What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
So it's "do as I say, not as I do". Got it.

If you're going to talk the talk, then you need to walk the walk. It's gotta start with the individual and just as we on the right know, those calling for raising taxes sky-high (in the name of global-cooling global-warming climate change) are not actually doing anything about it themselves Lots of complaining about everyone else, though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's what I'm talking about. This is from a summary article on "thorny" issues for Republican candidates for President:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/242272-six-dangerous-issues-in-the-2016-gop-race

CLIMATE CHANGE

While none of the Republican contenders are vowing to tackle climate change if elected president, they are split on whether human activity is driving it.

Most Republican voters say it would be unacceptable for their candidate to believe in man-made climate change, let alone pursue policies to address it.

Some of the candidates, including Paul and Bush, have adopted an agnostic view, saying the jury is still out on how much the climate is changing, and if so, what role humans play in it.

Others, such as Cruz and Santorum, have depicted climate change as a hoax by the left to impose new environmental restrictions on the business community.

When the Senate considered legislation on the Keystone XL pipeline, Cruz, Rubio and Paul all voted for an amendment stating that climate change was real.

Paul was the only 2016 contender to support a separate amendment that stated human beings contribute to climate change.

I don't see how anybody who believes that man-made climate change is a serious issue can vote for the GOP under these circumstances. But if you disagree with this, if you are a person who believes in the seriousness of man-made climate change and yet you still plan on voting for the Republican candidate, please explain it to me.

 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?

 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Which does nothing. So... why vote for someone who proposes that as the only solution?

I don't subscribe to the theory that "Democrats see climate change as real, so voting for Democrats makes sense". I'd rather cast my vote for specific people, based on their specific ideas.

For that matter, I also don't subscribe to the "Republicans care about keeping spending down, so voting for Republicans makes sense" theory.

 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Going further... let's say that a given voter believes these two things:

1. Climate change is real, man-made, and a very big deal.

2. "Cap and trade" is a bad solution, that will not help solve the issue, and may well cause a lot of damage.

Shouldn't that voter vote against any politician who proposes cap and trade, even against a candidate who claims climate change isn't real/isn't a big deal? In theory, implementing cap and trade would preclude further debate and alternate solutions for several years, while we wait to see if it works. If one believes cap and trade is a bad idea, allowing/forcing debate on climate change to continue is better than implementing cap and trade.

 
Well first off, I'm not so sure cap and trade "does nothing". At one time I considered it too drastic a solution, but it should spur development of non fossil based alternatives.

But second, in the case of climate change, Democrats are at least motivated to find solutions. Republicans either want to deny the problem or ignore it.

 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Going further... let's say that a given voter believes these two things:

1. Climate change is real, man-made, and a very big deal.

2. "Cap and trade" is a bad solution, that will not help solve the issue, and may well cause a lot of damage.

Shouldn't that voter vote against any politician who proposes cap and trade, even against a candidate who claims climate change isn't real/isn't a big deal? In theory, implementing cap and trade would preclude further debate and alternate solutions for several years, while we wait to see if it works. If one believes cap and trade is a bad idea, allowing/forcing debate on climate change to continue is better than implementing cap and trade.
I see your point. But IMO the alternative is worse. Unless the public makes this issue a priority Republicans will continue to deny it. The only way to make this issue a priority is to elect Democrats because of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Motivated to find solutions" isn't helpful. "Solutions" are helpful. Propose a solution that works, and I'll vote for you. That seems pretty simple.

Also, I'm always skeptical of "motivated to find solutions". Supposedly, the GOP has been motivated to overturn Roe for decades, yet when they had control of all branches, they did nothing. Why? Probably because, in truth, they prefer the status quo, in which abortions are legal and they can use the issue to spur campaign contributions by promising to work on it if they can just get in power. Ditto for Democrats and climate change; when they had power, they did nothing.

 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Going further... let's say that a given voter believes these two things:

1. Climate change is real, man-made, and a very big deal.

2. "Cap and trade" is a bad solution, that will not help solve the issue, and may well cause a lot of damage.

