move to a rural area or want to be independant of the grid Tesla's home battery packs are looking promising.
The point is that I try not to be biased, and instead look at things more objectively and financially. I suspect that many of my fellow citizens see things similarly, and that the transistion will continue as the new alternatives become cheaper.
We will just have to wait and see what the future holds, and as one of the younger participants on this forum I will most likely get to see a lot more of it.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
VOLKER LANDWEHR Euclid If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong? I read this article. At that time I didn't even know that National Review is what you would call a right-wing publication. I considered discussing but the polemical style let me refrain from doing so. As long as all possible measures are wheighed for at least short term material/economic neutrality there is no way discussing it. The neutrality or gain will be gathered by future generations. The same is with the proof for the three asked questions. Proof will not be available during our generation. To answer these question there is enough evidence. My impression of this article was, judging its tone, it wasn't meant to be discussed but to provide buzzwords to the own clientele. Quote Euclid: I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof. Let me put it this eay, I don't see a risk investing money without having proof that the problem exists. For me the current evidence is enough to act. If our successors realize it wouldn't habe necessary do you thing it will bother us. We are dead for a long time then. With short term evolutions I would react like you. But waiting for proof in this case might take us over the point of no return. We have started are efforts to reduce CO2 und other emissions in the 1990 (power plants and industry in the late 1970s). I don't see that I had that my life has been worse. I see the fear of job losses. We have now more jobs in renewable energies than we had in the whole coal mining and generating industry in 1990. I already mentioned the 770,000 employes in the US reneable energy industry.Regards, Volker P.S.: Perhaps we should agree that we disagree totally
Euclid If this is all about fair minded scientific objectivity, why not listen to both sides instead of having a preconceived stance that anyone who speaks against your side must be wrong?
I read this article. At that time I didn't even know that National Review is what you would call a right-wing publication.
I considered discussing but the polemical style let me refrain from doing so. As long as all possible measures are wheighed for at least short term material/economic neutrality there is no way discussing it. The neutrality or gain will be gathered by future generations.
The same is with the proof for the three asked questions. Proof will not be available during our generation. To answer these question there is enough evidence.
My impression of this article was, judging its tone, it wasn't meant to be discussed but to provide buzzwords to the own clientele.
Quote Euclid: I am not sure I understand your comment about my question of risk. The risk is in spending a tremedous amout of money in reducing CO2 if later, when we do finally have proof, we discover that the reduction of CO2 was not necessary. Then we will have wasted a lot of money that would have otherwise made people's lives better. That is the risk I am talking about. It comes from taking action when we have beliefs, but no proof.
Let me put it this eay, I don't see a risk investing money without having proof that the problem exists. For me the current evidence is enough to act.
If our successors realize it wouldn't habe necessary do you thing it will bother us. We are dead for a long time then.
With short term evolutions I would react like you. But waiting for proof in this case might take us over the point of no return.
We have started are efforts to reduce CO2 und other emissions in the 1990 (power plants and industry in the late 1970s). I don't see that I had that my life has been worse.
I see the fear of job losses. We have now more jobs in renewable energies than we had in the whole coal mining and generating industry in 1990. I already mentioned the 770,000 employes in the US reneable energy industry.Regards, Volker
P.S.: Perhaps we should agree that we disagree totally
Volker: A word to the wise. The National Review and Weekly Standard are relatively moderate as right wing journals go.
One thing the folks opposed to climate change mitigation tend to omit when they bring up cost as a barrier is the enormous deferred costs if we fail to act. Our Defense Department is aware of what global warming will cost just to its facilities and the damage to our national security. Property insurance corporations are also aware.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
SD70M-2Dude, what's a reasonable man like you doing in this conversation?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
What I don't understand is, to the extent that we together do affect the world's climate, Who says we can have any material impact on the world's climate going forward by making such-and-such a change?
I think regarding the environment it's more important to act on things like water table pollutants and the like.
Paul of Covington SD70M-2Dude, what's a reasonable man like you doing in this conversation?
I started out in the peanut gallery, but then everyone else ran onstage and I felt lonely.
Also some postings here reminded me of a logic problem called Pascal's Wager (which more recently was adapted into the Atheist's Wager) which I was going to post about before being sidetracked by my own writings.
The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.
“The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.”
Some wisdom there. Glad you spoke up.
SD70M-2DudeThe point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.
Well, it would certainly avoid a lot of harsh criticism from the climate change boosters.
Euclid SD70M-2Dude The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false. Well, it would certainly avoid a lot of harsh criticism from the climate change boosters.
SD70M-2Dude The point is that sometimes it is better to act as though something is true, even when you believe it to be false.
Opposite point. As applied to global warming Pascal's Wager plays out like this:
Option 1: Man-made global warming is true, you believe this and act. End result is a cleaner planet (positive).
Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet (even/positive).
Option 3: Man-made global warming is true, but you believe it to be false and do not act. End result is accelerated global warming (mostly negative, depending on where you live).
Option 4: Man-made global warming is false, you believe this and do not act. End result is nothing changes (even).
