Climate Change is Irrelevant

Replies

• FU

  

  FullSun

  Mar 18, 2014

  Actually it is very relevant, as species die off, crops have trouble, weather gets more erratic, coasts get flooded, life will become exceedingly costly due to the costs of handling these and other issues.  Sure we are not going to get away from burning things to live anytime soon, but lets not ignore it.  I'd like my kids and grandkids to have a place to live better than me, not worse.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Mar 19, 2014

  "straight down the middle" is the fallacy of the equivalence of arguments when opinion is divided - called "false equivalence" in journalism. Example: "Most" (this is journalistic hedging for "all") historians say that John Adams was the Second president of the United States. But if we troll the internet long enough, we can find someone who will assert that, in fact, his great-great-great-great grandad Orville Peabody was cheated out of the office and by rights should be called the second president. So we give a representative historian, and the younger Mr. Peabody, equal time to make their cases, and call it a controversy. Now, straight down the middle, shall we start calling Mr. Adams thede factoPresident?
  
  Of course, scientific claims always have a degree of uncertainty - that's in the nature of science - that historical claims don't. But this doesn't mean that all arguments are equivalent and that the middle is the wisest course. There's lots of good science being done on climate change, and no real doubt that CO2 levels are rising and that this is causing a variety of effects with impacts on human society. There is more to learn. The scientific consensus on the issue, however, does not imply any particular social/political policy - it can only inform decisionmaking.
  
  There's a tension between the idea that damaging the environment should have costs, and that we should use fossil fuels as inexpensively as possible. If the price of fossil fuels were to reflect the externalized costs of rising CO2 levels, they would not be so inexpensive. You're right to note that schemes for raising the price can serve to enrich the elites. Since there's no realistic, well-understood way on the horizon to use money to take CO2 out out of the atmosphere, where should the externalized-cost component of fossil fuel prices go?
  
  A carbon tax sends it to governments. Cap-and-trade sends it to legacy fossil-fuel users who reduce their use. Restrictions on extraction send it to countries and producers who aren't subject to the restriction. Rationing of consumption doesn't produce a flow of money, but does cause disruptions that reduce productivity. We can't simply bank it against future need, since a global-scale net savings account isn't logically possible (whowould owe Earth the money - the First Bank of Mars?)
  
  Some mixture of these imperfect approaches, plus strategies to lower the cost of alternatives to fossil fuels and reduce the need for fuels of any sort (subsidies, research, land use planning, cultural change,  for example) will have to do.
  
  
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• FU

  

  FullSun

  Mar 19, 2014

  I agree there are no easy answers and the questions aren't completely clear but that does not mean we ignore them.  There are some facts, CO2 is rising, the oceans are rising, and the polar caps and glaciers are melting.  Does that means we have all the information?  Absolutely not.  I even read one article about how at a certain point the 'warming' could actually spin things into an ice age.  The arguments were around reduced salinity changing ocean currents, increased evaporation creating more cloud cover etc.  Again, we can't just ignore it.
  
  

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Mar 19, 2014

  I suppose there's a possible use for externalized-cost money added to the price of fuel, besides directly fixing the CO2 emissions, and that's to pay for accommodation to climate change. Such an idea has been discussed, but tends to ignore the largest problems.  The most expensive project - but a centrally important one - would be to move the population of Bangladesh before it goes underwater. Maybe Canada could be paid to put them all in Alberta?  Or maybe not.
  

  ReactReply
• ME

  MemberOriginal Poster

  Mar 19, 2014

  My point is the hardened positions on both sides; the warnings of doom and gloom from the alarmists and the rolling of the eyes by the other side leads to unnecessary battles and stalemates. It should be a goal to continue to work toward 'clean energy' but not at the expense of shutting down other sources that are available and affordable. As science advances and the CE options become more viable, the market will naturally move toward CE. Artificial pushes and political gamesmanship serve only as obstacles and higher prices that hurt the common folk.
  One thing that just came to mind is nuclear energy. One has to wonder if nuke plants could be smaller and more affordable these days if the industry had been handled differently. Wouldn't it be cool to pay an extra ten thousand bucks for a car that had a self contained micro-nuke plant that would produce energy to drive the car for ten years before being traded in for a replacement cell.

  ReactReply
• FU

  

  FullSun

  Mar 19, 2014

  Okay now you're talking Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future :)  Neat idea....maybe one day.
  Good way to start this discussion and I agree, the polarization does not help but unfortunately (underline unfortunately) we need those on the extremes sometimes to get the ball rolling and ignite the discussion otherwise it is easy to go status quo and not get anything done until it is too late.

  ReactReply
• ME

  MemberOriginal Poster

  Mar 19, 2014

  [quote]Okay now you're talking Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future :)  Neat idea....maybe one day.
  Good way to start this discussion and I agree, the polarization does not help but unfortunately (underline unfortunately) we need those on the extremes sometimes to get the ball rolling and ignite the discussion otherwise it is easy to go status quo and not get anything done until it is too late.[/quote]Yes,,,this is so, but at some point, the extremists need to be neutralized in favor of common sense.
  One example is that the labor unions of the early 20th century did a great deal of good, then it was discovered that there was money to be made through the efforts and corruption quickly rose, then increased political power, then expansion beyond sensible measures that resulted in the degradation of the USA as a manufacturing powerhouse. Now we have have major cities going bankrupt and states struggling with enormous burdens.
  What would have happened if the unions kept themselves in check? Could it be that the US would be a stronger manufacturing powerhouse? Could it be the outrageous cost of government would be much less disastrous? Could it be that we would rank higher on the rankings of our education system?
  With the Climate Change movement, it may move in the direction of the United Nations having greater say in our (USA) internal affairs. Imagine the terrible consequences of that happening. We still feed the world. What if the the climate change movement gets more of a stranglehold on farming?