Shouldn't that voter vote against any politician who proposes cap and trade, even against a candidate who claims climate change isn't real/isn't a big deal? In theory, implementing cap and trade would preclude further debate and alternate solutions for several years, while we wait to see if it works. If one believes cap and trade is a bad idea, allowing/forcing debate on climate change to continue is better than implementing cap and trade.
I see your point. But IMO the alternative is worse. Unless the public makes this issue a priority Republicans will continue to deny it. The only way to make this issue a priority is to elect Democrats because of it.
It's astonishing how someone of seemingly above average intelligence like yourself can be so ridiculously naive when it comes to politics.

 
I don't see how anybody who believes that man-made climate change is a serious issue can vote for the GOP under these circumstances. But if you disagree with this, if you are a person who believes in the seriousness of man-made climate change and yet you still plan on voting for the Republican candidate, please explain it to me.
You're describing one-issue voting. There are a lot of good reasons not to hinge a decision on one issue (though it is commonly done).

 
I see your point. But IMO the alternative is worse. Unless the public makes this issue a priority Republicans will continue to deny it. The only way to make this issue a priority is to elect Democrats because of it.
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people" ... ?

 
I don't see how anybody who believes that man-made climate change is a serious issue can vote for the GOP under these circumstances. But if you disagree with this, if you are a person who believes in the seriousness of man-made climate change and yet you still plan on voting for the Republican candidate, please explain it to me.
You're describing one-issue voting. There are a lot of good reasons not to hinge a decision on one issue (though it is commonly done).
Its not the only issue, but if you accept the seriousness of this particular issue then it has to be a priority right at or near the top of your list.
 
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Going further... let's say that a given voter believes these two things:

1. Climate change is real, man-made, and a very big deal.

2. "Cap and trade" is a bad solution, that will not help solve the issue, and may well cause a lot of damage.

Shouldn't that voter vote against any politician who proposes cap and trade, even against a candidate who claims climate change isn't real/isn't a big deal? In theory, implementing cap and trade would preclude further debate and alternate solutions for several years, while we wait to see if it works. If one believes cap and trade is a bad idea, allowing/forcing debate on climate change to continue is better than implementing cap and trade.
I see your point. But IMO the alternative is worse. Unless the public makes this issue a priority Republicans will continue to deny it. The only way to make this issue a priority is to elect Democrats because of it.
It's astonishing how someone of seemingly above average intelligence like yourself can be so ridiculously naive when it comes to politics.
What I want to see happen is very different from what I believe WILL happen. I amnaive in my desires, not in my expectations.

 
Its not the only issue, but if you accept the seriousness of this particular issue then it has to be a priority right at or near the top of your list.
Even if it's near the top of the list, though -- it might even be your personal #1. But it a politiician opposes you on that #1 but agrees you on #2-5 ... it might make sense to vote for that politician nevertheless.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its not the only issue, but if you accept the seriousness of this particular issue then it has to be a priority right at or near the top of your list.
Even if it's near the top of the list, though -- it might even be your personal #1. But it a politiician opposes you on that #1 but agrees you on #2-5 ... it might make sense to vote for that politician nevertheless.
I think this works in theory but it falls apart in execution.

 
It's going to take something visual like Venice or Miami under water to push a change. I just hope by then it's not too late.

 
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417This why, even if we magically reduced carbon and methane other greenhouse gas emissions to zero, we are still subject to natural variations

In order to fix something we have little control over, we would inflict major hardships and starve out a lot of emerging third world countries to little or no effect....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417This why, even if we magically reduced carbon and methane other greenhouse gas emissions to zero, we are still subject to natural variations

In order to fix something we have little control over, we would inflict major hardships and starve out a lot of emerging third world countries to little or no effect....
The vast majority of scientists do not believe that this is the case. They believe, and they seem to have the evidence to prove it, that man-made global warming presents a significant danger to our civilization. Therefore, this whole argument that "it doesn't matter what we do because nothing will have any effect, therefore we should do nothing" seems pretty implausible to me.

 
Interesting blog here makes a lot of very thoughtful points:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/29/3616382/solving-climate-change-cheap/

I rarely disagree with Dave Roberts. But he has a column on Grist, “We can solve climate change, but it won’t be cheap or easy,” that is wrong, pure and simple.