Note that the only negative result comes from not believing and not acting, while both believing scenarios end with positive or at the very least even. With more time one could add a lot more detail to these scenarios but I'm trying to be quick, gotta head out the door soon.
As for negative consequences of believing in man-made global warming (aka the scientific consensus), yes there will be strife and job losses in certain areas but the overall benefit to worldwide society as a whole outweighs that, as I posted earlier.
And I don't think that coal mining or oil/gas production will ever disappear completely, even if the world were powered entirely by solar panels we would still need coal for steelmaking, and hydrocarbons for chemical, plastic and fertilizer production.
SD70M-2DudeOption 1: Man-made global warming is true, you believe this and act. End result is a cleaner planet (positive). Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet (even/positive). Option 3: Man-made global warming is true, but you believe it to be false and do not act. End result is accelerated global warming (mostly negative, depending on where you live).
I agree with your Options #1 and #3, but I think Option #2 is faulty. That has been the point I have tried to make over the last few posts about the risk of taking action that proves to have not been necessary.
There are two problem with Option #2. This is the first problem: You will not end up with a cleaner planet if manmade global warming is false and you act on it anyway. This is because if the MMGW premise is false, there will be nothing that needs be be cleaned up. The premise is that too much CO2 is the danger. If it turns out that there is not too much CO2, there was no danger, and thus nothing gained in reducing the CO2.
The second problem with Option #2 is that it totally ignores the lost money spent on reducing CO2 when it was not necessary.
I would re-write Option #2 as this:
Man-made global warming is false, but you beieve it to be true and act. End result is nothing gained in terms of "cleaning the planet", and a huge waste of money and resources that that will set back the lives of several generations as they struggle to pay for the waste of the bad choice.
I think the bad consequences of Option #2 are similar if not worse than the bad consequences of Option #3. That is why we need to think and study much more carefully before running off in a panic toward Option #1. It may turn out to be Option #2.
SD70M-2DudeOption 1: Man-made global warming is true, you believe this and act. End result is a cleaner planet (positive). Option 2: Man-made global warming is false, but you believe it to be true and act. End result is still a cleaner planet (even/positive).
I think the truth is somewhere between 1 and 2. Mankind is responsible for some portion of global warming, but not all of it (as some seem to believe). Even if mankind is only responsible for 5% of the change, it is still wise to take action to minimize that.
But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Your correct on that last part. In my industry we are seeing it with the emissions controls they want mandated. The next level if ever approved is estimated to cost close to 1trillion dollars just in research and development costs for the engine makers. There are only 4 companies that make them and none of them can afford that much cash. Then you have the added costs to the consumers. Figure on about a 10 to 15 percent increase in costs across the board if it ever was approved.
Btw these figures are from the engine makers not the government and the proposed standard is what CARB wants.
We're paying that 10 to 15 percent (and have for decades)...just in other forms—like health bills, more air conditioning, and so on.
tree68But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect.
Our problem is knowing when our spending has 'bettered' the enviornment. When it comes to 'Climate Change' how do you economically measure how much spending to blunt climate change actually resulted in X Climate Change +/-. Secondly how does one separate natural forces of Climate Change that we have yet to understand from the man made actions that 'we think' are causing climate change.
No on has packaged all that together so that it makes sense on both sides of the divide.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jcburns We're paying that 10 to 15 percent (and have for decades)...just in other forms—like health bills, more air conditioning, and so on.
I'm talking 10 to 15 percent increases in the cost of everything we use. Why transportation costs would jump 30 percent overnight just so companies could afford to meet the new standards. When your looking at 300 grand for a new truck instead of 180 grand these are the figures we have been told by truck builders someone else not the truck companies is going to be eating our inflation. If it is going to cost us 3 bucks a mile instead of 2 a mile to make a decent rate then everyone feels the pain. That's what your looking at with the next round of emissions requirements. Whose willing to pay for it this industry won't do it anymore.
BaltACD Our problem is knowing when our spending has 'bettered' the enviornment. When it comes to 'Climate Change' how do you economically measure how much spending to blunt climate change actually resulted in X Climate Change +/-. Secondly how does one separate natural forces of Climate Change that we have yet to understand from the man made actions that 'we think' are causing climate change.
++1 As well Tree's concern about the law of diminishing returns.
+!
BaltACD tree68 But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect. Our problem is knowing when our spending has 'bettered' the enviornment. When it comes to 'Climate Change' how do you economically measure how much spending to blunt climate change actually resulted in X Climate Change +/-. Secondly how does one separate natural forces of Climate Change that we have yet to understand from the man made actions that 'we think' are causing climate change. No on has packaged all that together so that it makes sense on both sides of the divide.
tree68 But we also need to realize that there is a point of diminishing returns - where increasing spending to reduce the effect becomes more damaging than the effect.
Johnny
"I'm talking 10 to 15 percent increases in the cost of everything we use."
Again, we're already paying those costs in other forms. They're less visible to you, but we've been paying them. I think there are already multiple generations who can't conceive of how toxic the coal-plant and steel-mill fired atmosphere of the Ohio River valley was at the end of the 20th century. My relatives there tended not to live much past 50 because of what they were taking into their lungs. It's so, so, so much better now, and could be better still if we have the will.
