Page 2 of 7
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:07 am
by Pointedstick
doodle wrote:
This years crazy cold winter was actually above the historical mean temperature.
Despite the frigid temperatures that kept those in the eastern United States shivering all winter, the period from December 2013 to February 2014 was the 8th warmest on record globally, the U.S. National Climatic Data Center reported Wednesday. That warmth early in the year could set the stage for another record or near-record warm year, one NCDC scientist said.
And February, which was the 21st warmest globally since record keeping began in 1880, was the 348th consecutive month where temperatures were higher than the global average;
But far colder for some…
I'm not really trying to debate whether global warming is real or not. I'm pretty sure it is. What I'm really trying to assert is that I think it's pointless to try to focus on either convincing skeptical others or trying to prevent it, which in a democracy requires convincing skeptical others. Instead, we need to focus on adaptation. Those who won't adapt to changing circumstances will be harmed and may even die. Sucks, but that's life.
I mean, what's the alternative? What's your plan for somehow getting the citizens of the United States to stop fighting and get on board? I hear a lot of things like "we need a carbon tax!" but not a lot of things like "here's how we
pass a carbon tax and stop it from immediately getting repealed, undermined, watered down, or becoming riddled with exceptions, exemptions and loopholes, and here's our transition plan for all the people in fossil fuel-related industries who will otherwise vote us out of office during the next election cycle."
Without such a plan, it's just pissing in the wind.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:40 am
by Mountaineer
Opinions are like (well, you know .... ) and they generally stink but anyway, here is a fact and opinion from a friend of mine I just received on email.
... Mountaineer
DIRECTLY from the EPA Report released on Monday outlining the NEW regulations on coal-fired plants:
THE REPORT STATES THAT IF ALL U.S.. COAL FIRE PLANTS WERE SHUT DOWN, AND EVERYTHING ELSE WERE EQUAL/UNCHANGED - THE AVERAGE WORLD TEMPERATURE WOULD DROP 1/20 OF A DEGREE F.
AND.....OCEAN LEVELS WOULD DROP 1/25 OF AN INCH
THE EPA'S OWN REPORT!!!!
Anyone - repeat anyone - who continues to believe in and support this insane, inane and economy-killing regulation with ZERO attendant benefits indeed qualifies for the Fool of the Entire Human Race Since the Beginning of Time award.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:13 am
by doodle
Mountaineer wrote:
Opinions are like (well, you know .... ) and they generally stink but anyway, here is a fact and opinion from a friend of mine I just received on email.
... Mountaineer
DIRECTLY from the EPA Report released on Monday outlining the NEW regulations on coal-fired plants:
THE REPORT STATES THAT IF ALL U.S.. COAL FIRE PLANTS WERE SHUT DOWN, AND EVERYTHING ELSE WERE EQUAL/UNCHANGED - THE AVERAGE WORLD TEMPERATURE WOULD DROP 1/20 OF A DEGREE F.
AND.....OCEAN LEVELS WOULD DROP 1/25 OF AN INCH
THE EPA'S OWN REPORT!!!!
Anyone - repeat anyone - who continues to believe in and support this insane, inane and economy-killing regulation with ZERO attendant benefits indeed qualifies for the Fool of the Entire Human Race Since the Beginning of Time award.
Which is why this is a global problem that doesnt fit very well into traditional notions of national sovereignty and borders. Nature doesnt care that this problem is inconvenient for our present global political organization.
I'm not really trying to debate whether global warming is real or not. I'm pretty sure it is. What I'm really trying to assert is that I think it's pointless to try to focus on either convincing skeptical others or trying to prevent it, which in a democracy requires convincing skeptical others. Instead, we need to focus on adaptation. Those who won't adapt to changing circumstances will be harmed and may even die. Sucks, but that's life.
I dont think thats how it would work. Imagine how hurricane Katrinas flooding affected our entire nation. Now imagine that all of the coastal areas in the world begin to flood...this would require a very large mass migration of people. At the same time, our oceans, natural ecosystems, weather patterns etc. would be shifting and unpredicibly changing. Its not like the smart people who see this coming are not going to be greatly impacted by its effects.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:37 am
by Benko
Mountaineer wrote:
Anyone - repeat anyone - who continues to believe in and support this insane, inane and economy-killing regulation with ZERO attendant benefits indeed qualifies for the Fool of the Entire Human Race Since the Beginning of Time award.