I’ll explain why it will be very cheap in two posts — one focusing on the literature and one focused more on my 15 years of experience working directly with businesses to develop, deploy, and analyze the cost-effectiveness of technologies/strategies to cut carbon pollution, including several years helping to oversee the primary federal office charged with that very mission.

The cost of action is perhaps the second most important issue in the entire climate arena. If a climate hawk like Roberts can get it wrong (along with The New York Times climate blog), there is clearly a serious misunderstanding going on.


The most important climate issue is the cost and consequences of inaction. The climate science has now reached the point that one can definitively say failure to very aggressively try to “solve” climate change is not either a rational or moral option for a nation or humanity as a whole. As Dave Roberts himself has explained, “The results of inaction are morally unacceptable. They are also economically unacceptable….”

To be crystal clear, my position — what the literature and field experience make crystal clear — is that solving climate (stabilizing at 2°C) is cheap, by any plausible definition of the word. Indeed, it is “super-cheap.”

The always overly-conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reviewed the entire literature on the subject and concluded the annual growth loss to preserve a livable climate is 0.06% — and that’s “relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year.” So we’re talking annual growth of, say 2.24 percent rather than 2.30 percent to save billions and billions of people from needless suffering for decades if not centuries.

will come back to the benefits of reducing climate change and the other co-benefits of action.

As always, every word of the report was signed off on by every major government in the world, so the point is not even considered controversial by… pretty much anyone in a position of leadership anywhere around the world! Why isn’t this controversial to them when it seems so inconceivable to some journalists and many policymakers?

Well, first off, these are not new findings. In its previous Fourth Assessment (AR4) in 2007, the IPCC found the cost of stabilizing at 445 ppm CO2-eq corresponded to “slowing average annual global GDP growth by less than 0.12 percentage points.”

Fundamentally these conclusions are not controversial since they are based on a review of the literature, which has been consistent on this subject for a long, long time. Every major independent study has found a remarkably low net cost for climate action — and a high cost for delay. Back in 2011, the International Energy Agency warned “Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.”

The 2014 IEA report, “Energy Technology Perspectives” (ETP 2014), explained that an aggressive effort to deploy renewable energy and energy efficiency (and energy storage) to keep global warming below the dangerous threshold of 2°C — their 2DS scenario — would require investment in clean energy of only about 1% of global GDP per year. But it would still be astoundingly cost-effective:



The $44 trillion additional investment needed to decarbonise the energy system in line with the 2DS by 2050 is more than offset by over $115 trillion in fuel savings – resulting in net savings of $71 trillion.

So yes, solving climate change is “cheap.” It is NOT “easy,” however and I have striven to avoid using that word. When I talk about this I usually say it is “not easy, but straightforward.” And by that I mean “we know precisely what needs to be done and the net cost is quite low,” which is not the case for many other problems facing humanity.

I don’t know any experts on climate solutions who assert it would be “easy.” Though I do believe most of them share the view that it would be vastly easier for humanity to do what is needed to stabilize at 2°C (or below) this century than it would be for 9+ billion people to try to live in a 4°C world — let alone the higher temperatures we could easily see next century if we trigger certain very real feedbacks.

So it is a straw man to link or conflate the two, which appears to be an attempt to tar and feather the exceedingly defensible “cheap” claim by associating it with the alleged claim it is “easy,” a term in any case that would be difficult to define quantitatively in this context, as it involves politics.

To underscore this point, consider this question: Was it “easy” for the Allies to win World War II. Most people would say “of course not,” but also that it is an utterly irrelevant issue. We had no choice but to fight — and fight to win. The same of course is true of climate change, which Roberts understands but it’s unclear the New York Times climate blogger Andy Revkin does. As I wrote over 3 years ago, since “Revkin refuses to tell us what level of concentrations he thinks the world should aim for – even a broad range, say 450 ppm to 550 ppm — he retains the luxury of attacking those who are willing to state what their target is while maintaining a faux high ground that they are being politically unrealistic while he can pretend his essentially do-little strategy is scientifically or morally viable, which it ain’t.”