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Mar 20, 2014

  Global warming is a fact agreed by both sides of the argument 100%.
  
  Where the opinion differs is solely on the cause. With by far the majority on human intervention as that cause.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Mar 20, 2014

  Dealing with the denialists is a distraction. Yes, there are politicians who feel they have to pander to them, but it's time to move on. The popularized tidal-wave-swamping-the-Statue-of-Liberty image is equally silly, and unsupported by sensible climate models. It's easy, but not useful, to use either extreme as a straw man to argue against. The science continues to evolve, as science will and must, but it's already quite clear we have a problem.The science cannot tell us what to do about that problem.That is a moral, social, political decision where discussion by us moral, social, political nonscientists is most useful.
  

  ReactReply
• KE

  

  Keith

  Mar 24, 2014

  [quote]After the winter we just had.I do not want to hear anything about global warming or climate change![/quote]Back living in the country where I lived for my first 10 years, I have noticed that now 57 years later that I miss the crisp mornings with the puddles covered with ice. The fun it was breaking the ice just to see how thick it was.
  My grand kids living here now have never seen any iced over puddles or had to ride their bikes  through the water when the roads flooded after days of incessant rain.
  My vegies struggle to survive the long periods without water as do the native plants that once thrived through the dry periods.
  The Pine trees tall and strong are dying of thirst in their droves because they cant reach the water table any more.
  Summer Bush fires in this area are more severe, driven by strong winds and days of unprecedented high temperatures.
  Our yearly rainfall is dropping and the times as to when it does rain are shifting away from the normal pattern.
  Our fire season starts earlier and finishes later and now we are told another super strong El nino caused by water in the lower depths of the ocean is now 6 degrees higher than normal is developing with more drought weather for Australia.
  Mind you we here in Victoria and Queensland we need the rain whilst Sydney and parts of New South Wales are being flooded.
  Climate change is already with us.
  Us humans  don't notice the small temp variations that are occurring over time, but we are seeing and feeling the effects in the form or more violent weather, more flooding , more droughts, more intense cold weather, more bushfires with greater intensity, more and stronger cyclones or tornadoes, the list goes on.
  Whats caused it, will it continue or will something change and we end up with global cooling.
  Whatever it is we have to accept the facts and modify our lives to survive the future.  Maybe more green houses to grow food protected from the environment is a start.
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Mar 24, 2014

  [quote]After the winter we just had.I do not want to hear anything about global warming or climate change![/quote]While the causes of climate change are up for debate, one cannot deny that the climate has and is continuing to change. Arctic Vortexes gripped most of the country this winter, while here in California, we have had unseasonably high temperatures. Our winter in Los Angeles consisted of 3 days of light rain. Up and down the state, normally green vegetation, on the hillsides and mountains, is brown. Lakes, manmade and natural, are drying up. We are under drought conditions.  Climate change is relevant to all. We use our natural resources like its water... Oh wait.... We don't have water to waste. Air conditioners are being run year round, all over of the world, while heating from the vortexes is at a maximum, creating a bigger demand for coal and diesel. Irrelevant? Far from it. If this "cycle of weather" continues, it is expected that there will be 250 million climate refugees around the world by 2050. People living without water. Irrelevant?
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• ME

  MemberOriginal Poster

  Mar 24, 2014

  Obama is trying very hard to kill Coal-and thus thousands of good paying jobs as well as a cheap energy source, yet he and the greatest CC activists have huge 'carbon footprints'. Policies ban American companies from producing energy here, which increases the production of those who couldn't care less about polluting the world.
  The scare tactics and the total denying on the relevant sides simply makes it all a point of contention where nothing is done that is productive. Billions are wasted on 'clean energy' projects for the politically connected, but the Keystone pipeline delays prevent good paying American jobs.
  My point is that the arguments and the scare tactics and the utter denials do nothing for the problem except to exacerbate it.
  America is among the most environmentally conscious nations and so we should proceed full steam with producing energy from all areas. When clean energy becomes viable and efficient, it will beat out the other sources as a result of human nature.
  That's why I say it is irrelevant. We should be responsible users of the earth's resources. But we should use them.

  ReactReply
• KE

  

  Keith

  Mar 24, 2014

  That what our Australian Prime Minister must think too.
  If your interested have a look at this report.http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/15/tony-abbott-continues-stall-clean-energy-sector/
  
  He is even contemplating reducing or removing the financial incentive for home owners to install home based solar systems that feed excess power into the grid because the coal fired power supply companies are finding it hard to make their millions selling their over priced power to consumers.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Mar 24, 2014

  Is it a responsible use of wood and coal to burn the hydrogen content off for energy and put most of the carbon right back in the ground as a soil improver? This is easily done with wood, and the resulting buried bio-charcoal stays there for hundreds of years (as it has done in the Amazon since the natives stopped digging it in around 1500 AD) It can also be done with coal. Or does "responsible use" imply the most fully extractive, "efficient" method possible, regardless of the externalized costs?
  

  ReactReply