|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend.
Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult.
EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com
|
On October 09 2018 20:07 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 17:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
The tory party in the 1980’s didn’t have a base of mysoginists and male chauvinists as far as I know. The central question for Trump ectorate is whether or not white heterosexual men keep being at the top of social hierarchy. I think even someone as hard as Thatcher would be a liability at that point. A white macho bully is the only realistic persectove to lead the GOP as long as the thematics that interest its voters haven’t changed. Right, that's why there are many women GOP Senators and Representatives. That's also why they nominated a woman as VP....a woman, I might add, that was viciously attacked by Democrats. I suppose it's like GOP African Americans - they're called all sorts of names and derided by Democrats. Is there no shame in the hypocrisy? I really really dislike having to defend people like Palin and Bachmann or Sarah Huckabee, but damn, man, the hypocrisy is a lot worse. Don't ya'll get tired of name calling all the time? It's why you guys keep losing elections and are huddled in small enclaves by alienating everyone outside your little bubbles. At least GH tends to argue on the merits and policies (outside of calling every white person by default a racist, but I digress).
Palin was nominated for the worst possible reasons that back up the argument, not refute it (because she was a young and attractive face, without any regard for her political acumen, because they literally thought it didn't matter; how much more sexist can you get than in thinking a nominee for VICE PRESIDENT doesn't need to know the first thing about politics because they're female?)
In addition, most of the female GOP figures pretty actively vote against women's interests. Ann Coulter, known right wing intelligentsia, has said women shouldn't have the right to vote. How much more literally can you support the argument than by raising up women who actively want to depower women?
No, the hypocrisy isn't worse. Generally, I've found when people on the right makes these arguments, they didn't understand the initial argument in the first place, hence saw hypocrisy when none existed.
Trump's cabinet is predominantly old white men. That's pretty hard to ignore. Remember that photo of a line of old white men watching gleefully as Trump signed a bill that affected women's rights?
|
Right, that's why there are many women GOP Senators and Representatives.
Uh let me stop you right there. Only 10% of GOP Reps and senators are women.
Also 89% of African Americans voted against the GOP. So trying that angle isn't a good idea either.
|
Norway28900 Posts
On October 09 2018 21:14 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 21:04 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd. I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried. -There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad. -I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research. -Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc. -Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things. -We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change. That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't. Someone living in Norway cheering global warming because it will make their winters a bit softer is just great. What about the vast majority of people that don’t live on the north pole? I don't live in Norway, but I am from there. Please go for the ball, not the man! I am happy to listen to other points of view!
Farvecola's point of view is dead on.
The Syrian refugee crisis made something like 2 million Syrians enter Europe. I'd argue that while it hasn't been a disaster, it has certainly been problematic.
It IS impossible to predict how many 'climate-refugees' we're going to get. But if you look at combined threats from drinking water supplies eroding, parts of the middle east becoming unlivable, sea levels rising, a very moderate estimate would have every year be a Syrian refugee crisis. Worse case scenarios forces hundreds of millions of people to relocate - and not 'for the duration of the civil war', but permanently.
Basically the current migration caused by 'wars and misgovernance' might (I'd argue, rather likely) be completely dwarfed by that of climate change. And the way the syrian refugee crisis was handled, leads me to believe that it's more likely that this leads to militarization of borders and these millions of people being interned in camps, rather than the peaceful inclusion of them into western countries. I don't think 'Norway' itself ends up being all that negatively influenced (this summer was literally the nicest I've experienced weather wise), but I foresee extremely negative political consequences in mostly all western countries from trying to deal with the amount of migrants likely to come as a consequence of climate change.
|
On October 09 2018 21:04 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd. I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried. -There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad. -I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research. -Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc. -Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things. -We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change. That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't. Someone living in Norway cheering global warming because it will make their winters a bit softer is just great. What about the vast majority of people that don’t live on the north pole?
Not to mention that when the equator becomes unlivable everyone is going to migrate up north. I don't think norway can support several billion refugees..