If there is any evidence that Revkin’s do-little strategy would stop 4°C warming — or even 6°C warming — he has never provided it. If he can, he should. Similarly, if Revkin can show that the benefits of stabilizing at 2°C vs. 4°C (or 6°C) do not greatly exceed the IPCC cost range — even the “high end” of that range — he should do so. Few things are more important to being a positive contributor to the climate debate than defining one’s terms — specifically one’s acceptable target and one’s specific strategy for getting there.

Voltaire wisely said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” So by “solving climate change,” I mean stabilizing at 2°C, which I fully realize is not fully solving the problem, but there really isn’t anywhere near as much analysis on the cost of hitting a much lower target, as the IPCC has noted.

By “cheap” I am using the definition you can easily find online: “low in price; worth more than its cost” or “purchasable below the going price or the real value” or “relatively low in price.” The point is “cheap” is virtually always defined “relatively” — in relation to the actual cost or value of the goods and services being purchased.

Relatedly, “cheap” is certainly relative to one’s own wealth. So what might be considered expensive for the 99% can be cheap for, say, the Koch Brothers. Most of us could not even contemplate assembling a small fraction of the $889 million to influence the 2016 election, as they intend. But both Charles and David Koch are worth $40 billion — so either of them could cover the entire cost with just a portion of the earnings they make on their money without touching the principal. And stopping regulations, especially environmental regulations, could easily be worth many, many billions of dollars to them in coming years. So, anyway you look at it — cheap (for them).

The nation and the world are exceedingly wealthy in pure economic terms. Our GDP is some $17 trillion. The global GDP is around $75 trillion. So something that required the world to spend, say, $1 trillion a year would have to be considered cheap, assuming you got reasonable value in return (like, say, not destroying a livable climate for the next thousand years) of. If you made $100,000 a year, would it be “cheap” to spend, say, $1,000 a year to protect yourself from a potentially catastrophic failure of your health? Of course. In fact, people routinely pay vastly more than that.

Is the cost of climate action “cheap” compared to the cost of climate inaction, as Roberts himself has written?

While economic modeling is pretty good at overestimating the cost of environmental action (because it is lousy at anticipating innovation), it is equally good at underestimating the cost of inaction, since is hard to put a price on, say, Dust-Bowlifying one third of the currently habited and arable landmass of the planet, which is what 4C would do.

As the IPCC explains, the estimate for the cost of climate inaction does not factor in the economic benefit of avoiding climate catastrophe. A few years ago, scientists calculated that benefit as having a net present value of $615 to $830 trillion. So again, action is super cheap.

Roberts and Revkin both point out that Paul Krugman and I embraced the IPCC numbers. As an aside, in a debate on economics, I’d rather be on the side of a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics.

Roberts writes, “as Krugman and Romm no doubt both know, the idea that aggressive climate mitigation is going to shave precisely 0.06 percent off GDP growth is utterly fantastical.” But “precisely” is a straw man. Indeed, my post had the IPCC chart (above) that explicitly shows the range in potential lost annual growth is 0.04% to 0.14%. Even the high end of the range is super-cheap.

Roberts writes that “these numbers are just this side of wild guesses, based on assumptions about economic growth, resource prices, and technological development decades in the future.” That’s not true. These numbers are confirmed by detailed bottom of technology-by-technology analyses. And by real experience by real companies in cutting carbon pollution (as I’ll discuss in a later post).

In fact, the technology cost curves for wind and solar have been studied in great detail, so we have a very reasonable way of projecting future costs. Again, if one were going to critique these models one would have to say they are generally lousy at anticipating just how fast innovation can occur (when environmental regulations are put in place) and have historically wildly overestimated the cost of meeting environmental regulations as a result.

Roberts writes (incorrectly), “you don’t have to accept my skepticism about models to find these numbers fishy. Even if you take the IPCC’s number at face value, it is meant as the low bound of possible costs — meaning it assumes rapid, large-scale, steady, rational progress toward energy transition. It assumes that mitigation efforts will play out like an economist’s spreadsheet.”

No. The IPCC numbers aren’t the “low bound” of net costs. The IPCC explicitly says that it does not take into account co-benefits, such as the health benefits that would occur from the dramatic reduction in non-CO2 pollutants that would accompany. These co-benefits can be vast. A 2014 IEA report on the productivity and health co-benefits of just the energy efficiency measures find a benefit of some $18 trillion — benefits sufficient to reduce the cost of those measures by a factor of two or three!