But you want your cheap truck...
BaltACDNo on has packaged all that together so that it makes sense on both sides of the divide.
With all the variables and uncertainties it seems to me impossible to give exact figures.
But there are estimates. I will not give links to avoid discussions about bias. But google for "social cost of carbon", defined as cost in $ for each additional ton of carbon dioxide for economic damages.
If you google for "global greenhouse gas abatement costs" you'll find among others a McKinsey & Company report with the cost of different possible CO2 reduction measures. Some cost and some promise profit.Regards, Volker
Obviously, the cost of the remedy is being understated or ignored in order to sell the remedy. At the same time the cost of assumed CO2 damage and pain is being vastly overstated in order to sell the remedy. It is classic salesmanship.
Think about it. Our government alone is totally capable of bankrupting the country just with their inability to run the healthcare industry. Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make? They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
Surely, you don't expect our government officials to be as honest and fair and unbiased as our industry leaders are.
Excerpt from NY Times, Aug. 3
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/us/politics/climate-change-trump-working-poor-activists.html
GALVESTON, Tex. — Adolfo Guerra, a landscaper in this port city on the Gulf of Mexico, remembers panicking as his co-worker vomited and convulsed after hours of mowing lawns in stifling heat. Other workers rushed to cover him with ice, and the man recovered.
But, for Mr. Guerra, 24, who spends nine hours a day, six days a week doing yard work the episode was a reminder of the dangers that exist for outdoor workers as the planet warms.
“I think about the climate every day,” Mr. Guerra said, “because every day we work, and every day it feels like it’s getting hotter.”
Euclid Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make? They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make?
They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
Do I want them "to collaborate on an international system of carbon credits?"
Sure, absolutely.
Do I think that "they would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not."
No, that's just the junk that gets fed to right-wing media to boost viewership. I don't think "all the governments of the world" have a "want", because they're composed of so many different sorts of people.
"Unlimited regulation" is an oxymoron. The regulations are there to keep the laws from being unlimited.
I've yet to see a modern government go for anything like unlimited taxation. Our (US) taxation is way low, especially for upper income people, if you ask me.
Euclid There are two problem with Option #2. This is the first problem: You will not end up with a cleaner planet if manmade global warming is false and you act on it anyway. This is because if the MMGW premise is false, there will be nothing that needs be be cleaned up. The premise is that too much CO2 is the danger. If it turns out that there is not too much CO2, there was no danger, and thus nothing gained in reducing the CO2. The second problem with Option #2 is that it totally ignores the lost money spent on reducing CO2 when it was not necessary. I would re-write Option #2 as this: Man-made global warming is false, but you beieve it to be true and act. End result is nothing gained in terms of "cleaning the planet", and a huge waste of money and resources that that will set back the lives of several generations as they struggle to pay for the waste of the bad choice. I think the bad consequences of Option #2 are similar if not worse than the bad consequences of Option #3. That is why we need to think and study much more carefully before running off in a panic toward Option #1. It may turn out to be Option #2.
CO2 emissions and other types of pollution (NOx especially) go hand in hand. By lowering the amount of fuel burned globally you reduce the emissions of those pollutants. And reduce the environmental damage from the production of those fuels (acid mine drainage, groundwater contamination, leakage from abandoned wells etc). That is why I listed Option 2 as still having a positive result, just not as positive as Option 1.
You have a point about spending money unneccesarily and taxing excessively, but there are ways to make the transistion go easier. You can start by implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which is what the Canadian province of British Columbia has done (the new tax was accompanied by cuts in personal and corporate income taxes).
But that will not be enough, and more money does have to come from somewhere. In the U.S. I would suggest cutting the military's $500,000,000,000+ annual budget slightly to start paying for some of the changes (for comparison China and Russia each spend less than a third of that).
Euclid Obviously, the cost of the remedy is being understated or ignored in order to sell the remedy. At the same time the cost of assumed CO2 damage and pain is being vastly overstated in order to sell the remedy. It is classic salesmanship. Think about it. Our government alone is totally capable of bankrupting the country just with their inability to run the healthcare industry. Do we really want all governments of the world, in the name of stopping manmade climate change, to be collaborating in a massive international system of carbon credits, taxes, re-distribution of wealth, and regulations over every move we make? They would just love to take on that role and keep at it whether it was needed or not. Unlimited taxation and regulation is what government does best and actively seeks to do.
I'm wary of big goverment too, but that sounds more like Fox "News" or Alex Jones talking than someone with any sort of academic qualification.
And I do not believe that Obamacare is bankrupting the U.S, but for argument's sake let's say it is. There are still other ways to achieve universal healthcare without bankrupting a country. In Canada our healthcare system is far from perfect and needs a bunch of improvements, but it has been around since the 1960s and our country is still going strong.
Oh, and the guy who started the push for our universal healthcare system was voted the Greatest Canadian ever in a 2004 poll.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.