Why do you assume that all the people (not on here, but "scientists" and those in politics, etc) believe this stuff any more than Obama believed you could keep your policy? I'm sure many do, but the bottom line is that the remedy is just a means toward the "progressive" goals.
"By any means necessary"
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:53 am
by doodle
Benko wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Anyone - repeat anyone - who continues to believe in and support this insane, inane and economy-killing regulation with ZERO attendant benefits indeed qualifies for the Fool of the Entire Human Race Since the Beginning of Time award.
Why do you assume that all the people (not on here, but "scientists" and those in politics, etc) believe this stuff any more than Obama believed you could keep your policy? I'm sure many do, but the bottom line is that the remedy is just a means toward the "progressive" goals.
"By any means necessary"
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
Inaction is still action. The goal to do nothing is still a goal. Wanting nothing is still wanting something.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:10 am
by Kshartle
doodle wrote:
Benko wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
Anyone - repeat anyone - who continues to believe in and support this insane, inane and economy-killing regulation with ZERO attendant benefits indeed qualifies for the Fool of the Entire Human Race Since the Beginning of Time award.
Why do you assume that all the people (not on here, but "scientists" and those in politics, etc) believe this stuff any more than Obama believed you could keep your policy? I'm sure many do, but the bottom line is that the remedy is just a means toward the "progressive" goals.
"By any means necessary"
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
Inaction is still action. The goal to do nothing is still a goal. Wanting nothing is still wanting something.
2 is correct but 1 and 3 are false.
inaction is the opposite of action and nothing is the opposite of something. Something can't be nothing or either concept is invalid.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:12 am
by Kshartle
Benko wrote:
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
They have no moral code.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:16 am
by doodle
Kshartle wrote:
Benko wrote:
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
They have no moral code.
Yes, they do....it just happens to be different from yours.
I dont want to get into morality here. Im trying to stick to the science of this topic...
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:17 am
by doodle
Kshartle wrote:
Benko wrote:
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
They have no moral code.
I should also say, morality is a "concept" and as such doesnt exist outside of the imagination.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:20 am
by Tyler
doodle wrote:
I should also say, morality is a "concept" and as such doesnt exist outside of the imagination.
Now there's an interesting philosophical landmine....
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:24 am
by Kshartle
doodle wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
Benko wrote:
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
They have no moral code.
Yes, they do....it just happens to be different from yours.
I dont want to get into morality here. Im trying to stick to the science of this topic...
I don't want to derail either but I do feel compelled to clarify. A moral code would be the set of rules (formal or informal) by which you guide your actions. If you will undertake
any action (lying, violence etc.) to acheive your goals then by definition you have no moral code. You have no rules that guide your actions.
I'll not respond further Doodle
so I don't instigate a derailment but please do so if you want. I'll reserve any response for another thread on another day.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:43 am
by doodle
Kshartle wrote:
doodle wrote:
Benko wrote:
Why do you assume that all the people (not on here, but "scientists" and those in politics, etc) believe this stuff any more than Obama believed you could keep your policy? I'm sure many do, but the bottom line is that the remedy is just a means toward the "progressive" goals.
"By any means necessary"
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
Inaction is still action. The goal to do nothing is still a goal. Wanting nothing is still wanting something.
2 is correct but 1 and 3 are false.
inaction is the opposite of action and nothing is the opposite of something. Something can't be nothing or either concept is invalid.
I cant resist the derailment....
1. Can a human ever "not act"? Is lying or sitting action or inaction?
3. Wanting nothing is wanting "something"....I don't want to wear any clothes, is like wanting to walk around naked.
I don't want to derail either but I do feel compelled to clarify. A moral code would be the set of rules (formal or informal) by which you guide your actions. If you will undertake any action (lying, violence etc.) to acheive your goals then by definition you have no moral code. You have no rules that guide your actions.
