While there's no longer any credible basis to assert that Man is not causing warming via CO2 and other gases, there is still room for argument on the best way to tackle CO2 emissions that maximizes effect while minimizing adverse effects on the economy. That's where I often depart from the "true believers." It shouldn't be controversial to say that there is still significant uncertainty about exactly what the future is going to look like; therefore it's possible that some the more draconian reduction schemes may cause unnecessary harm, and disproportionately so to the most compliant countries. All that said, I find myself on the side of emissions reduction in general, not just for the CO2 reduction, but for total pollution reduction, especially that of coal, the burning of which is the worst offender for many dangerous pollutants, like heavy metals, many radioactive.
Carbon will probably have to start being taxed, modestly at first. Contrary to the proposal of the Climate Leadership Council, I would propose that 100% of carbon tax receipts go into public infrastructure that demonstrably facilitates production and distribution of renewable energy.
You touch on one of the more difficult aspects of this issue; that while science does a lot of things really well, predicting the future of human economic activity doesn't seem to be one of them. Massive computational resources are put to work just to be able to help financiers react quickly to the unexpected, just for this reason. Therefore the error bars on economic cost estimates are likely big enough to drive a coal burning steam engine through.A reasonable position. I just want to point out that most of what has been proposed so far in terms of reducing carbon emissions is pretty moderate, including the Paris Accord. If anything, it seems to lean a bit too far in the 'don't hurt economic growth' direction.
This ignores that there is also an economic cost to underestimating the problems caused by climate change, particularly in the United States. Lots of $$$ in the coastal areas of our country.
You touch on one of the more difficult aspects of this issue; that while science does a lot of things really well, predicting the future of human economic activity doesn't seem to be one of them. Massive computational resources are put to work just to be able to help financiers react quickly to the unexpected, just for this reason. Therefore the error bars on economic cost estimates are likely big enough to drive a coal burning steam engine through.
Agreed, but my position seems to get me in trouble with the "true believers." In short, my problem and my skepticism begins at the point we try to segue from things that science can possibly predict with greater accuracy over time (the climate), to things that science can't possibly predict with any accuracy (human economic behavior). That intersection is where politics by necessity takes over, and science just takes a beating when it steps too far into the political realm.No doubt. We can't predict all of the future costs and effects of climate change. We also can't predict the costs of hindering human ingenuity, particularly in the face of adversity.
I tend to follow the Malthusian aspects of things, personally. We know these things (climate change, drought, flooding in coastal areas) WILL be problems, unless we change our behavior or come up with some kind of wonder solution that doesn't exist yet. I don't think we can count on ingenuity saving us forever.
Agreed, but my position seems to get me in trouble with the "true believers." In short, my problem and my skepticism begins at the point we try to segue from things that science can possibly predict with greater accuracy over time (the climate), to things that science can't possibly predict with any accuracy (human economic behavior). That intersection is where politics by necessity takes over, and science just takes a beating when it steps too far into the political realm.
You sound agitated. Why is that?Science isn't debate club and all opinions are not equal. You either prove your hypothesis or you shut up.
You need to get laid.rather than provide data that challenges the consensus, you just call everyone believers. lol. SOP for conned GOP voters: I don't like science because I don't get it, so I'll just interpret my ignorance the only way I know--through a lens of "belief" and claim that those other people just believe the wrong thing!
Are you ever going to have a solution for anything, or is it only ever going to be "blaming the smarty people for making my life miserable!" derpaderpadoo.
do you ever exhaust yourself, living your life being this fucking useless?
Unless you buy renewable energyBy the way, anyone who feels that climate change is actually important enough to actually do something about with their PC, over and above forum posting, might want to check this out:
http://www.climateprediction.net/getting-started/
TeAm Anandtech is currently 15th in the world, but we could do better!
Of course, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, since we will no doubt be emitting a bit of CO2 in the process of better understanding its effects on our planet.
Agreed, but my position seems to get me in trouble with the "true believers." In short, my problem and my skepticism begins at the point we try to segue from things that science can possibly predict with greater accuracy over time (the climate), to things that science can't possibly predict with any accuracy (human economic behavior). That intersection is where politics by necessity takes over, and science just takes a beating when it steps too far into the political realm.
Yup some of us can buy 100% renewable. Although our year contract is up. I'll have to see who's the cheapest this year.Unless you buy renewable energy
Might check it out, been a while since i did the distributed compute thing.