Revkin also notes that Krugman and I cite the IPCC panel’s cost numbers, and then claims:

As with all such analyses, fine print matters and just one panel caveat such enthusiasts didn’t mention was this: “Under the absence or limited availability of technologies, mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on the technology considered.”
This is not the “gotcha” moment Revkin thinks it is. I didn’t include that “caveat” because the IPCC already factors in the impact of the absence or limited availability of technologies in the cost range it provides (that I posted). For instance, Revkin then writes “One of the technologies the scenarios took as necessary was rapid global adoption of systems that capture and store carbon dioxide from power plants — none of which have been tested at anything remotely close to a scale the atmosphere would notice.”

Actually, the IPCC says that if there is no carbon capture and storage, the models suggest it would probably increase costs perhaps by a bit over a factor of two — which, when your projected annual cost is 0.06%, again is super cheap.

But Revkin can’t criticize anybody for supposedly ignoring the fine print or the panel caveats. Because he ignores the large print caveats that the IPCC cost numbers don’t include co-benefits — including the co-benefit of avoiding catastrophic warming.

In fact, neither Roberts nor Revkin provide a shred of evidence that stabilizing at 2°C warming is not super-cheap. All they can do to refute the vast literature on the subject, and a conclusion that was reviewed and signed off on by the leading scientists and governments in the world, is to cite one recent paper — “A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?” — that doesn’t actually provide any evidence that stabilizing at 2°C is not super cheap.

That paper, which is not strong and contains many dubious assertions (which I’ll discuss in a later post), only demonstrates (in a kind of handwaving fashion) the already obvious fact that stabilizing at 2°C would not be easy. Let’s all just stipulate that statement as “settled science” — in a world where the Koch brothers can spend $889 million dollars in one election cycle to elect people whose goal is to block all climate and clean energy action — as long as we stipulate it’d be easier for humanity to stabilize at 2°C this century than it would be for humanity to struggle to live in a 4°C or higher world, possibly for a thousand years or more.

And let’s also agree that all available evidence is that we could stabilize at 2°C for a cost that is vastly lower than the cost of inaction and that the actions needed to stabilize at 2°C are straightforward (by which I mean clear-cut). Let’s also all agree that there is no evidence we could have a reasonable chance of stopping 4°C warming or more using an R&D-centric strategy that explicitly excludes immediate rapid deployment of all available low-carbon — the preferred strategy of Revkin and, it seems, the paper he cites (though not of Roberts).

Solving climate change is super cheap.

 
The most important climate issue is the cost and consequences of inaction. The climate science has now reached the point that one can definitively say failure to very aggressively try to “solve” climate change is not either a rational or moral option for a nation or humanity as a whole. As Dave Roberts himself has explained, “The results of inaction are morally unacceptable. They are also economically unacceptable….”

People need to really ponder this. Rich argued earlier that inaction can be a reasonable alternative. I don't think it is.

 
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417This why, even if we magically reduced carbon and methane other greenhouse gas emissions to zero, we are still subject to natural variations

In order to fix something we have little control over, we would inflict major hardships and starve out a lot of emerging third world countries to little or no effect....
The vast majority of scientists do not believe that this is the case. They believe, and they seem to have the evidence to prove it, that man-made global warming presents a significant danger to our civilization. Therefore, this whole argument that "it doesn't matter what we do because nothing will have any effect, therefore we should do nothing" seems pretty implausible to me.
reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was dangerous.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming 95% confidence in the imagined and, as the new paper shows, imaginary consensus.

Climate Consensus and Misinformation: a Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

Dr Legates said: It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a Sophies Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive.

If we are committed to truth and scientific accuracy, we have to talk in hedged, caveat-filled, probabilistic language that is utterly ineffectual in reaching and activating a tuned-out public. -David Roberts, Grist
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this works in theory but it falls apart in execution.
To me, your line of reasoning here leads inescapably to this:

So long as one party has "the right idea", a one-party state is acceptable. If a given idea is crucial enough, it is OK for all else to be swept aside.

I don't know, Tim ... what you're advocating here allows no half-way measures. Not enoigh Americans consider climate change to be an immediate existential crisis. What can be done about that within the framework of an ostensibly free society?