Edit: Drone beat me to it with a much more elaborate post
|
On October 09 2018 22:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 21:14 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 21:04 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 17:29 Neneu wrote:On October 09 2018 15:30 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 14:07 Bigtony wrote:3 to 5 times the cost and it "doesn't make sense" to go with the cheaper cost...? that's some funny math. Yes, I don't get it! I have decided not to worry about climate change, as extremely few people and governments are willing to put cutting CO2 emissions first once it seriously hurts their economy or lifestyle. Humans are great at adapting to changing conditions anyway. America is populated by Europeans partly because of a COLD period in Europe, causing famine. Colder is worse than warmer, and I believe the climate will prove to be uncontrollable, despite our best efforts. Well if you are not worried I advice you to at least glance over the summary of the report: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdfAlso, I don't get how people can be against nuclear power, but still have trust in climate change. The only difference between climate deniers and people against nuclear power is that while climate deniers deny the disease, people against nuclear power refuse the medicine. It is cherry picking of science to confirm your own believes at its best. Well unless one believes the effects of climate change to be less dangerous than nuclear power, but that would be just absurd. I will read it more carefully at some point, but no, I am not worried. -There will be significant posetive effects of a warmer climate locally. Humans don't like change, but it is not always bad. -I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality. I also assume that there are strong incentives to making negative prognosis, as they make more awarness of the field and eventually more funding for climate research. -Our perspective of what is "normal" is extremely narrow. If we had detailed data from the last 1 million years, I think we would have looked very differently at current events: Super volcanoes, ice ages, big swings in solar activity, changing currents, knowing what is actually extreme weather, knowing with certainty how much CO2 and other gasses influence the climate or if they fluctuate together, natural changes in polar ice caps etc. -Stability isn't normal! Somehow, it seems like we are expected to believe that the current world climate is supposed to stay the same for the foreseable future. We shouldn't! It will get warmer or cooler, and both will have significant on where we can live, how we migrate and where food is grown among other things. -We currently cause much bigger migration problems through wars and misgovernance than climate change. That being said, there are other very good reasons to get rid of fossile fuels too, but I dislike that CO2 is treated like pollution, which it isn't. Someone living in Norway cheering global warming because it will make their winters a bit softer is just great. What about the vast majority of people that don’t live on the north pole? I don't live in Norway, but I am from there. Please go for the ball, not the man! I am happy to listen to other points of view! Farvecola's point of view is dead on. The Syrian refugee crisis made something like 2 million Syrians enter Europe. I'd argue that while it hasn't been a disaster, it has certainly been problematic. It IS impossible to predict how many 'climate-refugees' we're going to get. But if you look at combined threats from drinking water supplies eroding, parts of the middle east becoming unlivable, sea levels rising, a very moderate estimate would have every year be a Syrian refugee crisis. Worse case scenarios forces hundreds of millions of people to relocate - and not 'for the duration of the civil war', but permanently. Basically the current migration caused by 'wars and misgovernance' might (I'd argue, rather likely) be completely dwarfed by that of climate change. And the way the syrian refugee crisis was handled, leads me to believe that it's more likely that this leads to militarization of borders and these millions of people being interned in camps, rather than the peaceful inclusion of them into western countries. I don't think 'Norway' itself ends up being all that negatively influenced (this summer was literally the nicest I've experienced weather wise), but I foresee extremely negative political consequences in mostly all western countries from trying to deal with the amount of migrants likely to come as a consequence of climate change.
Sooner or later it'll turn to slaughter. If there's mass mass relocation, it just won't be practical for them to be housed. Look at how big the flap became over a ship containing... 32 immigrants was it? If climate change makes more tenuous places in the world (some parts of Africa and the Middle East) unlivable, there'd be - as you say - hundreds of millions of people looking for a new home. In some cases you're talking people equal or exceeding the entire standing population of some western countries.
Not to mention the far right will be in power in a hot minute. People will get scared, and quick.
|
On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com
I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult!
Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air.
|
I don't see how a liberal society could deal with the challenges of climate change to be honest, the lobbies and the freedom given to large businesses are huge hindrances for environmental progress. The two scenarios I see are one with a lot of socialist influence (where we regulate them a lot or seize the means of production) or one with a lot of fascist influence (where we do absolutely nothing and then kill a bunch of climate migrants because who cares they were born in a different nation).
|
|
|
On October 09 2018 23:21 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't see how a liberal society could deal with the challenges of climate change to be honest, the lobbies and the freedom given to large businesses are huge hindrances for environmental progress. The two scenarios I see are one with a lot of socialist influence (where we regulate them a lot or seize the means of production) or one with a lot of fascist influence (where we do absolutely nothing and then kill a bunch of climate migrants because who cares they were born in a different nation).
I think a lot of people have come to this conclusion more or less. Capitalism says we can incentivize companies to adopt greener practices, but if the companies can pay off the politicians or threaten disrupting the economy at a cheaper price than adopting green practices then they're going to do that.
|
On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air.
This viewpoint is often used as a safe haven from the potential problems of climate change, but I don’t think you have engaged with what you are saying. If the outcome is up in the air, as you put it, then the results of climate change could be far worse than what is being predicated. The scientists warning about climate change did not pick the worst case scenario for their prediction, but the most likely outcome. Your theory that their prediction is not the most likely allows for them to have undervalued the impact of climate change.
Also, the risk for what will take place if they are correct is so high waiting to see what happens is gross negligence. Once the impact of climate change take place, the disruption that it will cause to the status quo will impact our daily lives and political systems. It could cause wars, mass unemployment or other human made disasters that will prevent us from taking action to address the problem. This viewpoint is the Neville Chamberlain of climate change, which seems like wisdom but is in reality folly.
|
On October 09 2018 23:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
Nikki Haley resigned.
One less chaperone in Trumps circle is not a good thing, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully she's replaced with someone competent.
|
On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air.
The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the ozone layer, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean radiation from observations is difficult!
Or even better:
The body is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining your risk of cancer, both internally and externally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate an average risk from smoking by observations is difficult!
These arguments aren't new in historical sense.
When it comes to scientific consensus, none of those questions are up in the air. I am personally a chemist, but I don't work with climate science. I'm actually not working with chemistry at all. However even if I were working with chemistry still, in no way would I know better than thousands of scientists who work with the field, with diverse backgrounds, who publishes an amazing amount of articles of each year. One can only read reviews and try to comprehend what they have found out. Like all other science
|
On October 09 2018 23:51 Doodsmack wrote:One less chaperone in Trumps circle is not a good thing, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully she's replaced with someone competent.
Is that likely? Trump seems to keep downsizing the state department. He could just not bother with an ambassador.
|
On October 10 2018 00:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 23:51 Doodsmack wrote:On October 09 2018 23:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
Nikki Haley resigned. One less chaperone in Trumps circle is not a good thing, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully she's replaced with someone competent. Is that likely? Trump seems to keep downsizing the state department. He could just not bother with an ambassador.
He doesn’t have to appoint anyone, but I don’t think we can use our veto power in the UN without one.
|
On October 10 2018 00:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 00:01 iamthedave wrote:On October 09 2018 23:51 Doodsmack wrote:On October 09 2018 23:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
Nikki Haley resigned. One less chaperone in Trumps circle is not a good thing, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Hopefully she's replaced with someone competent. Is that likely? Trump seems to keep downsizing the state department. He could just not bother with an ambassador. He doesn’t have to appoint anyone, but I don’t think we can use our veto power in the UN without one.
That would be a slightly funny unintended consequence if the rest of the permanent members just rammed through a bunch of shit while we were unable to veto.
|
On October 09 2018 23:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air. This viewpoint is often used as a safe haven from the potential problems of climate change, but I don’t think you have engaged with what you are saying. If the outcome is up in the air, as you put it, then the results of climate change could be far worse than what is being predicated. The scientists warning about climate change did not pick the worst case scenario for their prediction, but the most likely outcome. Your theory that their prediction is not the most likely allows for them to have undervalued the impact of climate change. Also, the risk for what will take place if they are correct is so high waiting to see what happens is gross negligence. Once the impact of climate change take place, the disruption that it will cause to the status quo will impact our daily lives and political systems. It could cause wars, mass unemployment or other human made disasters that will prevent us from taking action to address the problem. This viewpoint is the Neville Chamberlain of climate change, which seems like wisdom but is in reality folly.