You sound agitated. Why is that?
Based upon your beliefs this debate will result in nothing changing. Scientists (the smart ones) have spoken. There is no methodology to refute their findings. It's in the bag, it's good. Your job is safe along with the people of the Earth and the planet itself.
Just another boondoggle. No worries.
You need to get laid.
Well, I started a post containing some of the more theatrical statements from what you might call the pro-climate side, but that sort of thing won't play well here. The take away might be that much of the mistrust on the right is generated when politicians co-opt the issue to further their own (and their party's) agenda; this has resulted in some exaggeration of the imminent dangers of climate change on one hand, and a commensurate opposite reaction on the other, which also unfortunately leads some extremists to the point of trying to cast unwarranted doubt on the science. Some of this can probably be said to have been brought upon the scientific community by its spokespersons, by attaching too much credence to the predictions that involve inherently unpredictable human elements. Ideally there would be a clearer line between science and policy making, but that's just not happening.I too think you have a reasonable response. However we as voters should be demanding that our politicians actually take scientific and observable reality as an input into their decisions. Not the only input but at least one of many.
Instead we get snowballs in congress and whatever flavor of denial of the week is in vogue.
on both sides of the equation duke it out.
Bullshit, in fact i've read both the Oreskes paper and the Cook paper, both debunked and laughable.Big words coming from someone who wouldn't read a peer reviewed article if his life depended on it.
Bullshit, in fact i've read both the Oreskes paper and the Cook paper, both debunked and laughable.
Bullshit, in fact i've read both the Oreskes paper and the Cook paper, both debunked and laughable.
Team playing climate deniers need to keep up on the teams latest plays.Wow! Two whole papers that you didn't understand. Do you want a ?
So the concensus was debunked was it?
Well then it should be a piece of cake for you to throw down several links to mainstream journals with peer reviewed research that shows how the Earth isn't warming, or the warming that isn't happening isn't being caused by humans, or the warming that isn't happening and isn't caused by humans can't be stopped because China won't commit to the reductions they committed to.
You know, whichever hypothesis you guys subscribe to this week. Oh it should also account for all the observed measurements of ocean land and atmospheric temperatures, the roles of atmospheric gasses, solar output, albedo changes, and already observed economic damages.
Thanks in advance!
Here's how this would go. I provide data. You, then berate the source, berate the data and berate me. That's your M.O. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the East. I'm champing at the bit to participate in yet another one of those exercises in futility. /srather than provide data that challenges the consensus, you just call everyone believers. lol. SOP for conned GOP voters: I don't like science because I don't get it, so I'll just interpret my ignorance the only way I know--through a lens of "belief" and claim that those other people just believe the wrong thing!
Are you ever going to have a solution for anything, or is it only ever going to be "blaming the smarty people for making my life miserable!" derpaderpadoo.
do you ever exhaust yourself, living your life being this fucking useless?
Here's how this would go. I provide data. You, then berate the source, berate the data and berate me. That's your M.O. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the East. I'm champing at the bit to participate in yet another one of those exercises in futility. /s
I'd like to say that I am sorry that you are so unhappy the majority of the time but that would be a lie because I really don't care. In between getting banned, you have nothing good to say about anyone and anything here. You contribute nothing that is not tainted with anger and malice and in the process repeatedly declare over and over your superiority. The source of your unhappiness is a mystery to me but I have no empathy. You're just a seemingly perpetually angry individual. Your shtick is beyond tiresome.
Guess who's miserable? It's not me.
Yes science is still working on that "theory" of gravity thing.And the rest of the scientists can what, pound sand? Is science ever 'settled'? Does the scientific community operate under the principle of majority rule?
Yes science is still working on that "theory" of gravity thing.
I would say 95-5 is enough of a plurality to reach consensus.
Here's how this would go. I provide data. You, then berate the source, berate the data and berate me. That's your M.O. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the East. I'm champing at the bit to participate in yet another one of those exercises in futility. /s
I'd like to say that I am sorry that you are so unhappy the majority of the time but that would be a lie because I really don't care. In between getting banned, you have nothing good to say about anyone and anything here. You contribute nothing that is not tainted with anger and malice and in the process repeatedly declare over and over your superiority. The source of your unhappiness is a mystery to me but I have no empathy. You're just a seemingly perpetually angry individual. Your shtick is beyond tiresome.
Guess who's miserable? It's not me.