Not much, as it's been turning out. If the people cannot be convinced in sufficient numbers, then wouldn't they logically have to be forcibly convinced, so to speak? How important is this one issue ... and what do we (as a society) have to give up to resolve it to the correct party's satisfaction? I think we'd need to give up a lot, lot more than money and ecpnomic growth.

 
It's going to take something visual like Venice or Miami under water to push a change. I just hope by then it's not too late.
Somthing like that, but it would have to happen within a few weeks, and somehow be irreversible. It would have to be crazy sudden so that humanity's ingenuity wouldn't have sufficient time to react.

 
If you really care about Climate Change, move to China and vote for politicians who can do something about it. The US and Europe are already cutting back emissions, but China's output will dwarf the rest of the world in the coming decades. But let's pat Obama on the back for doing something about it and agreeing with China to let their out of control emissions to grow endlessly.

The stupidity of what goes on with these agreements and cap and trade nonsenses is unbelievable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug B said:
culdeus said:
It's going to take something visual like Venice or Miami under water to push a change. I just hope by then it's not too late.
Somthing like that, but it would have to happen within a few weeks, and somehow be irreversible. It would have to be crazy sudden so that humanity's ingenuity wouldn't have sufficient time to react.
The process is gradual. However, if a major hurricane removes all of the beachfront land from a major section of Miami Beach or another region with expensive hotels or condos, there would be a lasting visual.

 
timschochet said:
FlapJacks said:
There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records from several ice cores up to 8000 years before present were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature over a century was 0.98 ± 0.27 oC.

This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417This why, even if we magically reduced carbon and methane other greenhouse gas emissions to zero, we are still subject to natural variations

In order to fix something we have little control over, we would inflict major hardships and starve out a lot of emerging third world countries to little or no effect....
The vast majority of scientists do not believe that this is the case. They believe, and they seem to have the evidence to prove it, that man-made global warming presents a significant danger to our civilization. Therefore, this whole argument that "it doesn't matter what we do because nothing will have any effect, therefore we should do nothing" seems pretty implausible to me.
Funny.
 
jon_mx said:
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:If you really care about Climate Change, move to China and vote for politicians who can do something about it. The US and Europe are already cutting back emissions, but China's output will dwarf the rest of the world in the coming decades. But let's pat Obama on the back for doing something about it and agreeing with China to let their out of control emissions to grow endlessly.

The stupidity of what goes on with these agreements and cap and trade nonsenses is unbelievable.
China is making a very serious effort to reduce their emissions. We are not. Why should anyone pat Obama on the back? He has been completely unsuccessful on this issue. He might have made it a priority in 2009-10, but he chose not to. Now we'll probably have to wait for the next time Dems have control of all 3 houses. How long will that be?

 
jon_mx said:
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:

If you really care about Climate Change, move to China and vote for politicians who can do something about it. The US and Europe are already cutting back emissions, but China's output will dwarf the rest of the world in the coming decades. But let's pat Obama on the back for doing something about it and agreeing with China to let their out of control emissions to grow endlessly.

The stupidity of what goes on with these agreements and cap and trade nonsenses is unbelievable.
China is making a very serious effort to reduce their emissions. We are not. Why should anyone pat Obama on the back? He has been completely unsuccessful on this issue. He might have made it a priority in 2009-10, but he chose not to. Now we'll probably have to wait for the next time Dems have control of all 3 houses. How long will that be?
That is crazy stupid. The US is making positive progress reducing emissions while China's emissions are growing at an alarming rate. Your spin is so factually off base.

 
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 4:41 PM, said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 4:00 PM, said:
jon_mx said:
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 1:27 PM, said:

If you really care about Climate Change, move to China and vote for politicians who can do something about it. The US and Europe are already cutting back emissions, but China's output will dwarf the rest of the world in the coming decades. But let's pat Obama on the back for doing something about it and agreeing with China to let their out of control emissions to grow endlessly.