Isnt that just the moral idea that the ends justify the means? Its a form of utilitarianism...no? Im sure you also think about the ends when shaping your moral code, to fail to consider the effects of an action and operate based on a particular code makes no sense. Take the issue of never killing someone. What if by killing one person you could save 1000? If your moral code says that you cannot kill that one person, then you have just condemned those other 1000 people to die. And incidently, that is the action of innaction....
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:45 am
by doodle
The trolley dilemma...your choice?
The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do). You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:50 am
by doodle
How about taking trolley example one step further:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:58 am
by Tyler
Looping back to the topic at hand, the standard response is to take zero action yourself. Instead, you take to social media demonizing the trolley deniers and calling for immediate government action to tax people on the tracks to discourage undesired behaviors and redistribute that money to alternative transportation research.
Thud.
#activism
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:11 pm
by moda0306
doodle wrote:
Kshartle wrote:
Benko wrote:
Whatever needs to be done to obtain what they want. Means are irrelevant.
They have no moral code.
Yes, they do....it just happens to be different from yours.
I dont want to get into morality here. Im trying to stick to the science of this topic...
Morality is a science, doodle. And Force is the only measurement. And any amount of it equals infinity Newtons... unless it's pollution... then we can talk about consequentialism until we are blue in the face.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:16 pm
by Mountaineer
Tyler wrote:
Looping back to the topic at hand, the standard response is to take zero action yourself. Instead, you take to social media demonizing the trolley deniers and calling for immediate government action to tax people on the tracks to discourage undesired behaviors and redistribute that money to alternative transportation research.
Thud.
#activism
Brilliant! Now, off to pack my kayak before the igloo melts. I'm headed to Texas.
... Mountaineer
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:25 pm
by moda0306
Tyler wrote:
Looping back to the topic at hand, the standard response is to take zero action yourself. Instead, you take to social media demonizing the trolley deniers and calling for immediate government action to tax people on the tracks to discourage undesired behaviors and redistribute that money to alternative transportation research.
Thud.
#activism
Wait, where is the climate change trolley lever I can pull? Driving an economy-car and lowering my natural gas usage hasn't been working.
Sometimes it's hard to stop a trolley if billions of people are actively pushing it down the road.
Perhaps (gasp) government (or more specifically, world-wide treaties) is the best tool to measure and properly tax externalities, justifying advocacy vs direct individual action.
PS, uncaptured pollution IS redistribution.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:14 pm
by Benko
Moda,
Are there any solutions to any problems in which the lefties don't propose more/bigger gov't?
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:41 pm
by moda0306
Benko,
I would love to answer that question, but I don't believe in answering questions without a statist thought police feminist-greeny-commie-muslim-atheist bureaucratic approval that my answer is politically correct.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:44 pm
by Kshartle
moda0306 wrote:
Benko,
I would love to answer that question, but I don't believe in answering questions without a statist thought police feminist-greeny-commie-muslim-atheist bureaucratic approval that my answer is politically correct.
Muslim and atheist approval is going to be a huge challenge.
I can grant you atheist approval if you need someone.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:06 pm
by Mountaineer
moda0306 wrote:
Benko,
I would love to answer that question, but I don't believe in answering questions without a statist thought police feminist-greeny-commie-muslim-atheist bureaucratic approval that my answer is politically correct.
I was SO hoping you would answer Benko before I got the kayak fully packed. I'm not sure I'll have internet service as I float away to Texas. I was really wanting to depend on Big Brother being around to tell me when to paddle but I'm not sure if dear leader has declared an increase in kayak watchers yet. Oh the conundrum!
... Mountaineer
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:09 pm
by Benko
Moda,
On a different slant, Probably 99% of physicians and a large percentage of the rest of the population believe that cholesterol is bad and causes heart disease. If you've read the diet threads on this forum you know that many of us don't believe that to be the case. So concensus, even vast concensus is meaningless.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:07 pm
by moda0306
Benko wrote:
Moda,
On a different slant, Probably 99% of physicians and a large percentage of the rest of the population believe that cholesterol is bad and causes heart disease. If you've read the diet threads on this forum you know that many of us don't believe that to be the case. So concensus, even vast concensus is meaningless.