Of course they CAN be terrible, up in the air means we have no idea what will happen, for better or worse. I have faith, though, the race that lives practically everywhere in almost every every earth climate will be ok!
But don't underestimate what it would take to slash CO2 emissions in half either! Flying? Only for super rich. Private car industry? What? Goods from Asia? Forget about it, transport too expensive. I believe it would be politically impossible. You already see the reactions to things like "normal" (by international standards) electricity prices in Norway and gasoline prices in the US. If you add cutting millions of jobs in entire industries to the equation, it won't be pretty!
|
I wonder if NH retiring has anything to do with the IPCC report. I can imagine a scenario where the admin is trying to get her to undermine it or something like that and she says no. If not the timing certainly feels weird. Regardless of why, I agree it isnt great since she is likely to be replaced by someone more radical.
|
On October 10 2018 00:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 23:32 Plansix wrote:On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air. This viewpoint is often used as a safe haven from the potential problems of climate change, but I don’t think you have engaged with what you are saying. If the outcome is up in the air, as you put it, then the results of climate change could be far worse than what is being predicated. The scientists warning about climate change did not pick the worst case scenario for their prediction, but the most likely outcome. Your theory that their prediction is not the most likely allows for them to have undervalued the impact of climate change. Also, the risk for what will take place if they are correct is so high waiting to see what happens is gross negligence. Once the impact of climate change take place, the disruption that it will cause to the status quo will impact our daily lives and political systems. It could cause wars, mass unemployment or other human made disasters that will prevent us from taking action to address the problem. This viewpoint is the Neville Chamberlain of climate change, which seems like wisdom but is in reality folly. Of course they CAN be terrible, up in the air means we have no idea what will happen, for better or worse. I have faith, though, the race that lives practically everywhere in almost every every earth climate will be ok! But don't underestimate what it would take to slash CO2 emissions in half either! Flying? Only for super rich. Private car industry? What? Goods from Asia? Forget about it, transport too expensive. I believe it would be politically impossible. You already see the reactions to things like "normal" (by international standards) electricity prices in Norway and gasoline prices in the US. If you add cutting millions of jobs in entire industries to the equation, it won't be pretty!
Rebuilding a country to run on new types of energy sounds like a job making machine, just like in the 1950s and 1960s we created a crap ton of jobs by building out this countries roads and infrastructure.
|
On October 10 2018 00:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 23:32 Plansix wrote:On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air. This viewpoint is often used as a safe haven from the potential problems of climate change, but I don’t think you have engaged with what you are saying. If the outcome is up in the air, as you put it, then the results of climate change could be far worse than what is being predicated. The scientists warning about climate change did not pick the worst case scenario for their prediction, but the most likely outcome. Your theory that their prediction is not the most likely allows for them to have undervalued the impact of climate change. Also, the risk for what will take place if they are correct is so high waiting to see what happens is gross negligence. Once the impact of climate change take place, the disruption that it will cause to the status quo will impact our daily lives and political systems. It could cause wars, mass unemployment or other human made disasters that will prevent us from taking action to address the problem. This viewpoint is the Neville Chamberlain of climate change, which seems like wisdom but is in reality folly. Of course they CAN be terrible, up in the air means we have no idea what will happen, for better or worse. I have faith, though, the race that lives practically everywhere in almost every every earth climate will be ok! But don't underestimate what it would take to slash CO2 emissions in half either! Flying? Only for super rich. Private car industry? What? Goods from Asia? Forget about it, transport too expensive. I believe it would be politically impossible. You already see the reactions to things like "normal" (by international standards) electricity prices in Norway and gasoline prices in the US. If you add cutting millions of jobs in entire industries to the equation, it won't be pretty!
Historically humans living "OK" would include living conditions like massive infant mortality and living in/around actual feces in ram shackled structures without electricity, water, or power.
Just because the species is doing 'OK' doesn't really mean much for the individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