The stupidity of what goes on with these agreements and cap and trade nonsenses is unbelievable.
China is making a very serious effort to reduce their emissions. We are not. Why should anyone pat Obama on the back? He has been completely unsuccessful on this issue. He might have made it a priority in 2009-10, but he chose not to. Now we'll probably have to wait for the next time Dems have control of all 3 houses. How long will that be?
That is crazy stupid. The US is making positive progress reducing emissions while China's emissions are growing at an alarming rate. Your spin is so factually off base.
So is the article that Joffer linked just a blatant lie or is it somehow mistaken in some way?

 
Thank you.Hey jon, are you reading this? I've been telling you for months that China is making a very serious effort, and yet you keep repeating the same old tired nonsense. Ready now to admit that you were incorrect?
You think a 4 month trend is meaningful? They had to cut coal emissions or they could no longer breath in their big cities. China produces twice as much CO2 as the US and the trend is still up. You think a 17 year trend in temperatures not rising means nothing, but a 4 month trend in China changes everything.

 
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 4:54 PM, said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 4:18 PM, said:
Thank you.Hey jon, are you reading this? I've been telling you for months that China is making a very serious effort, and yet you keep repeating the same old tired nonsense. Ready now to admit that you were incorrect?
You think a 4 month trend is meaningful? They had to cut coal emissions or they could no longer breath in their big cities. China produces twice as much CO2 as the US and the trend is still up. You think a 17 year trend in temperatures not rising means nothing, but a 4 month trend in China changes everything.
It doesn't "change everything." But it IS meaningful. The whole theme of your posts on this subject is that it doesn't matter what we do, because China's not doing a damn thing. But they are. They're really trying to fix this problem. Shouldn't we be doing the same?

 
As far as the 17 year trend you mentioned, I don't know enough to comment on that, not being a scientist. I try to listen to the scientists and they don't seem relieved by this 17 year trend. In fact, they are more gravely concerned about this problem than ever. If they're concerned, then I'm concerned.

 
As far as the 17 year trend you mentioned, I don't know enough to comment on that, not being a scientist. I try to listen to the scientists and they don't seem relieved by this 17 year trend. In fact, they are more gravely concerned about this problem than ever. If they're concerned, then I'm concerned.
That is a strange position. So you don't think for yourself? Whatever the headline say, that is what you think?

 
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 5:16 PM, said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 4:59 PM, said:As far as the 17 year trend you mentioned, I don't know enough to comment on that, not being a scientist. I try to listen to the scientists and they don't seem relieved by this 17 year trend. In fact, they are more gravely concerned about this problem than ever. If they're concerned, then I'm concerned.
That is a strange position. So you don't think for yourself? Whatever the headline say, that is what you think?
Not strange at all. What's strange is that you and many other people seem to want to offer your opinion about scientific evidence, as if it were a debatable topic like race relations or capitalism vs. socialism. Do you have an opinion about Einstein and Bohr's disagreement over the nature of physics? Are you able to think for yourself about that debate? I would be very impressed if you were. I have no trouble at all admitting that I don't understand the first thing about their disagreement, because I'm not an expert at quantum mechanics. So yes, I am unable to think for myself about an issue that is as complex as climate change. I depend on what the scientists tell me. It would be very unwise, IMO, to do otherwise.

 
Of course it is a debate able topic. When their models say one thing and the results are completely different, it raises serious questions considering important policy is being driven by these models. Scientifically, their models are bunk at this stage and there is a ton of stuff they don't understand about our climate. It is also troubling that the leading body driving this debate are a bunch of advocates and are not interested in the scientific truth, but are interesting in driving policy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx, on 18 May 2015 - 5:33 PM, said:Of course it is a debate able topic. When their models say one thing and the results are completely different, it raises serious questions considering important policy is being driven by these models. Scientifically, their models are bunk at this stage and there is a ton of stuff they don't understand about our climate. It is also troubling that the leading body driving this debate are a bunch of advocates and are not interested in the scientific truth, but are interesting in driving policy.
Since the "leading body driving this debate" are American conservatives, oil companies, coal companies, and their hireling scientists, (without which there wouldn't be any debate) the bolded is absolutely true.