Sometimes it's meaningless.
But even if we assume it is pretty regularly meaningless, then all we have is truth. In the face of a lack of the ability to discover truth, you have risk.
In the face of risk, we have to make decisions that involve certain up-sides & down-sides. There might not be a consensus (which is meaningless anyway, right?) that there are risks to me going sky-diving with a 70 year old parachute. But if I save $40 on the chute, is it worth the risk?
Even if risks are known in impact and odds, it begs a lot of questions about how we should behave. If risks are unknown... it gets more murky. To me, the risks around putting penalties around consuming fossil fuels (that will be there tomorrow if God-forbid we don't burn them today) is FAR less than the risk of significantly rising sea levels and affects to our ecology and economy.
This is FAR more about RISK than consensus. If the risk is large enough, having only 20% of climate scientists believe we are causing global warming could be cause for action. What if 10% of military strategists in a room had harsh warnings about the Japanese @ Pearl Harbor? I'd be far more worried about risk than consensus.
Consensus, though, is usually a good place to start assuming you don't have unlimited time to research. Short of developing an actual deep working knowledge of climate science, what am I to do? In fact, have you actually researched the evidence that we are actually made up of atoms? Have you actually done a review on the data?
We're always trusting someone when it comes to technical matter. We rarely develop actual base knowledge on our own.
Even climate-skeptics are accepting some sort of accepted "consensus" truth when they produce their data. Most of them haven't actually put their nose to the grind-stone. But many have built a lifestyle they can't afford with a big house, big vehicle, fun toys, and long commute, so I think we really know what is driving the challenge to the consensus by climate scientists. And in most cases, it is not careful analysis of the facts.
Re: Climate change
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:50 pm
by doodle
moda0306 wrote:
Benko wrote:
Moda,
On a different slant, Probably 99% of physicians and a large percentage of the rest of the population believe that cholesterol is bad and causes heart disease. If you've read the diet threads on this forum you know that many of us don't believe that to be the case. So concensus, even vast concensus is meaningless.
Sometimes it's meaningless.
But even if we assume it is pretty regularly meaningless, then all we have is truth. In the face of a lack of the ability to discover truth, you have risk.
In the face of risk, we have to make decisions that involve certain up-sides & down-sides. There might not be a consensus (which is meaningless anyway, right?) that there are risks to me going sky-diving with a 70 year old parachute. But if I save $40 on the chute, is it worth the risk?
Even if risks are known in impact and odds, it begs a lot of questions about how we should behave. If risks are unknown... it gets more murky. To me, the risks around putting penalties around consuming fossil fuels (that will be there tomorrow if God-forbid we don't burn them today) is FAR less than the risk of significantly rising sea levels and affects to our ecology and economy.
This is FAR more about RISK than consensus. If the risk is large enough, having only 20% of climate scientists believe we are causing global warming could be cause for action. What if 10% of military strategists in a room had harsh warnings about the Japanese @ Pearl Harbor? I'd be far more worried about risk than consensus.
Consensus, though, is usually a good place to start assuming you don't have unlimited time to research. Short of developing an actual deep working knowledge of climate science, what am I to do? In fact, have you actually researched the evidence that we are actually made up of atoms? Have you actually done a review on the data?
We're always trusting someone when it comes to technical matter. We rarely develop actual base knowledge on our own.
Even climate-skeptics are accepting some sort of accepted "consensus" truth when they produce their data. Most of them haven't actually put their nose to the grind-stone. But many have built a lifestyle they can't afford with a big house, big vehicle, fun toys, and long commute, so I think we really know what is driving the challenge to the consensus by climate scientists. And in most cases, it is not careful analysis of the facts.
Hear, hear! Good points all..... This is not an issue of absolute certainty, but rather one of risk mitigation. What irks me so much about global warming deniers who use the permanent portfolio is that they see the need for risk mitigation in their investment decisions based on the notion that one can truly never know, but when it comes to the scientific consensus on global warming they are absolutely certain that is a 100% hoax and that the dire predictions will never come to pass. Their approach towards global warming is the same as the investor who pours all of their money into one asset class.