 
Thank you.Hey jon, are you reading this? I've been telling you for months that China is making a very serious effort, and yet you keep repeating the same old tired nonsense. Ready now to admit that you were incorrect?
A four-month trend that just happens to coincide with their slowing economy :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The most important climate issue is the cost and consequences of inaction. The climate science has now reached the point that one can definitively say failure to very aggressively try to “solve” climate change is not either a rational or moral option for a nation or humanity as a whole. As Dave Roberts himself has explained, “The results of inaction are morally unacceptable. They are also economically unacceptable….”

People need to really ponder this. Rich argued earlier that inaction can be a reasonable alternative. I don't think it is.
I argued that inaction is preferable to action that doesn't help and precludes action that does help. Cap and trade is such an action.

Edit: "Inaction that leaves open the possibility for action in the future" is preferable to "action that does nothing and prevents other action in the future".

To be more blunt: action simply for the sake of action isn't helpful. Show me an actual proposal that will help, and I'll back it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
humpback said:
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Going further... let's say that a given voter believes these two things:

1. Climate change is real, man-made, and a very big deal.

2. "Cap and trade" is a bad solution, that will not help solve the issue, and may well cause a lot of damage.

Shouldn't that voter vote against any politician who proposes cap and trade, even against a candidate who claims climate change isn't real/isn't a big deal? In theory, implementing cap and trade would preclude further debate and alternate solutions for several years, while we wait to see if it works. If one believes cap and trade is a bad idea, allowing/forcing debate on climate change to continue is better than implementing cap and trade.
I see your point. But IMO the alternative is worse. Unless the public makes this issue a priority Republicans will continue to deny it. The only way to make this issue a priority is to elect Democrats because of it.
It's astonishing how someone of seemingly above average intelligence like yourself can be so ridiculously naive when it comes to politics.
What I want to see happen is very different from what I believe WILL happen. I amnaive in my desires, not in my expectations.
Nah, you're naive all the way around. I mean, you keep saying to vote for Dems because they really are going to do something about it, and then you admit that they did nothing about it when they controlled all 3 branches. :loco:

 
humpback, on 18 May 2015 - 7:55 PM, said:
timschochet said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:
humpback said:
humpback, on 18 May 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:
timschochet said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:
Rich Conway said:
Rich Conway, on 18 May 2015 - 06:56 AM, said:
timschochet said:
timschochet, on 18 May 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:
Rich Conway said:
Rich Conway, on 18 May 2015 - 06:36 AM, said:
timschochet, on 17 May 2015 - 08:37 AM, said:After all Max, I can complain about climate change all I want, but nothing I do personally is going to make any difference. At this point the only way to get some real action is to support the Democratic Party. Democrats in the White House, in Congress, in the Senate.

I'm honestly not sure if I approve of their proposed solutions to this problem. Not too short a time ago I might have voted for reasonable Republicans who recognized climate change was a serious issue but would be cautious about solutions that might overly harm our economy. But those Republicans appear to be gone. My choice now is between Republicans who refuse to do anything, who won't even acknowledge a concern, and Democrats who recognize the concern and are pledged to action. Give me Democrats.
Action for the sake of action is not a solution. What are the proposed solutions?
Well I think you already know. The main one is cap and trade.
Going further... let's say that a given voter believes these two things:

1. Climate change is real, man-made, and a very big deal.

2. "Cap and trade" is a bad solution, that will not help solve the issue, and may well cause a lot of damage.

Shouldn't that voter vote against any politician who proposes cap and trade, even against a candidate who claims climate change isn't real/isn't a big deal? In theory, implementing cap and trade would preclude further debate and alternate solutions for several years, while we wait to see if it works. If one believes cap and trade is a bad idea, allowing/forcing debate on climate change to continue is better than implementing cap and trade.
I see your point. But IMO the alternative is worse. Unless the public makes this issue a priority Republicans will continue to deny it. The only way to make this issue a priority is to elect Democrats because of it.
It's astonishing how someone of seemingly above average intelligence like yourself can be so ridiculously naive when it comes to politics.
What I want to see happen is very different from what I believe WILL happen. I amnaive in my desires, not in my expectations.
Nah, you're naive all the way around. I mean, you keep saying to vote for Dems because they really are going to do something about it, and then you admit that they did nothing about it when they controlled all 3 branches. :loco:
No argument there. But the other side refuses to admit that a problem even exists. So what choice is there?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top